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.

AN ANSWER TO THE DISSERTATION Which is at the end of Mr. Arnaud's Book, Touching the Treatise of Our Lords Body and Blood; Publish'd under the name of Bertram, and touch∣ing the Authority of John Scot, or Erigenus.

THE FIRST PART.

Wherein is shew'd that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, Publish'd under the name of Bertram is a work of Ratram a Monk of Corbie, and not of John Scot.

CHAP. I.

An Account of the several Opinions which the Doctors of the Roman Church have offered touching this Book, to hinder the advantage which we draw from it.

THE Book of Bertram, of the Body and Blood of our Lord ha∣ving been Printed at Cologn in the year 1532. the Doctors of the Roman Church have judg'd it so little favourable to 'em, that they have thought themselves necessitated to deprive it of all its authority, and to cry it down either as an Heretical Book, or a for∣ged piece, or at least as a Book corrupted by the Protestants.

IN the year 1559. those that were employed by the Council of Trent * 1.1 for the examining of Books, placed this in the rank of Heretical Authors of the first Classis, the reading of which ought to be forbidden. Their judg∣ment was publish'd by Pius IV. and follow'd by Cardinal Bellarmin and Quiroga, and by Pope Clement VIII. and Cardinal Sandoval.

SIXTƲS of Sienne treats this Book no better in 1566. he tells us 'tis a pernicious piece, wrote by Oecolampadus, and publish'd by his Disci∣ples under the name of Bertram, (an Orthodox Author) to make it the better received. Possevin the Jesuit, and some others, followed the opini∣on of Sixtus, and carried on the same accusation against the Authors of * 1.2 the impression of this Book.

BUT besides that the Bishop of Rochester cited it against Oecolampadus himself in the year 1526. which is to say, six years before 'twas Printed, the several Manuscripts which have been since found in Libraries, have * 1.3 shewed that this accusation was unjust and rash, which has obliged the Au∣thor of the Dissertation (which I examin) to leave it, and confess, that this Impression was true.

IT was without doubt from the same reason that in 1571. the Divines of * 1.4 Doway took another course than that of the entire proscription of the Book; Altho, say they, we do not much esteem this Book, nor would be troubled were it wholly lost; but seeing it has been several times Printed, and many have read it, and its name is become famous by the Prohibition which has been made of it, the Hereticks knowing it has been prohibited by several Catalogues, that moreover its Author was a Catholick Priest, a Religious of the Convent of Corbie, beloved▪ and considered not by Charlemain, but by Charles the Bald, That this Writing serves for an History of all that time, and that moreover we suffer in ancient Catholick Authors several Errors, extenuating them, ex∣cusing them, yea often denying 'em by some tergiversation invented expresly, or giving them a commodious sense when they are urged against us in Dis∣putes which we have with our Adversaries, we therefore see no reason why Bertram should not deserve the same kindness from us, and why we should not review and correct him, cur non eandem recognitionem mereatur Bertram∣nus, lest the Hereticks should scoffingly tell us we smother Antiquity, and pro∣hibit enquiries into it, when 'tis on their side; and therefore we ought not to be troubled that there seems to be some small matters which favor them, see∣ing we Catholicks handle Antiquity with so little respect, and destroy Books as soon as ever they appear contrary to us. We ought likewise to fear lest the Prohibition which has been made of this Book, should cause its being read with greater greediness, not only by Hereticks, but also by disobedient Catholicks, that it be not alledged in a more odious fashion, and in fine, do more hurt by its being prohibited than if 'twere permitted.

THUS do the Divines of Doway ingeniously declare their opinion how Books ought to be dealt with, that do not favour their belief. They would not have Bertram's Book prohibited, but corrected.

GREGORY of Valence and Nicholas Romoeus follow the sentiment of * 1.5 the Doway Divines, but this expedient is become wholly impossible since there have been several Manuscripts found in places unsuspected, and that

these Manuscripts appear wholly conformable to the Prints, as we are in∣form'd * 1.6 by Cardinal Perron and several others after him. Thus the Doctors of the Roman Communion finding 'emselves faln not only from their hopes of making the world believe this was a false piece, but also of persuading 'em 'twas corrupted, have been forced to have recourse to fresh Councils to elude the advantage we make of it.

THE President Mauguin seeing then on one hand the Book could not * 1.7 be denied to be true, and, acknowledging moreover that this Bertram to whom 'tis attributed, is no other than Ratramnus whom he lately mention'd with such great Elogies, as being the defender of the Doctrin of the Church concerning Divine Grace, he, I say, believ'd 'twas best to attempt the justify∣ing him by any means from the crime of Heresie touching the Eucharist. And for this effect has bethought himself of maintaining that Ratramnus in the Book in question, defends the same Doctrin which Paschasus Ratbert defended in that which he wrote on the same subject; that both one and the other, to wit, Ratramnus and Paschasus had to deal with the same Here∣ticks, to wit, certain Stercoranists (who according to Cardinal Perron, ap∣peared in the 9th. Century) that they both of 'em admirably well agree in defending the Catholick Church; so that there can be no charge of Heresie brought against Bertram, as they of his Communion had hitherto done without any reason.

Mr. HERMAN Canon of Beauvais has approved of this sentiment of Mr. Mauguin in a Letter to Mr. De St. Beuve, Printed in 1652. under the name of Hierom ab Angelo forti; and 'tis by this means he endeavours to defend Jansenius his Disciples against Mr. Desmarests, Professor in Divinity at Groningue, who argued against Transubstantiation from the authority of this same Ratramnus, whom the Gentlemen of the Port Royal quoted as one of the most famous Witnesses of the Belief of the Church against the novelties of Molina.

IT seems also that Mr. De St. Beuve does not disapprove of this opinion of Mr. Mauguin and Mr. Herman in his Manuscript Treatise of the Eucha∣rist, as we may collect from the Preface of D' Luc d' Achery, on the second Tome of his Spicilege. Yet by a strange kind of injustice after the testi∣mony of Cardinal Du Perron, and others who have seen Bertram's Manu∣script, he still suspects it to have suffered some alteration. Howsoever he would have us remember that Ratramnus died in the bosom of the Church, and bear with his offensive expressions. This is the part which these two Gentlemen have taken for the preservation of Ratramnus his authority, whose testimony is useful to 'em in other matters.

CELLOT the Jesuit on the contrary, designing in his History of Gottheschalc, and in his Appendixes, to oppose the sentiments of Mr. Mau∣guin in the subject of Grace, and to discredit its Champions, has attackt the person of Ratramnus. He does indeed acknowledg him for the true Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, but he does all that he is able to discredit it, and bereave it of all the Authority which these other Gentlemen attribute to it. Howsoever, he yields it to the Pro∣testants as being for them, and maintains with Possevin, that altho this Book may be read with corrections, yet Pope Clement VIII. has done well in prohibiting it.

OTHERS of better judgments in the Romish Communion have clear∣ly foreseen that if what Cellot the Jesuit offers against Ratramnus is of use to him against the Disciples of Jansenius, and if his way of proceeding be ad∣vantageous against the Adversaries which he had at his back, 'twas not the same in respect of us. For as fast as he deprived his Adversaries of so fa∣mous an Author as Ratramnus, in decrying him for an Heretick on the sub∣ject of the Eucharist, he yielded him to us without any dispute, and by this means does himself furnish us with a very authentick Author against Transubstantiation and the Real Presence. They have believed then that to prevent the falling into this inconveniency, they must invent some other new means, which on one hand might be less bold, and more likely than is that of Mr. Mauguin, which cannot reasonably be maintain'd, and which on the other would not give us so great advantage as Father Cellot has given us in placing Ratramnus absolutely on our side.

