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.

THE SECOND PART.

That the Authority of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, Publish'd under the Name of Bertram, will be never the less considerable, sup∣posing John Scot were the Author of it.

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.

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 * 1.11 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 * 1.12 735. 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 * 1.13 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 * 1.14 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 * 1.15 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 * 1.16 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.

CHAP. VIII.

That John Scot was esteemed a Martyr.

IT'S certain the death of John Scot was respected as a kind of Martyr∣dom, * 1.17 Du Val a Doctor of Sorbon, Cellot, and Alford Jesuits, have maintain'd this against the unjust suspicions of Genebrard, and some others. Why then does the Author of the Dissertation pretend in his 6th. Article, that this Martyrdom is a thing doubtful.

THERE be two sorts of proofs which confirm the truth of this; the one real, and the other verbal. The real is a stately Monument which was * 1.18 set up for him in the Church of Malmsbury, and was to be seen there before the 12th. Century with this Inscription.

Clauditur hoc tumulo sanctus Sophista Joannes, Qui ditatus erat jam vivens dogmate miro, Martyrio tandem Christi conscendere regnum, Quo meruit; sancti regnant per soecula cuncta.

William of Malmsbury has well conjectured that these Verses were ancienter than his time, Scabri quidem, says he, & moderni temporis lima carentes, sed ab antiquo non ita deformes.

TO this proof we must add the testimony of Gotzelin who has inserted John in his Catalogue of English Saints, which he made in the beginning of the 12th. Century, S. Adelmus, & Joannes Sapiens in loco qui dicitur Ades∣mibirig. * 1.19

WHEREUNTO we may add the testimony of almost all Historians. 'Tis thus the continuer of Bede speaks, as also William of Malmsbury, Simeon of Durham, Roger de Howden, Matthew of Westminster, Helinaud the Monk

of Froidmond, the Author of Memoriale Historiarum (whose passage I have related) Vincent de Beavais, Antonin Arch-Bishop of Florence, Baronius and several other modern Authors that have follow'd them.

TO all which the Author of the Dissertation answers, that he acknow∣ledges the holiness of this famous John, as well by the Epitaph spoken of by William of Malmsbury; and the Historians who have written after him, as by the Catalogue of Gotzlin; but denies this John to be the same John Scot. He pretends then that William of Malmsbury, who first attributed to John Scot, what agreed only to another John a Martyr, was to blame in doing it, that the Historians who followed William of Malmsbury ought not to have followed him, and that in effect William himself offers where∣withal to refute what he himself says. To fortifie this conjecture he ob∣serves that the Martyrdom of John Scot was unknown to Berenger, and those of his Party, who could not have been ignorant of it, neither would have failed to take notice of it, especially since the condemnation of John Scot under Nicolas II. Whence he concludes that the same of the Martyrdom of John Scot was dispersed up and down by his Disciples, and that this was not the sentiment of the Church in which John Scot died.

BUT there are few people who will remain satisfi'd with these conje∣ctures of our Author. For first, If this John the Martyr of Malmsbury be not John Scot, who was he then? How comes it people have so universally lost the knowledg of him, since William of Malmsbury has confounded him with John Scot? Did he live before John Scot, or since? How could Wil∣liam's mistake cause all England to lose the knowledg of him? How comes it no body ever discovered the error of William? Whence is it that Wil∣liam himself could not meet with any thing to undeceive him, when he sought into the Antiquities of his Convent for the making his History? 'Tis very strange that in a matter of fact, a person who has written at Paris in 1669. should pretend to know better whose the Tomb was that was seen in the 12th. Century at Malmsbury, than William of Malmsbury, who lived in this same Convent, and who apparently omitted no enquiries for his satisfaction.

IT is probable that William was not the first Author who mention'd the Martyrdom of John Scot. For the continuer of Bede, whose Book was Printed at Heidelberg in 1587. formally mentions it, and the Author of the Dissertation believes that he who continued this work of Bede is dif∣ferent from William. I confess that Vossius has been mistaken in fixing this Author to the year 1080. seeing it is certain he lived till the beginning of the 12th. Century. But it does not follow from the error of Vossius that he was posterior to William. This Continuer clearly denotes that he was Contemporary to Guitmond, now Guitmond preceded William of Malmsbury; for this latter wrote in 1142. whereas the other died about the end of the 11th. Century, or at the beginning of the 12th. That if there be found several things alike in this Continuer, and in William, it is more reasonable to say that William has taken from the Continuer, than to say the Conti∣nuer has taken from William, and that the rather, because William has en∣larged his History farther than the other by thirty years, which is the na∣tural Character of a later Historian.

