The Catholick doctrine of the Eucharist in all ages in answer to what H. Arnaud, Doctor of the Sorbon alledges, touching the belief of the Greek, Moscovite, Armenian, Jacobite, Nestorian, Coptic, Maronite, and other eastern churches : whereunto is added an account of the Book of the body and blood of our Lord published under the name of Bertram : in six books.

CHAP. VI.

That John Scot was in great esteem both in his own, and succeeding Generations.

THERE are so many things which advance the repute of John Scot, that one may well wonder Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Dissertation should mention him with such lessening terms, and persuade themselves, that to diminish the credit of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, they needed only to attribute it to John Scot. For he was a person who by his merit had gain'd the esteem and affection of Charles the Bald, which is to say, of a judicious Prince, who took to heart the interests of Religion; as Ratramn praises him in his Book of Predestina∣tion. These two things, says he, exalt your Majesty, in a manner really illu∣strious. * 1.1 That you seek after the secrets of the heavenly Wisdom, and burn with Religious Zeal. And indeed this Prince deserv'd the Title of Orthodox which * 1.2 was given him by a Council held in 869. Henry a Monk of Auxerre praises him also for his knowledg, and piety, as we see in the Epistle Dedicatory in the Life of S. Germain of Auxerre, related by Du Chene, and Baronius. But * 1.3 amongst other things he commends him for having drawn over into France, Learned Ireland, meaning thereby John Erigena, that is to say, John the Irish man, according to the Observation of Alford the Jesuit in his Eng∣lish Annals.

HE that wrote the lives of the Bishops of Auxerre, describing the ad∣vantages which Heribald had in his Youth, reckons for a great happiness that he was brought up under the tuition of John Scot. He applied himself, * 1.4 says he, to John Scot who in that time imparted to the Gauls the Rays of his Wisdom. He was a long time his Disciple, and learn'd from him the art of knowing divine and human things, and to judg rightly of good and evil.

THE Authority of John Scot was so considerable in the 9th. Century, that Hincmar Arch-Bishop of Reims, and Pardulus, Bishop of Laon, who found themselves engaged in sharp Disputes touching Predestination and Grace with Gotthescalc, believ'd they could not do better for their party than to oblige John Scot to write on these two subjects. He did so in effect, and * 1.5 altho the choice which he made of the worst side, drew on him the censures of the Councils of Valence and Langres, and that Hincmar himself defended

him but weakly, yet did he keep up his credit, and Charles the Bald set him upon translating the works which bear the name of Denis the Areopagite.

HIS Reputation maintain'd it self not only in France, but passed over into Italy, and Rome it self. Anastasius the Popes Library-keeper gives him particular Commendations in a Letter which he wrote to Charles the Bald. I speak, says he, of John Scot, of whom I have heard say, that he is a Saint. * 1.6 It is a work of the Spirit of God to have made this man so zealous as well as eloquent.

WE may likewise here add the kindness which Alfred King of England had for him, and the Employs which this Prince gave him; but of this I shall discourse hereafter.

I shall only say that John Scot was in effect, worthy of the esteem and affection which the world shewed him, his Wit was lively and piercing; he was not only a profound Philosopher, but also very well read in the Fa∣thers, and especially the Greek ones, which was very rare in the 9th. Cen∣tury, wherein the learning of the greatest men was bounded by the know∣ledg of S. Hierom, S. Augustin, Gregory the Great, Isidor of Sevil: and their skill lay in copying out these Authors word for word.

IN fine, we may moreover observe in favour of John Scot, that altho his Book of the Eucharist, was condemned in the Councils of the 11th. Century, yet the reputation of the Author was perpetuated in the follow∣ing Ages, as appears from the authentick Testimonies, which all Histori∣ans give him. I shall not relate here what Ingusphus, William of Malmsbury, Simeon of Durham, Roger de Hoveden, Matthew of Westminster, and Florent of Worcester have said of him: we may find this in the Answer to the first * 1.7 Treatise of the Perpetuity.

WE need only add to these testimonies, First, that of the Manuscript of the Library of S. Victor, which has for Title, Memoriale Historiarum: Tempore eodem fuit Joannes Scotus vir perspicacis ingenii & mellitoe facundioe qui rogatu Caroli Calvi jamdudum verbo ad verbum Hierarcham Dionysii de Groeco in Latinum transtulerat, & post super eundem librum fecit commentum, fecitque librum de naturoe divisione, & librum de Eucharistiâ, qui postea lectus est, & condemnatus in Synodo Vercellensi â Papa Leone celebrata, eodem anno quo Lanfrandus ab errore Berengarii se purgavit, unde, sicut dicit Lanfrandus, ipse in fide desipuit. Tandem ivit in Angliam ad Regem Elfredum, & apud Monasterium Malmsburiense à pueris quos docebat, & à graphiis suis, ut fer∣tur, perforatus martyr oestimatus est, Secondly, That of Petrus Crinitus, * 1.8 who speaks of him in almost the same terms. Thirdly, That of Naucler, Alfred, says he, had enriched the College of Oxford, especially with John Scot, as with a Divine Star, which he drew over into England from France, where he was in favour with Charles the Bald.

If there needs any thing more to confirm the reputation of our Author, we shall scarcely find any one to whom there can be given any authority.