AND this is what Mr. Marca the deceased Arch-Bishop of Paris has seem'd to have done, when he offered as a new discovery that the Book in question is of John Scot, or Erigenus. For by means of this opinion he preten∣ded to secure to Ratramnus his whole authority and reputation, and attribute at the same time to the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, the infamy of an heretical piece, according to the Decree of the Roman Censurers. We may charge Mr. De Marca with inconstancy, seeing that in his French Trea∣tise of the Eucharist, which was publish'd since his death by the Abbot Fa∣get his Cousin-german, he acknowledged that Bertram and Ratram were but one and the same Author, and that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is truly of Ratramnus.

HOWSOEVER Mr. De Marca affirms in his Letter to De Luc d' * 1.8 Achery, wrote in 1657. First, That the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is not of Ratramnus, as the learned have thought. Secondly, That 'tis John's, surnamed Scot, or Erigenus. Thirdly, That John Scot acknow∣ledging this Book was contrary to the Doctrin of the Church, publish'd it under the name of Ratramnus, by a famous Imposture, to give it the more weight. Fourthly, That this Book is then the same which was condemned in the Council of Verseile by Leo IX. as Lanfranc reports, and was at length burnt in the Council of Rome under Nicholas II. in 1059. And thus does he reject his former opinion thro human weakness, from which the greatest Wits are not exempt, and wherein a man easily falls when 'tis his interest to be of another mind.

Mr. De Marca well perceiv'd what a troublesom thing it was to the Ro∣man Faith, to say that Paschasus, which is, as it were, the head of it, ac∣cording to the Hypothesis of the Protestants, was opposed by all the learn∣ed and famous men which were then in the Church. He also well foresaw that those who would reflect on the person of Ratram, would be extremely surpriz'd to see that upon the contests to which the Doctrin of Paschasus gave birth, Charles the Bald having consulted Ratram, this great man took part with Paschasus his Adversaries. He knew likewise that 'twas this same Ratram, who was consulted on the subject of Grace by the same Charles the Bald, and who shew'd himself so zealous for the truth, that he feared not to withstand three times Hincmar his Arch-Bishop, as Mr. Mauguin has * 1.9 observ'd, That this Ratram was so famous in his time, that after these bick∣erings

with Hincmar, Hincmar himself and the other French Prelates, com∣mission'd him to answer in their name the objections of the Greeks in the dispute which arose between them and the Latins. There was no likelihood of making such a one pass for an Heretick. Moreover, Mr. Marca could not deny but that the Book of our Lords Body and Blood ought to be attri∣buted to Ratram, should we refer our selves to the testimony of Sigebert. He himself calls it the little Book published by the Protestants, under the name * 1.10 of Bertram, and attributed to Ratram by Sigebert and Trithemius. He be∣lieved likewise he had gotten a certain proof that since the 9th. Century this Book bore the title of Ratram, because the anonymous Author publish'd by Cellot, reckons Ratram one of Paschasus's Adversaries. And Mr. De Marca took this anonymous Author for an Author of the 9th. Century, as Perron also thought. What remedy is there to these inconveniencies which appear to be of so great consequence? For, for to take the part of Mr. Mauguin, and to say that the Book in question contains nothing but what is conformable to the belief of the Roman Church, is even according to him an unwarrant∣able assertion.

TO extricate himself out of these perplexities, Mr. Marca believ'd it best to maintain that John Scot was the true Author of this Book, that 'twas John Scot himself that fathered it on Ratram, and that Cellot's anonymous Author being ignorant of this fact was deceived in what he wrote of it. And this is the happy invention by which Mr. De Marca thought he might procure great advantages to his Party. First, He reduces both Paschasus his Adversaries to one, which already diminishes the number of 'em. Second∣ly, He delivers Paschasus from the hands of an adversary who was constant∣ly held for a most Orthodox Divine in his time. Thirdly, By this means he decries this Book it self by attributing it to an Author, who in the 9th. Century drew on himself some Censures from the Councils of Valence and Langres touching the questions of Grace, and whom the Roman Church condemned in the 11th. at Verceil, and at Rome on the matter of the Eu∣charist. Fourthly, He discharges his Church of the reproach of having condemned in the 11th. Century, and still at this day condemning a Do∣ctrin which was taught in the 9th. by an Orthodox Author, such as was Ra∣tram. Again, the name of John Scot has appeared to him very proper for the giving some colour to his discovery, because that in effect John Scot wrote likewise a Book on the subject of the Eucharist which he dedicated to Charles the Bald, and that this Book is lost, whether by chance or on purpose, as it has also hapned to others, we cannot guess.

WE may with great likelihood say that Mr. Arnaud and his friends have had the same interests as Mr. De Marca. But we may also add that they have had a particular reason which much contributes to make 'em embrace Mr. De Marca's opinion, and maintain with him that Ratram is not the Au∣thor of the Book in question, but John Scot, or Erigenus. Mr. Claude has * 1.11 shewed them in the famous Dispute which they have had, that having once esteemed Ratram for the Oracle of his time, and for the great defender of the Orthodox Doctrin of Divine Grace, 'tis not fair to refuse his testimony now on the Eucharist, and treat him as an Author of small importance, that this is an exposing of a man's self plainly to the reproach of injustice and lightness. They must then deliver themselves at any rate from the im∣portunity of this Book, and absolutely deny that 'tis Ratram's. But the way to do it handsomly is difficult, seeing the Author of the Perpetuity seems to

have acknowledg'd that Bertram and Ratram were but one and the same person, and that he was the real Author of the Book in question. To get out of this vexatious suit, a Religious of S. Genevieve, whose name is not mention'd, opportunely offers himself. He sends a Dissertation touching John Scot and Bertram, wherein he makes a third Party between Mr. De Marca and the Author of the Perpetuity, to wit, that the Book is John Scot's; but an obscure and perplex'd piece. Mr. Arnaud adopts this Dissertation, and publishes it at the end of his Book. So that properly neither the Au∣thor of the Perpetuity retracts, nor Mr. Arnaud who contradicts him; but an anonymous Religious who gives us his conjectures. And by this means all is made whole again, and the Confession which the Author of the Per∣petuity has made is no more at farthest than the error of one man.

CHAP. II.

That what the Author of the Dissertation would reform in the Opinion of Mr. De Marca, does not at all make it the more probable.

THAT which the Author of the Dissertation has changed in the conjecture of Monsieur De Marca, to make it a little more toler∣able, may be reduced to these three things. First, He will have the supposition of this Book to be made, not by John Scot himself in the 9th. Century, as Mr. De Marca says, but by Berenger, or those of his Party towards the end of the 11th. Secondly, He pretends that in respect of the Title, the supposition has not been made barely under the name of Ratram; but that those who have made the change have made the Book pass under the name of Bertram, or that of Bertramnus, or under that of Ratram, or Intram, or Ratramnus, or perhaps under several of these different names, but indiffe∣rent Copies. Thirdly, He will have it to be in respect of the sense of the Book but an obscure and perplex'd piece, whereas Mr. De. Marca openly acknow∣ledges it to be heretical, incapable of a good explication, and justly censured.

