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. VII.

An Examination of what the Author of the Dissertation alledges against the Employs of John Scot.

THE Author of the Dissertation finding himself disturb'd with the several testimonies which Historians give John Scot, has thought good to fall foul on 'em and maintain these four things: First, That John Scot was neither the Disciple of Venerable Bede, nor the Compa∣nion * 1.1 of Alcuinus, nor the Founder of the University of Paris. Secondly, That he was not Abbot of Etheling in England. Thirdly, That the Hi∣story of his Martyrdom is uncertain. Fourthly, That he has not been put in the rank of Martyrs by the Authority of the Supreme Prelates, and that his name is not to be found in any Edition of the Roman Martyro∣logy.

FOR the first of these Articles, I know not why the Author of the Dissertation should trouble himself about it; seeing Mr. Claude mention'd nothing like it in his discourse of John Scot. We know that Bede died in * 1.2 735. that Alcuinus died in 804, and that John Scot was living in the year 870. We acknowledg also that John Scot could not be the Founder of the

University of Paris, seeing that this University did not begin till about the middle of the 12th. Century, as all learned men are agreed. Yet can it not be deny'd but that those who fell into these mistakes, (to wit, of making John Scot Bede's Disciple the Companion of Alcuinus, and the Founder of the University of Paris, by seeing the name of John Scot so famous and re∣nowned amongst Authors) would advance by the same of his person the Ori∣ginal of th' University of Paris, which helps to establish his Reputation and Authority, and to combat in general the pretensions of the Author of the Dissertation.

AS to the second Article wherein our Author maintains that John Erige∣nus was not Abbot of Aetheling, Mr. Claude contented himself with saying in general, That he was made in England Abbot of a Monastery of the Royal Foundation. Ingulphus says the same, and remarks in particular that this Mo∣nastery was that of Aetheling.

SO that here we have at least Mr. Claude's sincerity secured. Harsfield * 1.3 and Cellot the Jesuit have related as well as he, the testimony of Ingulphus; and I know not why he might not make use of it as well as these Authors * 1.4 who are of the Roman Church.

I confess 'tis somewhat difficult to determin precisely whether the testi∣mony of Ingulphus be absolutely true, when he says Alfred gave the Abby of Aetheling to John Scot; for I know there are Authors who deny that John the Abbot of Aetheling was the same John Scot whom we mean. We will see presently what are the reasons which the Author of the Dissertation brings to prove that these are two different persons; yet howsoever, 'tis true in ge∣neral Authors agree that John Scot, the same we speak of, was received very kindly by King Alfred, and had a very considerable employ in England, when he retired thither; which is sufficient to keep up his Reputation, and shew he was in no sort respected as an Heretick, who withstood the con∣stant and universal Faith of the Church.

MOREOVER, the reasons which the Author of the Dissertation of∣fers to oppose the testimony of Ingulphus, who will have John Scot to be Abbot of Aetheling, are very slight ones, and fall short of convincing or persuading. He agrees there was one John who was made Abbot of Aethe∣ling, but will have him to be another than our John Scot. His first proof is, that John Abbot of Aetheling was of the County of Essex, which is to say, of the County of the Western Saxons, whereas the other was an Irish man.

BUT this proof is a very weak one; for these terms, Ex Saxonum genere, as speak Asserus and Roger de Howden, or, Ex antiqua Sazonia ori∣undum, as speaks William of Malmsbury, are not inconsistent with the sur∣name of Scot, or Erigenus; that is to say, Irish man. Nothing can hinder but that he might have been originally from the County of Essex and an Irish man by the abode which he made in Ireland. It may happen that our French men have spoken less exact of the true Country of John Scot, than Asserus has done, who knew him more particularly. In effect Harsfield Will have John Scot to be surnamed Irish man, only on the account of the abode which he made in Ireland, where he had been brought up, but was really an English man, and of the Country of Essex, We know that the

surnames of Countries have been ever given to divers persons, by reason of the abode which they made therein. Cicero gives two Countries to every man, one the Country where he is born, and the other the Country which has favourably received him. When once this last kind of surnames is be∣come as proper, one retains 'em till death, and after it; which is not in∣consistent with what may be said moreover of the Country wherein a man is born. And therefore Ingulphus who first deried the Text of Asserus, did not believe that for this pretended difference of the name of Irish man, and of the Country of Essex, a man ought to make two John Scots, the one a Saxon, and the other an Irish man. Similiter, says he, de veteri Saxonia Joannem cognomento Scotum accerrimi ingenii Philosophum ad se alliciens, Ade∣lingioe Monasterii sui constituit Praelatum. When he says, De veteri Saxonia Joannem cognomento Scotum; he shews sufficiently that there is not accord∣ing to him any inconsistency in making him of the Country of Essex, and yet giving him the surname of Irish; the one designing the Country of his Birth, and the other that of his Abode. The Author of the Dissertation tells us that Ingulphus has suffered himself to be imposed on by some Impo∣stor, who was affection'd to John Scot. What is this but a mere conjecture in the Air, which has neither proof nor ground, nor any appearance of truth?