IT is true that his Book of the Eucharist was condemned by the Ro∣man Church in the 11th. Century; but it is remarkable that neither this Book nor its Author were condemned in the 9th. Century, wherein he lived,

and that his adversaries who were greatly enraged against him, as appears by the Letter of the Church of Lyons, and the terms of the Council of Valence, and which consequently was not in a condition to pardon him a Heresie on the subject of the holy Sacrament, yet did not accuse him on this Article. Cellot the Jesuit being not willing to agree concerning the true reason why in that time they did not reproach John Scot about the Do∣ctrin of the Eucharist, turns the business into admiration, and offers a pi∣tiful reason of this silence; I cannot sufficiently wonder, says he, that leaving * 1.9 the error which John Scot was said to hold touching the Eucharist; these droans (for thus does he call those of Lyons) should only apply themselves to the subject of Predestination. This shews, adds he, that they did not mat∣ter so much the defending of the Faith, as the ruining the Party of those of Reims; which is to say of Hincmar and his friends, who had condemned Gotthescalc. But both his astonishment and reason too would equally va∣nish, if he would have taken notice of what every one sees, that the true cause why John Scot was not condemned in the 9th. Century, but in the 11th. was, that his belief was conformable to that of the Church of the 9th. Age, and became not otherwise till afterwards when the followers of Paschasus prevail'd.

THE Author of the Dissertation has taken another course to fully the * 1.10 same of John Scot's name, and gives a reason why his Book touching the Eu∣charist was not condemned in the 9th. Century. He says there is in the Library of S. Germains des prés two Manuscripts of a Dialogue, entituled, Of Natures, the Author of which is this same John Scot, and that this Book is full of Errors. He discourses on these Errors with the greatest art and care, and draws from 'em these two consequences. 1. That John Scot was a man very likely to invent Heresies contrary to the Doctrin of the Church of his time. 2. We must not be astonish'd that Heresies, having been only tanght by a particular person, who had no followers, that the Book wherein he taught them should not be publickly condemned. And this is what he believes the Dialogue of Natures doth invincibly shew, because that on one hand it is full of Errors, and on the other, we do not find it was condemned.

AS to the first, I freely acknowledg this Book is John Scot's, and that there are Errors in it; but the Author of the Dissertation ought not to con∣ceal that John Scot did not offer 'em of his own head, but herein only fol∣low'd the opinions of several famous Fathers amongst the Greeks and La∣tins, as S. Basil, S. Gregory of Nysse, and S. Ambrose, the pretended Denis the Areopagite, and S. Maximus; which does not hinder but these Fathers have been always in great veneration in the Church. John Scot cites them on each of these opinions, he sets down their passages; which made William of Malmsbury to say, That his Book may profitably serve to resolve difficult que∣stions, provided he be excused in some things, in which he has wandred from the way of the Latins, by reason of his following too much the Greeks.

AS to the second consequence there is a great deal of difference between the Book of John Scot of Natures, and that of the Eucharist of the same Author. First, The Book of Natures perhaps has not been known but to few persons, because 'twas wrote at the entreaty of a particular person, to wit of Wolfadus Canon of Rheims, whereas that which he wrote on the Eucharist must needs have been publick, seeing he wrote by order of Charles the Bald, and in a time wherein the novelties of Paschasus had ex∣cited

much clamour in the Church. Secondly, Altho the Book of Natures had been known, the errors which are therein contain'd being of the Fa∣thers, whose names are venerable in the Church, we must not think it strange that they were spared out of respect to the Fathers, for whom the world has ever had so great a veneration and condescention, altho they have not approved all their sentiments. But supposing the Church ever believed Transubstantiation, and Real Presence, the error broach'd and maintain'd by John Scot in the Book of the Eucharist contrary to these two Articles, would have been his only, and not the Fathers, and consequently nothing would have hindred the world from exercising the greatest severity against John Scot's Book, and openly condemning it. Thirdly, The errors which are in the Book of Natures are speculative errors in matters out of the com∣mon road and reach of sense; whereas that of the Book of the Eucharist would have been a particular error on a Sacrament, which is continually before the eyes of Christians; for supposing, as I said, the Church of that time had believ'd Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, as the Roman Church believes them at this day, and adored the Sacrament as the proper Son of God Incarnate, the error of John Scot would have overthrown the Faith and Rites of all Christians, and would have had as many adversaries as there are persons in the Church: The King himself, by whose order he wrote, would have been interess'd to have condemn'd so pernicious a Book, to avoid the being suspected that he himself sowed Heresies by the bor∣row'd hand of John Scot. It is then evident that the two consequences of the Author of the Dissertation are insufficient to diminish or eface the repu∣tation and authority of John Scot's name: and thus when the Book which bears the name of Bertram, should be in effect of John Scot, this Book would not cease to be of great weight and great authority.

Notes

• * 1.1

  T. 1. Maug. p. 29.
• * 1.2

  Concil. apud Vermer. T. 2. Nov. Bibl. Mss. p. 735.
• * 1.3

  Hist. Fr. T. 1. p. 470. Annal. 876. sect. 3. 39. T. 3. A. 886. sect. 10, 11.
• * 1.4

  T. 2. Nov. Bib. Mss. p. 4••5.
• * 1.5

  T. 2. Maug. 132.
• * 1.6

  Syll. Epist. Hyber. n. 33. p. 64. & seq.
• * 1.7

  Part 3, ch. 3.
• * 1.8

  De honesta Discipl. 14. c 11. Genev. p. 30.
• * 1.9

  Append. ad Hist. Gothesc. p. 583.
• * 1.10

  Artic. 1. of his Dissert. o•• John Scot.