BUT we cannot conceive how Mr. De Marca's conjecture will appear more probable by these new corrections. In effect if it be unjust in Mr. De Marca to accuse without proof, witnesses, or ground, and even without any probability John Scot of an imposture so great as this is, what judgment must we make of the accusation which Mr. Arnaud brings under the name of the Author of the Dissertation, against Berenger or his followers? Who has revealed to him the mystery of this supposition which he so historically deals out to us? Where are the Adversaries of Berenger who have re∣proached him with this deceit, or those of his Party? Where are the Ma∣nuscripts which help him to this discovery? 'Tis apparent there needs a great stock of confidence to form accusations of this consequence without any proof. For my part I may accuse the Disciples of Paschasus with more likeli∣hood for having attributed their Masters Books to names of far greater re∣nown than his. Whilst I write this, I have before me the Treatise of the Perpetual Virginity of the Holy Virgin, of which in fine we know Paschasus to be the Author. Yet has this Book passed hitherto for S. Hildephonsus's, Arch-Bishop of Toledo; and in a Manuscript which I have by me, it appears that this supposition is made designedly by a Priest of the 10th. Century,

named Gomezan, who pretends that this Book was brought from Spain by a Bishop called Gotiscalc: and this good man has carried on the supposition so far as to corrupt the Catalogue of S. Hildephonsus his works, by inserting in 'em these words which are to be found in the Edition of Miroeus as well as in the Manuscript. He wrote—a little Book of the Virginity of the Holy Vir∣gin, against three Infidels. We know likewise that Paschasus his Book touch∣ing the Eucharist, was father'd on the famous Raban, as appears from the Cologn Edition in 1551. and from the Manuscripts of which the Author of the Dissertation says he has another of 'em in his hands; altho it be certain that Paschasus is the Author of this Book, and that Raban was of a con∣trary opinion to Paschasus. But without such appearance, and without any ground, proof, or Witnesses, we must be gravely told, that Berenger or his Disciples, who were not convinced nor accused of any such thing, have fa∣thered on Bertram the Book which was condemned at Verseil and Rome, and which is in effect John Scots, and that six hundred years after we must be informed of this pretended supposition, which no body before ever imagin'd: what is this but imposing on the Readers credulity.

THE second change which the Author of the Dissertation makes of Mr. De Marca's sentiment is a mere cavil that has no foundation, as I shall shew hereafter. In effect Mr. De Marca as well before as since his new conjecture, has acknowledg'd that Bertram and Ratram are but one and the same.

AND as to what that Author imagins in the third place that Mr. De Marca was mistaken in his maintaining that Bertram's Book is plainly against Transubstantiation, and the Real Presence; whereas it ought only to pass for an obscure and perplex'd Writing, 'tis evident this was to save the Author of the Perpetuity's reputation. In effect if he had not this con∣sideration, how could he content himself with barely treating this Book as obscure and perplex'd, seeing he himself supposes that 'tis John Scots? First, Does he not know that Scot's Book was condemned by the Synod of Verceil as an Heretical piece. Secondly, That 'twas so before at Paris by a kind * 1.12 of Synod who censured it in the same terms. Thirdly, That another Coun∣cil at Rome caused it to be burnt six years after the Council of Verceil. Fourthly, That John Scot's Book was composed on this platform, That the Sacrament of the Altar is not the true Body nor true Blood of our Lord, but only a memorial of his true Body and Blood, as Hincmar and Ascelin say. Fifthly, That Berenger has taken the Book of John Scot for an authentick testimony of his Faith, and Lanfranc also for an avowed adversary of Pas∣chasus. Sixthly, That in the 12th. Century Cellot's anonymous Author te∣stifies the Author of this Book was respected as an adversary to Paschasus, in the same manner as he had been in the preceding Century. Seventhly, That supposing Bertram's Book be John Scot's, whatsoever I now mention'd must be referred to him. Eighthly, That in effect Bertram's Book was attri∣buted to Oecolampadius. Ninthly, That it was proscribed by I know not how many expurgatory Indexes. Tenthly, That the Divines of Doway and others with 'em, not being able to admit the Doctrin, have affirm'd it has been altered. In fine, that the Author of the Dissertation himself ac∣knowledges that Berenger or his Disciples considered this Book as a Buck∣ler for 'em, which 'twas their interest to preserve at the expence of the great∣est fraud and treachery.

DARE the Author of the Dissertation say that Hincmar has understood

the sentiment of John Scot better than John Scot himself, that the Councils of the 11th. Century have rashly condemned a Writing which at most was but an obscure and perplex'd one? That Pope Leo IX. Nicholas II. and the 113 Bishops which constrained Berenger to burn John Scot's Book were de∣ceived in it, that Berenger nor his Adversaries, nor his Disciples, have not comprehended what made for 'em or against 'em during several years Dis∣pute, and that in fine the 12th. Century remain'd in as great an ignorance? I wonder how the Author of the Dissertation, or Mr. Arnaud can speak of this Book as they do; which is to say, that it is obscure and perplexed, in supposing John Scot to be the Author of it. I can scarcely believe that if these Gentlemen do satisfie themselves, they can also satisfie the ingenuous of their own party that have read it. But that I may handle more fully this point, I intend to establish clearly two things, First, That this Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord publish'd under the name of Bertram, is in effect Ratram's, and not John Scot's. Secondly, That the authority of this Book will not cease to be very considerable, supposing John Scot were the Author of it. I hope I shall commodiously reduce under these two heads, whatsoever the Author has treated of greatest importance in his Dissertation.

CHAP. III.

That Ratram is the Author of the Book of our Lords Body and Blood, publish'd under the name of Bertram.

TO confirm this truth, I shall first bring as convincing proofs as can be brought for these kind of Facts. Secondly, I shall produce the acknowledgment of the most learned Romanists who have ac∣knowledged this verity, even since some of 'em have question'd it. Lastly, I shall shew that this is not a discovery which Ʋsher first made, and that whatsoever the Author of the Dissertation brings against that Prelates proofs cannot overthrow them. See here the proofs.

FIRST, Sigebert a Monk of Gemblou, attributes in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers the Book of our Lords Body and Blood to the Author of the Book of Predestination: Now this Book of Predestination is acknow∣ledged to be Ratram's. And in effect altho Suffridus Petrus, who caused Sigebert's Catalogue to be Printed, has inserted the name of Bertram in his Edition, he does himself remark, that two Manuscripts, one of the Abby of Gemblou, the other of the Priory of Vauvert, had distinctly the name of Ratram, and not that of Bertram. This testimony of Sigebert is considerable for three reasons. First, Because he was one of the most inquisitive Historians of his time, as appears by his Chronicle. Se∣condly, Because he did not write his Catalogue till he had spent the greatest part of his life in the reading of the Authors of which he speaks in his Ca∣talogue. Thirdly, Because that having lived a great while in the 11th. Century (for he died but in the year 1113.) he had a particular knowledg of what passed in the Disputes between Berenger and his Adversaries, and the Authors which were alledged on either hand.

AS Trithemius in his Catalogue has followed Sigebert, excepting that he spoke more particularly of the Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, and of Predestination; it is plain that altho it has likewise the name of Bertram, or Bertramnus, he design'd Ratramnus, and that the rather, that 'tis undeniable: First, That there was no Author of Bertram's name in the 9th. Century. Secondly, That the Elogies which he gives to Bertram are suitable only to Ratramnus, by the consent of all learned men, That 'twould be a wonderful thing, for neither Trithemius nor Sigebert to mention a word of Ratramnus, one of the most famous Authors of the 9th. Century.

SECONDLY, an anonymous Author, who apparently wrote since Algerus, which is to say, about the year 1140. formally attributes to Ra∣tram to have wrote a Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Lord against the sentiments of Paschasus Ratbert, and dedicated it to the French King Charles the Bald. Now this is what agrees precisely with the Book which bears the name of Bertram. For first, he directly decides against the Do∣ctrin of Paschasus, altho he does not name him. Secondly, It is dedicated to King Charles. Thirdly, The arguments which the anonymous Author relates as being common to Raban and Ratram, are sound in the Book pub∣lish'd under the name of Bertram.

THIRDLY, The style and Hypothesis of this Book of Bertram are wholly the same with those of other Writings of Ratram, as I shall make appear. But before we come to this, behold another proof which alone is sufficient to decide our question.

FOURTHLY, There are Manuscripts of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, which bear the same name of Ratram. First, Those that in 1532. caused this Book to be Printed at Cologn, expresly observe, that they preferred the name of Bertram before any other name of the same Author, which appeared to them less known. Let the Reader know, say they, that altho the name of this Author is to be met with elsewhere express'd in another manner, yet this name (to wit of Bertram) being most common and familiar, ought to be preferred before any other. This other name can be none but that of Ratramnus, which appear'd to them less known than that of Bertram, only because that in 1531. which is to say, a year before the Edition of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, the Catalogue of the Ecclesiastical Writers of Trithemius was publish'd at Cologn it self, and therein mention made of this Author under the name of Bertram, and not under that of Ratram. Secondly, The Divines of Doway had with∣out question some Manuscripts of the Book of Our Lords Body and Blood under the name of Ratramnus, without which they could not say of Ber∣tram, what they have said. Thirdly, Cardinal Perron attests he saw at * 1.13 Mr. Le Fevre's the Prince's Tutor, an ancient Manuscript of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, under the name of Ratramnus.