BUT supposing William of Malmsbury be the first who has spoken of the Martyrdom of John Scot, this does but the more confirm the truth of this History: for writing as he did in the very place, and in the same Con∣vent wherein what he relates hapned, 'tis just to believe, that in this Narration he has offered nothing, but what was grounded on authentick Acts, or on a Tradition which in his time pass'd for an undeniable truth in this Convent.

IT is to no purpose for the Author of the Dissertation to distinguish what this William of Malmsbury has taken from the ancient Monuments of his Church, and what he has added thereunto of his own. He ought not thus to make of his own head this distinction on an Historian of the 12th. Century, and to tell us precisely, here's what he has taken from the Mo∣numents of his Church; here's what he has added thereunto of his own: There was one John that suffered Martyrdom and was reputed a Saint; this is of the ancient Monuments of the Church of Malmsbury, but that this John was John Scot, is an addition of William. This distinction of our Author is bold enough, and was in effect unknown to Simeon of Durham, to Roger de Howden, to Matthew of Westminster, and to all those other Hi∣storians which I have already denoted, who all certainly believ'd, that the Martyrdom of John Scot, related by William of Malmsbury, was a truth of History which is beyond question.

HIS telling us that William was the first Historian who gave to King Alfred two Masters of the name of John, the one surnam'd the Saxon Abbot of Aetheling, the other surnam'd Scot, and since a Martyr. First, William does not say formally that this was two different men, John the Saxon, and John Scot, nor that one was surnam'd the Saxon, and the other Scot; he says only in one place, Joannem ex antiqua Saxonia oriundum: and in another, Joannes Scotus. Neither must one necessarily conclude from his discourse that he regarded them as two different men, as will appear if we take notice of what he wrote, and of the occasion which has oblig'd him the first time to make mention of this John, as it were tran∣siently, reserving himself to speak of him more amply afterwards, as he has done. But when we should suppose, that William would distinguish these two Johns, this makes nothing to th' establishing what he relates of the Martyrdom of John Scot's being a fable of his own invention: on the contrary, this very thing would help to establish, that knowing two Johns, and distinguishing them, he must have better known what ought to be said of both one and the other. Neither can it be said that he made two Johns Tutors of Alfred; for when he speaks of John who was Abbot of Aethel∣ing, he does not say that he was the Tutor of Alfred, he says this only under the name of John Scot.

AS to what the Author of the Dissertation has remark'd, that Anastasius in his Letter written to Charles the Bald in 875. seems to speak of John Scot as of a man already dead; which shews that he was not the Tutor of Al∣fred, seeing that this Prince gave not himself to learning till in the year 884. Neither is it moreover likely that so Religious a Prince would make use of such a man as John Scot, who was decried as an Heretick driven out of th' University of Paris at the earnest pursuit of Nicolas I. as holding Do∣ctrins contrary to the principal Fundamentals of Christian Religion.

I answer first, That our Author returns continually to his fabulous Histo∣ry, as if John Scot could have been driven out in the 9th. Century from the University of Paris which began only in the 12th. Secondly, It is certain that Anastasius speaks of Erigenus as of an holy and famous man, Virum, says he, per omnia sanctum; which does not shew that he was thought then unworthy of being the Kings Tutor, nor that he was decried at Rome for an Heretick. Thirdly, Seeing that John Scot was very much esteem'd by Charles the Bald, he might be so too by Alfred Son of Aetelwolph, Son in law to Charles the Bald. And in effect, William of Malmsbury testifies that he had seen the Letters of Alfred, wherein this Prince treated John Scot with great esteem and affection, Alfredi munificentia & ministerio usus, ut ex scriptis Regis intellexi, sublimis Melduni resedit, and this is a mere mockery to make these Letters pass for fictious ones fram'd by the friends of John Scot and Berenger. Fourthly, It is not true that Anastasius speaks positively of John Scot, as of a man already deceased, and supposing it were, he might think so by reason of his great age, or some false report of his death. In fine, our Author absurdly supposes that Alfred did not betake himself to learning till the year 884. he has faln into this mi∣stake for want of considering that altho Asserus and some of those that have follow'd him have attributed to this year what they have said of the Piety of Alfred, and his applying himself to learning, yet this happens merely from their recapitulating what hapned since the year 868, till 884, as I have already observ'd.