THE second proof of our Author is taken from that he pretends John Scot withdrew into England t' avoid the shame which he endured of being reputed an Heretick in France, whereas John Abbot of Aetheling was sent for over into England by a messenger from Alfred.

THIS proof is no more conclusive than the rest: For first, Ingulphus overthrows this pretended occasion of the retreat of John Scot into England, by saying that Alfred drew him over to him. The first who supposed this cause of his retreat was Simeon of Durham, or William of Malmsbury, of whom the Author of the Dissertation says Simeon has borrow'd it. Now William of Malmsbury wrote a long time sine Ingulphus; others have fol∣low'd Simeon of Durham, without examining whether what he said was well grounded or not. So that all their testimonies do reduce themselves to that of one man, posterior to Ingulphus, and who consequently by all the laws of History cannot be preferred before him. Secondly, These same Historians who will have the cause of John Scot's retreat into England to be an effect of the displeasure which he had to be accused of Heresie by his adversaries, yet do acknowledg that he was drawn over thither by Al∣fred, Cujus munificentia illectus, & magisterio ejus, ut ex Scriptis Regis in∣tellexi, Melduni resedit, says Simeon of Durham, which is to say, that he was won by the Kings liberality, to be his Tutor. Roger de Howden and Matthew of Westminster say the same thing in the same terms: so that ac∣cording to them these two things do not contradict one another, that John Scot was call'd into England by Alfred, and yet came thither thro some dis∣gust which his enemies had given him in France.

THIRDLY, French Historians say also that John Scot was called over into England by Alfred. Observe here what an ancient Chronicle of France says which ends in 1137. At the entreaty of Alfred, John Scot re∣turn'd * 1.5 from France, where he was with Charles the Bald. But fourthly, If we suppose that this John Scot, whom the Historians say was fetcht over from France into England, together with S. Grimbald, by an Ambassador,

sent on purpose by Alfred for him, is different from our John Scot; it can∣not be said who he was, Asserus speaks of him; not as of an obscure person, but as a famous man. The King, says he, sent beyond Sea into France Embas∣sadors, to search for Masters, and drew over Grimbald a Priest and a Monk; he brought over likewise John, who was also a Priest and a Monk, a man of a great wit, and well vers'd in all Sciences. Let us be inform'd who this fa∣mous man was in France, this man that was so well known, and deserved to be sent for by an Embassage? For we do not any where find there was in France after the middle of the 9th. Century any other man of this Chara∣cter, and name of John, but John Scot. We find indeed mention made of of Grimbald, that he was a Monk of S. Bertin, who understood Musick, but was far from equalling in Wit and Learning this John Scot, of whom Asserus speaks. How then came it to pass that there remains no trace of this pretended John, supposing this was not he.

THE Author of the Dissertation's third foundation is, that John Scot withdrew from France into England about the year 864. whereas John Scot the Abbot of Aetheling, companion of S. Grimbald came over there but in 884. But why must John Scot have pass'd over from France into England, about the year 864. Because, says our Author, Nicholas the First, prayed Charles the Bald to send him speedily John Scot, or at least to suffer him no longer to remain in his Ʋniversity of Paris, lest he should corrupt it with his Errors. Hinc est quod dilectioni vestrae vehementer rogantes mandamus, quatenus Apostolatui nostro Joannem repraesentari faciatis, aut certe Parisi∣us in Studio, cujus jam olim Capital fuisse perhibetur, morari non sinatis, ne cum tritico sacri eloquii grana Lolii & Zizaniae miscere dignoscatur; & panem quaerentibus, venenum porrigat. 'Twas without doubt, adds our Au∣thor, after these Letters that John Scot withdrew into England. Seeing then Pope Nicolas has govern'd the Church since the year 858, till 868. We must place th' arrival of John Scot into England about the year 864. that is to say, twenty years before Alfred caused Grimbald and John to come to him. For Asser assures us this was in the year 884.

THIS reasoning supposes facts which are not proved. First, This fragment of the Letter of Nicolas I. to Charles the Bald, wherein is mention of John Scot and the University of Paris, is a piece supposed a great while after the 9th. Century; for the University of Paris, as I have already ob∣serv'd, began not before the 12th. Century; and these terms of Studium and of Capital, to express the University and Rector of it, were not in use in Nicolas I. his time. Secondly, The Author of the Dissertation informs us that the Letter of Anastasius the Popes Library-keeper to Charles the Bald, of which we have already spoken, was written in the year 875. and proves it by a Manuscript of the Jesuits of Bourges, which bears expresly this date. Now in this Letter Anastasius gives singular commendations to John Scot, calling him virum per omnia sanctum; what likelihood is there then, Ana∣stasius would give praises of this kind to a man who was esteem'd at Rome an Heretick, and was oblig'd for this reason, and the Popes accusation, to withdraw from the Court of Charles?