THESE proofs be convincing to rational men; the only thing which has rais'd any scruple is the name of Bertram, which some Transcribers, and those that have publish'd it from these Copies, have put in, instead of the true name, which was Ratramnus: but this signifies little. For first, 'tis certain that Bertram's Book was written in the 9th. Century, in which time

there was no Author named Bertram: so that this must needs be a corru∣pted name thro the ignorance of some Transcribers. It is then fitting to attri∣bute this Book to one of the Authors of those times whose name comes nearest to that of Bertram. Now 'tis certain there is none which comes nearer than Ratram. Theophilus Raynaud the Jesuit has acknowledged this truth. How easie has it been, says he, to confound Bertram and Ratram in so great * 1.14 an affinity and resemblance of names. We may alledg two causes of this confusion which are very probable: First, 'Twas the custom to give the name Beatus to illustrious men in the Church, instead of Sanctus, which has been since affectedly given 'em, of which there are thousands of instances in Manuscripts and Printed Books. 'Tis then very likely that some Transcri∣bers finding in Manuscripts the Title of this Book, B. Ratrami, or Be. Ra∣trami, which signifies Beati Ratramni, they have imprudently joyn'd all these Letters, and made thereof but one name. Thus in the Edition of Aldus, instead of reading P. Cornutus, which signifies Publius Cornutus, they have joyn'd the Letters of the Manuscript which should be separate, where∣of they have made the barbarous name of Phornutus. Secondly, It is like∣ly that the conformity of the letter B with the Letter R which in the ancient Impressions and Manuscripts, differ only in one stroak, may have given way to this Error. The likeness of Capital Letters has produced like changes, the Author of the Dissertation himself tells us that in two Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor, the Transcribers have written Babanus instead of * 1.15 Rabanus. And thus do we read in some Manuscripts of Haimon of Hal∣berstat, Raymo for Haymo.

SECONDLY, It is certain that in respect of the Book it self, there are none of the Authors of the 9th. Century to whom we can attribute this Book but to Ratram. This Book supposes in its Preface that there hapned a terrible division between the Subjects of Charles the Bald touching the Eucharist; and that this Prince according to his Piety, searching the means to reduce to the purity of the Faith those that had changed it, engaged the Author of the Book of our Lords Body and Blood to tell him his thoughts on this subject. Now this time is exactly that wherein Ratram lived; and the esteem which Charles the Bald shews this Author, is pre∣cisely the same which he paid to Ratram, in an occasion like this. For his Subjects being divided on the matter of Grace and Predestination, he con∣sulted Ratramnus on this difference, and shewed how greatly he valued his judgment in Theological Questions.

ALL these reasons taken together do so well prove that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is of Ratramnus, that those who have not consider'd 'em all, have yet yielded to the evidence of those they were acquainted with. We may moreover say, that if they have not been ex∣plain'd, they have been at least acknowledg'd before Ʋsher by the Divines of Doway, whether they have seen Manuscripts of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, which bore the name of Ratram, as 'tis likely they did, or believ'd with Raynaud, that this corruption of the name of Bertram did not hinder but that Ratram must be acknowledg'd to be the Author of it. In effect, whence could they divine these three things, First, That Bertram was a Monk of Corby as well as a Priest, Trithemius and Sigebert having never said so, and the Title of the Book bearing Presbyteri, and not Monachi. Secondly, That this Book was not dedicated to Charlemain, but to Charles the Bald, altho the Edition runs Ad Carolum magnum. Thirdly,

That the Author was a Catholick. Is not this a fair acknowledgment that Bertram is no other than Ratram an Author in whom these three things meet; if we compare the Title of the Book with what Authors say, that have spoken of this Religious. This is the judgment of the Divines of Doway, whom Ʋsher has only followed.

AFTER the Divines of Doway and Bishop Ʋsher, who discovered this truth more distinctly, Mr. De Marca was one of the first who lent his hand to it, as appears from his Treatise in French of the Eucharist wrote before the year 1640. and publish'd by Monsieur the Abbot Faget his Cousin. Theophilus Raynaud the Jesuit has since likewise follow'd the same senti∣ment * 1.16 in his Treatise of good and bad Books. Mr. Mauguin acknowledges it likewise in his famous defences of Grace, wherein he has been follow'd by Mr. Hermon a Canon of Beauvais, under the Title of HIERONYMƲS AB ANGELO FORYI. Cellot the Jesuit agrees in this point with Mr. * 1.17 Herman and Mr. Mauguin, altho he elsewhere opposes the later in several things. De Luc d' Achery and Mr. De S. Beuve, have equally testifi'd they were of the same opinion, the one in his Preface on the first Tome of his Spicilege, th'other in his Manuscript Lectures on the Eucharist.

'TIS true that since the late conjecture of Mr. De Marca became pub∣lick, to wit that John Scot is the Author of the Work of our Lords Body and Blood, and not Ratram, De Luc seems to yield to this novelty, and has * 1.18 since been followed by the Author of the Perpetuity who speaks of it in a doubtful manner, and by the Author of the Dissertation which I examin. But a while after the learned Jesuit Labbeus opposed this conjecture of Mr. De Marca as handsomly as he could in a Book which he dedicated to him. For in this Book he takes indifferently Bertram and Ratram for one and the same Author. Mr. Pavillon also ingenuously acknowledges in his Book against Mr. Daillé that Ratram and Bertram are but one and the same per∣son, citing always Ratram of the Body and Blood of our Lord. The fa∣mous * 1.19 Jesuit Noüet against Mr. Claude shews in this matter the same sincerity as Mr. Pavillon, and Mr. Arbusti has follow'd them in his declaration.

HOWSOEVER it be, after the reasons which I have alledged, I be∣lieve I may affirm with all these learned men of the Church of Rome, that Bertram and Ratram are but one and the same Author. It only then re∣mains that I refute in a few words what the Author of the Dissertation of∣fers most considerable against some of these reasons.

TO one of these reasons, viz. that the Religious of Corby being named * 1.20 Ratram, and Cellot's anonymous Author saying that Ratram wrote a Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord; the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, known under the name of Bertram, is then Ratram's: to this rea∣son, I say, our Author answers, that altho Cellot caused the name of Ra∣tramnus to be Printed in the two places of his Anonymous, wherein are men∣tion'd Paschasus his Adversaries; yet 'tis not thus found in two Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor: but in the first there's Intramus, and in the se∣cond Ratramnus, Cellot having caused the name of Ratramnus to be Printed contrary to what the Manuscripts bear.

BUT this answer is not sufficient. First, Cellot has caused his Anony∣mous to be Printed from Father Sirmond's Copy, who had taken it from a

Manuscript of Corby, and not from the Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Vi∣ctor. Secondly, These two Manuscripts which are apparently false, are not so considerable as the Manuscripts of the Anonymous, mention'd by Ʋsher and others, which have all of 'em the name of Ratramnus, nor as the Manu∣script * 1.21 of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord which bears the name of Ratramnus, nor as the Manuscripts of the Catalogue of Sigebert, of which we have spoken. The Intram of the Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor, is the Transcribers fault, who has disfigured the name of Ratram∣nus, just as his Babanus is the famous Raban.