NEITHER is there more strength in the Argument which our Au∣thor draws from some terms which William of Malmsbury makes use of in relating the History of the Martyrdom of John Scot. Hoc tempore creditur fuisse Joannes Scotus (propter hanc infamiam (credo) taeduit eum Franciae) à pu∣eris quos docebat ut fertur perforatus, martyr aestimatus est. He pretends that these terms are doubtful, fears and suspicions, and that these ways of speaking are likely to make one doubt of the truth of this relation.

BUT all this deserves no answer. First, The Author of the Disserta∣tion has mixt Simeon of Durham's Text which bears Propter hanc infamiam, &c. with that of William of Malmsbury, who relates this fact as a thing evidently certain. And in effect the first term creditur refers to the time wherein John Scot lived in England. The second credo is added by the Author of the Dissertation, being not the Text of Simeon of Durham, who says only, Propter hanc infamiam taeduit eum Franciae, and supposing it were in the Text of Simeon, 'twould only denote that it was his conjecture that John Scot left France for the displeasure he had to find himself accused of Heresie; neither do I know whether taeduit thus uttered, be not an ex∣pression too weak for a man whom the trouble of seeing himself accused of a crime so capital as is that of Heresie must make to have passed from one Realm to another. The third term ut fertur denotes only 'twas said that John Scot was stabb'd to death with Pen-knifes. But the fourth, Martyr aesti∣matus est, does not denote any thing doubtful, and plainly signifies that he was held for a Martyr, which appears from what William of Malmsbury adds, Quod sub ambiguo ad injuriam sanctae animae non dixerim cum celebrem ejus memoriam sepulchrum in sinistro latere altaris & Epitaphii prodant ver∣sus: To build hereon conjectures of the falsity of this History, is very idle.

IN fine, the Argument which the Author of the Dissertation draws from the silence of Berenger and his Disciples who never mention'd the Hi∣story of the Martyrdom of John Scot, is of no weight. First, We do not know what Berenger and his Disciples have said, the greatest part of their Writings never coming to our notice. Secondly, There's no inconveniency to suppose that the memory of the Martyrdom of John Scot (hapning in a little place, as is Malmsbury, more than 150 years before the Disputes of Berenger) became not so publick in France that Berenger and his Disciples must needs know it. We know there are scarcely any remains of the fa∣mous Monastery of S. Angilbert, nor is he in the Catalogue of the Saints, Frustra tamen Angilbertum quaeras, ut & innumeros tutelares nostros sanctos * 1.20 inter moderna sanctorum syntagmata, said the deceased M. Peteau, Counsellor in the Parliament of Paris. A man may say the same thing of Ingelram∣nus, or Angilramnus, who wrote the Book of Images under the name of Charlemain, and who pass'd for a Saint. For his name was in fine forgot∣ten. But thirdly, Supposing Berenger and his Disciples had a particular notice of the Martyrdom and Holiness of John Scot, all that can be conclu∣ded from their silence is, that oftentimes every thing is not said on a subject which may be said. How many times have our Authors alledged the Books of Images under the name of Charlemain, without publishing the quality of Saint which has been given to this Prince? Has Paschasius the adversary of John Scot been mention'd as a Saint by Lanfranc, and his other partners in their Disputes against Berenger? Yet is it certain he was made to pass for one at Corbie, and this circumstance has been observed by Alanus and Sirmond. But, says the Author of the Dissertation, Ascelin would not * 1.21 have treated John Scot as an Heretick, he would have put a difference be∣tween his Book and his Person, had he believ'd he pass'd for a Martyr and Saint in the Church. I answer, that this remark concludes nothing, un∣less that Ascelin suffered himself to be transported by his passion and pre∣judice; but Ascelin's transports do not at all invalidate the credibility of the Martyrdom and Holiness of John Scot. And as to our Author's remark∣ing that neither does Ingulphus speak of this Martyrdom; we need only tell him that all Historians do not say every thing. Ingulphus says but one word of John Scot in treating of another subject. He denotes none of the circumstances of his life, he relates only that he was called into England by Alfred, and settled at Aetheling. Yet is it true that he gives him the Title of a most holy Monk.