OUR Author impertinently supposes from the testimony of Asserus, that John the Abbot of Aetheling pass'd not over into England till 884. Had he read Asserus with a little more reflection, he would have found that al∣tho Asserus refers the sending for of Grimbald and John, to the year 884

yet does he not thereby intend precisely to fix it to the year 884. Asserus recapitulates on the year 884. the private life of Alfred, since the year 868. which was the year of his Marriage, omitting several important things that he might not interrupt the narration of the Wars of this Prince, even as in the year 868. he had recapitulated whatsoever Alfred had done during his youth. So Asserus does not say in that year, as he must have done if he would have precisely design'd the year 884. but he says in these times, his temporibus.

THE fourth proof of the Author of the Dissertation is no better than the rest. He says that Mr. Claude having written that John Scot died in the year 884. or in the preceding year, he could not be this John whom Alfred the King of England sent for by reason of his Reputation and Learning, seeing that this John was not made Abbot till the year 888. or 887. as all Histori∣ans agree, and that he began not his regency at Oxford till the year 886. as we find in the Annals of the Monastery of Winchester, of which Grimbald was made Abbot at the same time as John his companion, was of that of Aetheling.

BUT there's no solidity in this proof. First, It is plain one cannot ga∣ther any thing certain from Historians, either touching the year of John Scot's death, nor that wherein Alfred called Grimbald and John into England. Secondly, Neither is there any certainty in the Annals of Winchester, which refer to the year 886. the foundation of the University of Oxford by Grim∣bald, and John his companion two years after their arrival in England; for this so great an antiquity of the University of Oxford is a mere fable, as has been proved by Bishop Ʋsher: so that whatsoever can be reasonably * 1.6 concluded hence is, that there being nothing certain in all this Chronology, there can be nothing alledged hence to conclude that John Scot died in the year 883. or 884. And consequently the conjecture of Mr. Claude (who has only in this respect follow'd Baronius may be respected as doubtful.) But to conclude hence that John Scot, and John the Abbot of Aetheling were two different persons, is very absurd.

AFTER all, two things clearly enough shew that this whole criticism of the Author of the Dissertation, who puts a difference between John Scot and John the Abbot of Aetheling, is merely imaginary, and that in effect they are but one and the same person. The first is, That amongst the per∣sons of the 9th. Century who were in any wise famous in France, we find no mention of this pretended John, whom Alfred sent for. The other, that 'tis evident Asserus (who was Contemporary of John Scot) has made no men∣tion of him, if John Scot were not the Abbot of Aetheling, which is very strange, seeing it cannot be denied but John Scot was a most famous man, much respected by Alfred, and consequently well known to Asserus, who lived in the same Court.

IF we consider these two reasons with an unbiassed mind, I am persuaded they will be found stronger than all the conjectures of our Author. It is true one may yet form a difficulty which our Author has not taken notice of, which is, that Asserus seems to say this John of whom he speaks was Assas∣sinated by his Monks at Aetheling, whereas William of Malmsbury and the Historians who follow'd him, assure us, that John Scot was kill'd by his Scho∣lars at Malmsbury, and there interred. But it is certain there could be no∣thing

more easie than to confound the circumstance of the place wherein John Scot was assassinated, and take it for another, William of Malmsbury, who is the first of those who laid the Scene of this Tragedy at Malmsbury, recorded it near 250. years after it hapned. Asserus does not say John Scot died on the spot, and it will not seem impossible, that having been woun∣ded at Aetheling, he was carried to Malmsbury, or dying at Aetheling, his body was carried thither, or having been Abbot of Aetheling and Malms∣bury both together, as it was commonly the custom of that time, for one man to have several Abbies, this might give occasion to this difference. Howsoever it be, it is far more reasonable to conclude from the conformity of the relation of Asserus and William of Malmsbury touching the main of th'event, than from one only History, to make two by reason of some slight diversity which is between 'em on the circumstance of the place. And this seems the more likely, because, as I have already said, we have the formal testimony of Ingulphus an Historian of the 11th. Century, who assures us that this John the Abbot of Aetheling was no other but John Scot.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Art. 4, 5, 6, 7. of his Dissert. on John Scot.
• * 1.2

  Artic. 4.
• * 1.3

  Sect. 9. cap. 12.
• * 1.4

  Append. ad Hist. Goth. p. 885.
• * 1.5

  Hist. Fran. T. 3. p. 359.
• * 1.6

  Antiq. Brit. p. 340, 341, 342.