TO another reason drawn from Sigebert, who makes the Author of the * 1.22 Book of Predestination, to wit Ratramnus, the Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, and of whom in effect two Manuscripts repre∣sent the name of Ratramus, instead of Bertramus: to this reason, I say, the Author answers, First, That the work of Bertram of Predestination is dif∣ferent from that of Ratramnus, because that according to Trithemius the work of Bertram contain'd only one Book, and was not dedicated to Charles the Bald, whereas that of Ratram is dedicated to him, and contains two Books. Secondly, That all the Editions of Sigebert having constant∣ly the name of Bertram, we may believe that a fault has slipt into the Ma∣nuscripts of Gemblou, and of Vauvert, where we have the name of Ra∣tramnus.

BUT these two Answers are not satisfactory: As to the first, Trithe∣mius as well as Sigebert, says positively in two places that the Book of Ber∣tram of Predestination is dedicated to Charles the Bald, and brings such reasons for the proof of what he says, that there's no way to avoid the force of his testimony. Secondly, Either our Author supposes that Trithe∣mius saw a Treatise of Predestination under the name of Bertram which con∣tain'd only one Book, or he will have him not to have seen it, as he believes that Trithemius has not seen the Book of our Lords Body and Blood. If Trithemius has seen this Treatise of Predestination, what is become of it since Trithemius his time? How comes it to pass no body ever heard of it, but this our Author? If Trithemius never saw it, why will our Author give credit to his testimony, when the question concerns this Book of Pre∣destination, and yet will not have us believe what he says of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Thirdly, Our Author abuses the passage of Trithemius, Trithemius has follow'd Sigebert, and by librum seems to understand opus a work, without having respect to the number of the parts of which it is composed; unless we will suppose that one number has esca∣ped the Printer, and that instead of these words de Predestinatione j. we should read de Predestinatione jj. which is very possible, and of which there are an hundred examples in the Catalogue of Trithemius now in question.

OUR Author's second Answer is something worse than the first. I know but two Editions of Sigebert, that of Suffridus Petrus, and that of Miroeus, which in my opinion has been publish'd from that of Suffridus, Now as far as one can judg of 'em, the Manuscripts of Gem∣blou and Vauvert ought to be preferred to these Editions, because the Ma∣nuscript of Gemblou perhaps is the original of Sigebert's own hand, who wrote and died at Gemblou. We know very well how great a difference there is between the Edition of the Chronicle of Sigebert by Miroeus from a

Manuscript of Gemblou, and the other Editions publish'd from Manuscripts * 1.23 which have been corrupted. But supposing this were not Sigebert's own Hand-writing, 'tis certain the Monks of an Abby know best the hands of Transcribers who have preceded them in the same place. It is likely then that this Manuscript was more correct than those to be met with elsewhere. This Manuscript of Gemblou is moreover confirm'd by the Manuscript of the Priory of Vauvert, and in fine by the Manuscripts of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, which bear the name of Ratramnus, as I have re∣presented.

OUR Author acquits himself not much better in another Argument which one may draw from this, that in the Book of the Birth of Christ, Ra∣tramnus defends the same Doctrin which is taught in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. He tells us that Bishop Ʋsher is he that has made this judgment on the Book of the Birth of Christ; but that this Treatise be∣ing at present publick, this conjecture of Ʋsher can only serve to discover the insincerity of this Protestant, because there's not to be found one word of the mystery of the Eucharist in the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ. He adds hereunto other things, which do not belong to our subject, and which I do not refute as I might, lest I turn aside the Readers mind from the point in hand.

BUT he is to blame in accusing Bishop Ʋsher of deceit. For what he says of this Book de Nativitate Christi, is comprehended in a Parenthe∣sis, and there is neither affectation nor heat in producing it. It appears that this is a new discovery which he made since he wrote his Treatise of the Succession and State of the Christian Churches, wherein this remark had been proper. When he made this observation on the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ, he handled a quite different subject, to wit, the History of Gotthescalc. The Manuscripts which he cites, were not in his hands alone, neither did he suppress them: he carefully denotes the places where they were, and they may be easily found out. After all, says he, we are so far from reading the Doctrin of Bertram in the Book of the Birth of Christ, that we find not one word of the mystery of the Eucharist therein. Supposing this be true? must therefore Bishop Ʋsher be an Impostor unworthy of credit? That Prelate only says that the same Doctrin is to be found in the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ, which is in that of the Body and Blood of our Lord. He does not make a particular mention of the Eucharist. But if he meant so, we need only cast our eyes on some places of this Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ, to approve of his judgment. We know that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, combating the substantial Pre∣sence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, rejects likewise as an ab∣surdity, the opinion which asserts that the Body of Jesus Christ may be in several places, and the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ distinctly asserts that the Body of Jesus Christ, is so determin'd by its nature to be in one * 1.24 place, that 'tis impossible for it to be in two places at once; altho our Lord is every where in respect of his Divinity. And thus does it combat the na∣tural consequences of Paschasus his opinion, which certainly suffices to ju∣stifie Ʋsher if he respected this matter.

AS to the reason which we draw from the conformity which there is be∣tween the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, and the works of Ra∣tram, the Author answers that this conjecture might have some force were

the question, whether the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord was written by Ratram, or Oecolampadius; but at present when 'tis doubted whether it be the work of Ratram, or of some other Author of the same Century, it is useless, most Authors of the 9th. Century finishing or beginning their Books, with acknowledgments of their own weakness and inabilities, like to those which are to be met with in the undoubted Wri∣tings of Ratram, and in that of Bertram, for which he alledges some ex∣amples taken out of two Treatises of John Scot.

BUT he pitifully eludes this reason. It is taken from the whole style and genius of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, compared with the style and genius of the works of Ratram, and not from some senten∣ces which seem conformable therein. Cellot and Mr. Claude were of this opinion. And certainly th'Inscriptions of the Books are alike; the Book of Predestination is adscribed Domino glorioso proecellentissimo principi Carolo, * 1.25 Ratramnus, and that of the Body and Blood of our Lord begins Gloriose Prin∣cips; whereas John Scot calls Charles Seniorem. He is treated with the Ti∣tle of Magnificent in Ratram's Book of Predestination, and in that of the Body and Blood of our Lord in like manner. Ratram being engag'd by the Kings Command to write of Predestination, shews great modesty in obey∣ing; which also appears in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Ra∣tram commends the King's Piety for his enquiries into Religion, and submits to his Censures. All which is seen in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Ratram follows the holy Fathers with such zeal, that in the first Book of Predestination, he brings into every line almost the sayings of S. Augustin, Prosper, Salvien, Gregory, upon which he makes reflections. And thus does he likewise in the second, wherein he only cites Orthodox Au∣thors; and the same method he uses in the second part of the Book of the Body and Blood. There can be nothing more regular than the method of * 1.26 Ratram in his Books of Predestination, he descends to the foundation, and divides his whole subject into two questions: we find the same regularity * 1.27 in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord: the recapitulations are in a manner the same. We see therein the same modesty in not naming those against whom he wrote, in conserving the glorious quality of the Modera∣tor of Charles the Bald: we meet with the same thing in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord.

WE might confirm the same truth by comparing the Treatise of the Bo∣dy and Blood of our Lord with the other works of Ratram, were that trou∣ble any way necessary. But I believe this is sufficient to persuade those who weigh things.

IT is certain that our Author produces a reason to shew that Ratram is not the Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. He draws it from the silence of Hincmar. This silence, says he, discovers so evident∣ly th' injustice which has been done to Ratram in attributing the Book of Ber∣tram to him, that supposing we had no other proofs to justifie him, this here will be more than sufficient to take away all suspicions which within these few years have been entertain'd touching his integrity in the Faith. There is no likelihood, if we believe our Author, that Hincmar, who on one hand was animated against Ratram, and wrote against him a great Book con∣cerning Predestination, and this expression Trina Deitas; and who on the other condemned as an error and novelty contrary to the Faith the Opinion

of John Scot, who said, that the Eucharist was not our Lords true Body, but only its figure and memorial, would not have reproached Ratram on this subject, had he believed him the Author of this Book which goes under the name of Bertram, seeing this Book yielded occasion enough to a passionate enemy, as Hincmar was, to charge him with this Heresie.