IT is then certain that the silence of these Writers can neither diminish the * 1.22 truth of the relation which William of Malmsbury makes touching the Mar∣tyrdom of John Scot, nor the esteem of his Holiness in that Church where∣in he lived.

IT is certainly no less vain and irrational for the Author of the Disser∣tation to set himself as he has done on criticising on a passage of Thomas Fuller, and a testimony of Hector Boetius Deidonan. For supposing that Thomas Fuller and several with him, were mistaken in saying that the mar∣tyrology which makes mention of John Scot in the 4th. of the Ides of No∣vember was Printed at Anvers in the year 1586. whereas it was Printed in 1583. by the command of Gregory XIII. supposing 'twere true that this Martyrology was not the Roman, which neither Fuller, nor Mr. Claude have affirm'd, supposing it were moreover true that Baronius has not taken

away the name of John Scot from the Roman Martyrology: and tho the words of Henry Firtsimon cited by Fuller and Varoeus were not well under∣stood yet is it certain, First, That Molanus Professor in Divinity at Louvain, has put John Scot in his Appendix to the Martyrology of Ʋsuard publish'd at Anvers in 1583. Secondly, That Mr. De Saussay Bishop of Toul has like∣wise set him down in the Martyrology of the Gallican Church, and that both of 'em thought themselves oblig'd to follow Deidonan, who says that John Scot was set down in the Catalogue of Saints by the sacred Authority of the Popes. Thirdly, It may be that Arnaud Wion saying that the name of John Scot is to be seen in the Roman Martyrology, has taken that of Ʋsu∣ard for the Roman one. And in effect the learned are agreed, that the Mar∣tyrology * 1.23 Ʋsuard was adopted by the Roman Church, and that there has not been any such Martyrology as we have since Galesinus and Baronius. Fourthly, Supposing Arnaud Wion was mistaken in his conjecture, yet is it still certain that he has placed John Scot in the rank of the Saints of the Order of S. Benet, wherein he has been followed by the learned Hugo Me∣nard, in the Text of the Martyrology of the Order of S. Benet, given the publick; which he confirms in the first Book of his Observations on this * 1.24 Martyrology. Fifthly, Alford the Jesuit has follow'd Hugh Menard, and has not sought all these subterfuges of the Author of the Dissertation; for he has rank'd John Scot in the Catalogue of Saints, in his Annals of Eng∣land, Printed at Liege in 1663. wherein having mention'd him as a Mar∣tyr, * 1.25 he acquiesces in the judgment which the Bishop of Toul made of him, who placed him in the rank of Saints in the Appendixes of his Martyro∣logy.

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.
• * 1.11

  Art. 4, 5, 6, 7. of his Dissert. on John Scot.
• * 1.12

  Artic. 4.
• * 1.13

  Sect. 9. cap. 12.
• * 1.14

  Append. ad Hist. Goth. p. 885.
• * 1.15

  Hist. Fran. T. 3. p. 359.
• * 1.16

  Antiq. Brit. p. 340, 341, 342.
• * 1.17

  T. 1. Maug. p. 739. Append. p. 585. Aunal. Angl. Ann. 883. sect. 41.
• * 1.18

  Guill. Malmsb. de gest. Reg. Angl. l. 2. c. 4. p. 24.
• * 1.19

  Usser de success. Eccl. c. 2.
• * 1.20

  Syntagm. de Nith.
• * 1.21

  De Euch. p. 1. c. 21. In vita Pasch.
• * 1.22

  Artic. 7.
• * 1.23

  Vide Vales. append ad Euseb. Hist.
• * 1.24

  Ad 4. id. Nov.
• * 1.25

  A. 884 n. 4. & indic. Chron.