BUT this reflection is but a silly one. First, from one word which Hincmar has uttered against John Scot in favour of Paschasus, we must not conclude that Hincmar was at full liberty to write against Ratramnus, and t'encounter him as an Heretick. Secondly, I do not see why Hincmar should be so mightily transported against Ratram, who spake without heat, and mentioned not any of those against whom he wrote. If Hincmar was transported against Ratram on another subject, it does not hence follow he must be always in the like passion on all subjects which he had to debate with this Religious. Thirdly, This our Author supposes without reason that Hincmar was in a condition to insult over Ratram on the question of the Eucharist, as he did in that of Predestination, and there is herein a great deal of difference. When Hincmar was so greatly transported against Ra∣tram, 'twas because he had the Council of Cressy on his side, 'twas because * 1.28 John Scot declared himself for him against Gothescalc and Ratram; 'twas because the famous Raban had prejudicated in his favour in a Council held at Mayence in 848. but there was nothing like this in the question of the Eucharist. John Scot had declared himself against the sentiments of Pas∣chasus; the King knew it, and kept him in his Palace, which was a sufficient prejudice against Hincmar. The famous Raban consulted by Heribold Bi∣shop of Auxerre and Arch-Chaplain, that is to say, great Almoner, had clear∣ly taken part against the sentiments of the same Paschasus; and the learned Church of Lyons who had persecuted John Scot, whilst he defended the opi∣nions of Hincmar touching Predestination, ceased molesting him when he combated the sentiments of Paschasus on the Doctrin of the Eucharist. Fourthly, Our Author supposes with the same rashness that Hincmar be∣lieved this Controversie to be as important as it is at this day, which is con∣trary to all probability. For, First, Hincmar contents himself with criti∣cising on the opinion of John Scot in very soft terms, he does not call it He∣resie, but novelty of words, whereas Raban and Hincmar term'd the opinion of Gotthescalc on the Divine Grace, Heresie, and Schism. Secondly, If we come to compare what Hincmar says against Ratram on the trina Deitas, shall we not find that what he says against John Scot contains nothing so outragious? Hincmar was a friend of Raban's who wrote a Letter to Egilon * 1.29 Abbot of Prom, and afterwards Arch-Bishop of Sens, against the Doctrin of Paschasus: he was a friend of this Raban who had opposed him in his an∣swer to Heribold, publish'd by Stewart. Hincmar always mentions Heri∣bold * 1.30 with a great deal of respect, even after his death, altho Heribold was so far from being of Paschasus his opinion, that in the later ages, the name of Heriboldiens was given to the Disciples of Berenger, as we find in the Writings of Tho. Waldensis. Fifthly, If this silence of Hincmar proves * 1.31 that Ratram did not write the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, be∣cause Hincmar would have reproached him with it, what judgment must we make of this Authors affirming that John Scot wrote this Book of Ber∣tram's, altho the Church of Lyons which wrote so fiercely against him, has not reproached him with it? Why did not also Prudentius do it in his Trea∣tise against Hincmar and Pardulus? Was not this the ready way to decry these two Bishops, to reproach them that they made use of the Pen of a

profest enemy to the Real Presence and Transubstantiation? Why did Ni∣cholas the first suffer this Heresie growing in the bosom of Charles the Bald, without warning this Prince of it? That same Nicholas who concerned him∣self so much in the affairs on this side the Mountains, and used all means to inform himself of 'em? Nicholas the first shall bestir himself in the affair of Rothadus of Soissons in that of Hincmar of Laon, where the point was only about Discipline, and remain unconcerned in the business of John Scot, altho he erred in the Eucharist. He shall take notice of the affairs of Ebbon of Reims, and those whom he had ordain'd, and not take any notice of a que∣stion agitated at the Court of Charles the Bald, in which this Prince did in∣terest himself? He shall know that Raban had opposed the Real Presence by publick Writings, that he to whom Raban wrote was become Arch-Bishop of Sens, that an Arch-Chaplain had erred in this matter, and all this with∣out being concerned? The fault which our Author commits in this refle∣ction on the silence of Hincmar, proceeds from his not minding two things; the one is that, we must not always ground our selves on peoples proposing their sentiments in advantageous terms, and speaking the opinion of their adversaries with disdain and contempt. This is particularly the stile of Hincmar in every malter he treats of, as it has been already observ'd by Mr. Mauguin and Mr. De la Motte, which cannot be unknown to our Author, * 1.32 For example, he always treats Gotthescalc as an Heretick, altho it be be∣liev'd at Port Royal, that Gotthescalc defended only S. Austin's Doctrin on the matter of Grace.

THE other is, that our Author has conceiv'd that the censure of Hinc∣mar against John Scot imports that Hincmar believ'd the Real Presence with its consequences, as the Adoration, the Sacrifice, &c. which has made him judg that Hincmar must respect the opinion of John Scot as a detestable He∣resie. Now 'tis certain that the consequences of the Real Presence were then unknown to the whole Earth, and were not received into the Latin Church till some Ages after Hincmar. But this last remark respects the main of the question which does not belong to me to handle.

CHAP. IV.

A Refutation of what the Author of the Dissertation offers to per∣suade that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, Pub∣lish'd under the Name of Bertram is of John Scot.

HAVING hitherto firmly enough establish'd that the Book of our Lords Body and Blood is of Ratram, I might pass by whatso∣ever the Author of the Dissertation alledges to fortifie the Conje∣cture of Mr. De Marca; and truly seeing that before Mr. De Marca, no man of learning, nor any of Berenger's enemies, either in the 11th. Century, or in the following, made this discovery; seeing that the Author of the Perpetuity of the Faith entertain'd at first the opinion of Mr. De Marca with mistrust, that he might handsomly leave it, if he were forced: It thereupon seems I have right to despise whatsoever our Author alledges to make the world believe that the Book of Bertram is the Book of John Scot under a fo∣rein Title. Nevertheless I will shew that the proofs which he offers have no solidity.

THESE proofs are, 1. That the Book of Bertram is entirely con∣formable * 1.33 to what we read in ancient Writers concerning that of John Scot. 2. That the proper character of John Scot is therein to be met with. But at bottom he establishes neither one nor the other.

AS to the first, our Author relates a passage of Ascelin in a Letter to * 1.34 Berenger, whence he believes one may gather, that the work of John Scot contain'd only one Book, and that small enough: that a man cannot pre∣sently perceive in John Scots Book what was his opinion on the mystery of the Eucharist; that maugre the dissimulations of John Scot, yet Ascelin found therein his whole design was to persuade the Readers that what is Consecrated on the Altars is not truly the Body and Blood of our Lord; that to compass his drift John Scot made use of several passages of the Fa∣thers, and at the end of each passage added some gloss to bring the sense of 'em to his purpose; that amongst others, John Scot recited at length an Orison of S. Gregory, which begins with these words, Perficiant in nobis, and having trifled with some places of S. Ambrose, S. Jerom, and S. Austin, whom he principally made use of, as Berenger insinuates, he forms his conclusion in these terms, Specie geruntur ista non veritate. And these are the things which as our Author thinks agree with Bertram's Book.

BUT these reflections which our Author pretends one may also make on the Book of Bertram, are either uneflectual for his design, or want a foundation. 1. Nothing hinders that two works touching the Eucharist may have been short enough to be equally treated as small Books. 2. I have shew'd that our Author is mistaken. when he calls Bertram's Book an obscure and intricate piece. Even Ascelin does not scruple to treat John Scot as an Heretick by reason of his sentiment on the Eucharist; and our Author has not well enough comprehended the Text of Ascelin. 3. Two Authors who hold the same opinion should likewise aim at the same mark. They must if they are endued with common sense, from the same reflections in substance on the passages of the Fathers which they would have to serve their designs. These two Characters then are too general and wide. And for the two last considerations, 1. Who doubts that two Authors, one of whom has apparently read the Book of the other, as Ratram may have read that of John Scot, may not cite the same authorities? Ratram and Raban have done it, as we are inform'd by the Anonymous of Cellot. 2. 'Tis not true Berenger has insinuated that John Scot cited principally S. Ambrose, S. Jerom, and S. Austin. Berenger says John Scot cannot be respected as an Heretick, without throwing this ignominy on these Fathers and several others. But he does not say that John Scot cited particularly these three holy Doctors, and should he have said it, this character would be too ge∣neral, there having been scarcely any of the Authors of the 9th. Century, who have not affected to follow chiefly these three Doctors. 3. Our Au∣thor ought not to propose as a character of identity, that Bertram has drawn the same conclusion from the Orison Perficiant in nobis, as John Scot has done: for to speak properly, this conclusion, Specie geruntur ista non ve∣ritate, is not of Bertram, nor of John Scot, but the Text it self of the Pray∣er which bears, Ʋt quoe nunc specie gerimus, veritate capiamus: now it is apparent that they were equally obliged to conserve these terms in their conclusion, and that they could neither of 'em do it, in a more natural man∣ner than in forming it thus, Specie gerunter ista non veritate. We must al∣so

observe, and that as Ascelin relates, that John Scot cited this Orison un∣der the name of S. Gregory, whereas Bertram cites it as the common Service of the Church, and that how great soever the conformity has been between the conclusion of these Authors in respect of the sense and words, it is not so great in respect of the construction of 'em. Bertram having these words, In specie geruntur ista non in veritate, and John Scot these, Specie geruntur ista non in veritate, which proves that these are two different Authors.

THE second witness which our Author produces is Berenger, who in∣forms us that the Book of John Scot was wrote at the intreaty of a King of France, and that this King was Charlemain. Our Author pretends that these two particulars are to be met with in the Book of Bertram, which is dedi∣cated to Charlemain, and was written by his order.

BUT these conformities conclude nothing; not the first, because 'twas very possible that Charles the Bald had at the same time obliged two learned men to write on the same subject; one who dwelt in his Palace, to wit, John Scot, and the other whose name was so illustrious in his Kingdom, that he had already oblig'd him to write on the questions of Predestination, to wit, Ratramnus. This Character is too general. Not the second, for it does not seem that the Book of our Lords Body and Blood, nor that of John Scot of the Eucharist, were inscribed, Ad Carolum magnum Imperatorem, but only, Ad Carolum Regem, which is what one may recollect from Si∣gebert, from the Abbot Trithemius, from John Bishop of Rochester, and the * 1.35 Censurers of Doway, in reference to the Book of Bertram, whose Author they place under the time of Lothairius, and Charles the Bald, altho the Book of Bertram has no mark of time, whereas without doubt they would have placed him under the Reign of Charlemain, had the Manuscripts for title, Ad Carolum magnum Imperatorem. And for that of John Scot, it is to be believ'd that it having been written at the same time, and having an Inscription almost alike, Berenger is mistaken in applying to Charlemain * 1.36 what ought to be referred to Charles the Bald. At least 'tis by a mistake of this nature that Sigebert has placed Ʋsuard and Hincmar under the Reign of Charlemain; wherein Sigebert has been follow'd by Trithemius, altho both one and the other have written under Charles the Bald, as all the world acknowledges in respect of Hincmar, and as Bollandus and Labbeus acknow∣ledg in respect of Ʋsuard.

BUT supposing that the Book of John Scot was inscrib'd Ad Carolum Magnum Imperatorem, as is at this day that of Bertram in the Impressions, how will it hence follow that these two Books are but one and the same? Because, says our Author, if we suppose that this Title is equally false, 'tis ve∣ry difficult for chance to produce the same falsity in two different Books, which in other respects had so great resemblance. And if it be pretended that the Ti∣tle is true, it will be moreover very strange for the fancy of two different per∣sons to meet in giving it this Title.

THIS difficulty is a small one, we do not say that Ratram and John Scot have given the Title of Charlemain to Charles the Bald, but affirm it not to be so strange a thing, that Berenger having attributed to Charlemain what ought to be apply'd to Charles the Bald, those that came after should refer to Charlemain a like Title, this Prince passing for a lover of Theological learning, as having been the restorer of it: The examples which I alledged

prove the thing possible, seeing they prove it to have hapned. Berenger then is no more favourable to our Author than Ascelin was.

AS to Durand of Troarn, I see moreover less reason why our Author * 1.37 should produce what Durand has said of the Council of Paris, wherein the Book of John Scot was condemned, Damnatis Berengarii complicibus cum codice Joannis Scoti ex quo ea quoe damnabantur sumpta videbantur, concilio so∣luto discessum est: For if it be true, as our Author will have it, that by this way of speaking Durand has insinuated that altho in the Council of Paris John Scot's Book was condemned, yet was it not so evident a matter, that the Book of John Scot contains the sentiments of Berenger, which, as our Author believes, agrees likewise with the Book of Bertram, which he treats as obscure and perplexed, there can be nothing thence concluded but what will be to the disadvantage of this Council, wherein was condemned for here∣tical, what only ought to be esteemed obscure.

BUT seeing our Author design'd to speak of the pretended obscurity of John Scot's Writings, methinks he ought not to joyn to the place of Durand that of Lanfranc, who reproaches Berenger, that as soon as the Council as∣sembled at Rome knew that by his highly praising the Book of John Scot, and blaming that of Paschasus, Berenger had deviated from the Faith of the Church, he was thrown out from the Communion of the Faithful; for 'tis not credible, the Council would have been so severe against the perplext style of John Scot, even to the condemning his Book to the flames, had not his Book been apparently written against Paschasus. And truly how could this be at first so understood both at Paris, at Verceil, and at Rome as that in the sense of these Councils, to praise Paschasus was properly to condemn John Scot?

OUR Author pretends in the last place, that seeing Lanfranc, Berenger, and Ascelin, and the rest of the Writers of the 11th. Century, mention on∣ly John Scot when they speak of the adversaries of Paschasus and their con∣demnation, one must conclude that from the time of Lanfranc and Beren∣ger, there was no other Book known which appeared contrary to the Do∣ctrin of Paschasus but that of John Scot.

BUT the silence of these Authors is no more favourable to him than their testimonies. In effect, supposing that in the 11th. Century there did not appear any other Book against Paschasus but John Scot's, which cannot be affirm'd without rashness and injustice, considering the care which has been taken to conceal from us whatsoever might inform us in this point; it does not follow John Scot's Book and Bertram's be one and the same. By this reason must the Epistle of Raban to Egilon, and his answer to Heribold Bishop of Auxerre, wherein he has opposed the sentiments of Paschasus, be the Book of John Scot. For there was no mention of these Writings of Ra∣ban, in the time of Berenger, Lanfranc and Ascelin.

MOREOVER, our Author himself refutes his own opinion when he urges the silence of these Authors; for it appears by the testimony of Lan∣franc, Berenger, and Ascelin, that Paschasus and John Scot were regarded as the two principal men in this Dispute: it is then very likely that the Book of John Scot was directly written against Paschasus: Paschasus was therein ei∣ther named, or at least apparently meant, which is not so in the Writings

of Bertram, who handles matters in a less polemical manner, and ne∣ver names Paschasus, nor seems to give the least hint of him, which has ap∣parently tended to its preservation. And this is what I had to remark on the first proof of our Author.

TO establish the second, to wit, that the proper character of the style of Bertram is the same as that of John Scot, our Author pretends that the se∣veral * 1.38 judgments of knowing persons of the Roman Communion and of our own, touching the Doctrin of Bertram's Book, are testimonies evident enough of the proper character of his genius, that is to say, of a genius naturally confused and perplex'd, or dissimulative, which fears to discover clearly its thoughts on the subject which it treats of, and affects to contra∣dict it self the more dexterously to insinuate its own sentiment, and avoid censures. He assures us afterwards that this character appears with greater clearness in John Scot's Dialogue of Natures, and in his Book of Predesti∣nation; whence he concludes that we must not doubt but the Book of Ber∣tram is John Scot's. It is in the same respect after our Author had alledged some instances of the contradictions of John Scot, and judged uncharitably that they proceeded not from a perplex'd and confused head, seeing that when he will he most clearly explains his notions without contradicting himself, but that these are only stratagems of a Philosopher who was more a Pagan than a Christian, he affirms the same may be found in Bertram's Book, which seems in twenty places to deviate from the Doctrin of the Real Presence, and which yet seems in as many places to approve of it, so that a man does not know where to have him.

BUT the two parts of our Authors remark contradict and oppose each other. For if John Scot had naturally a confused and perplexed mind, how comes it that he clearly explains his thoughts when he will, and keeps firm when he pleases without contradicting himself. This is not the character of a confused and perplexed head. Secondly, We ought not to believe that as soon as an Author falls into contradiction, which has sometimes hap∣ned to the Fathers themselves, as every body knows, and especially in mat∣ters which have perplexed John Scot, and wherein he has contradicted him∣self, he then makes use of the stratagems of a Philosopher that is more a Pagan than a Christian. Thirdly, Our Author impertinently feigns that Bertram has affected obscurity and ambiguous expressions. This Bertram, be he who he will, was certainly upheld by King Charles the Bald, and Heribold the chief person of the Gallican Church was of his sentiment as well as Raban, and what is more remarkable it appears that he defended the publick Doctrin of the Church. Fourthly, Our Author should not al∣ledg the judgment of the Centuriators of Magdebourg to shew this Book to be obscure in the judgments of those of our own party. If the Centuria∣tors have suspected some expressions of Bertram's Book, we know that from 1537. Bulinger cited it with Elogies. Moreover, that some of the Doctors of the Roman Communion have mention'd Bertram's Book, as if it made * 1.39 for them. This is purely th' effect of this prejudice which has made them produce the writings of Raban, as if Raban had been of their opinion, al∣tho 'twas well known in the 12th. Century that Raban wrote against Pas∣chasus. The Censurers who condemned Bertram's Book, and who are pub∣lick persons, are sooner to be believed than private men.

OUR Author remarks again a second character of the genius of John Scot, which he believes is in Bertram's Book, to wit, these arguments put in form, this crowd of Syllogisms and Enthymemes heapt up one upon an∣other; these Maxims, and these Principles drawn from the Philosophy of Aristotle. For as he shews by the testimony of S. Prudencius, Bishop of Troy, and Florus, Deacon of the Church of Lyons, this is the way of John Scot in Disputes, he pretends that all this form of reasoning is to be met with in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, of which he produces three instances.

BUT this other conformity is as ill grounded as the preceding ones. I confess that the way of John Scot is very argumentative. One may observe it in his Books of Predestination, as Prudencius and Florus have reproach'd him. But I do not see that because there are some Philosophical Argu∣ments in Bertram's Book, (our Author produces but three, and those also con∣tain'd in the same Period) he must immediately draw this conclusion, there∣fore the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is John Scot's. Nor yet had Bertram named any where Aristotle, which John Scot failed not to do, as ap∣pears in several places of his Manuscript Treatise of Natures. But Bertram has not so much as the name of this Philosopher.

YET seeing our Author puts us upon considering the genius of these Authors, let us shew a little what is the genius of John Scot, and that of Bertram's, whence it will clearly appear there's nothing so absurd as to make John Scot Author of the Book of Bertram. Here are some of their Characters.

BERTRAM follows the holy Scriptures and the Fathers, as he pro∣tests * 1.40 in the beginning; and John Scot prefers reason before any Authority. He makes this a Maxim, whence he particularly esteems Philosophy, and sends us at every moment to the Writings of Aristotle. He does thus in his Treatise of Predestination, as Prudencius and Florus justly upbraid him.

BERTRAM follows closely his subject without letting it go out of sight; and John Scot makes frequent Digressions, as we see particularly in his Manuscript Treatise of Natures.

BERTRAM seems to stick to certain Authors, as S. Hierom, S. Au∣gustin, S. Fulgencius, Isidor, S. Gregory; and John Scot affects others, as S. Ba∣sil, S. Gregory Nazianzen, whom he confounds with S. Gregory of Nysse, S. Ambrose, the counterfeit Denis the Areopagite, Boetius, S. Maximus. So that a body may say one of 'em apply'd himself to the Latin Fathers, and the other to the Greek ones, whom he preferred before the Latin ones, as he himself affirms in his Treatise of Natures.

BERTRAM's Latin style is polite enough for the Age he wrote in, and I find but one Greek word in his whole Treatise, and which he alled∣ges only because 'tis found in a passage of S. Isidor which he cited. Whereas * 1.41 John Scot affects a Greek phrase and manner of speaking, and intermixes his Latin with a great many Greek words, which render his style very singu∣lar and difficult, as it has been observed by Anastasius the Library Keeper, and Petrus Crinitus.

BERTRAM has no barbarous words, whereas John Scot seems to affect them.

BERTRAM makes use only of Authors known for Orthodox, John * 1.42 Scot declares that he will not scruple to borrow Arms from heretical Books.

BERTRAM pertinently cites all along the holy Fathers, whereas the other quotes them with much less coherence.

BERTRAM has a particular deference for S. Augustin, as may be seen at the end of the Book of our Lords Body and Blood; whereas John Scot * 1.43 does not so much matter his Authority, but that he often prefers the Greek Fathers before him, refuting S. Augustin by their Authority.

BERTRAM might have combated the opinion of Paschasus by an in∣finite number of Arguments taken from Philosophy, which he does not do; whereas John Scot makes use every where of Philosophical Arguments even * 1.44 to the mixing of 'em with matters which seem to claim an exemption from 'em.

THAT which distinguishes 'em yet more is, that Bertram delivers himself in a most plain manner on the verity of the human nature of our Saviour, since 'twas exalted up into glory by the Resurrection. He teaches that his Body was visible and palpable, whereas John Scot in his Book of Natures defends the impalpability of our Lords Body; so that one may say, * 1.45 he fell into the error of Origen on this question.

I might moreover shew that John Scot, according to his genius and hy∣pothesis, must without doubt have written in a quite different manner from what Ratram has done: and this is a remark which I made on an hundred places in his Manuscript Dialogue of Nature, when I read it. For he rejects * 1.46 therein almost all the consequences of Paschasus his Doctrin, in a very con∣vincing manner, but yet very different from the method of Bertram. Here is an instance thereof; he maintains from the authority of S. Maximus, that bodies have no Blood when they are glorified, which does accommodate it self with the hypothesis of John Damascen, but not with those of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation, as every body knows. Who doubts but he would have used this argument on this question? I might produce seve∣ral others; but since this matter would carry me off too far, and that I have not the Manuscript by me, I shall therefore content my self with the remarks which I have made, believing them sufficient to shew, that the ge∣nius of John Scot was wholly different from Bertram's.

CHAP. V.

Other Difficulties which the Author of the Dissertation forms on the Name of Bertram, Examin'd.

SEEING that the Book of our Lords Body and Blood is a piece of Ratram's, and not of John Scot, we shall not be apt to suppose, as the Author of the Dissertation does, that Berenger or his Disciples first publish'd this Writing under the name of Bertram. And truly it is a hard matter to know the commendations which Hildebert Bishop of Mans, and since Arch Bishop of Tours has given Berenger, and to fall into a suspi∣cion so injurious to the memory of this great man. Hildebert describes Berenger as a person

Cujus cura sequi naturam, legibus uti Et mentem vitiis, ora negare dolis. Virtutes opibus, verum proeponere falso.

A man that follows these Maxims, and those who are taught by him, are far enough from all manner of deceit. I need only then shew that supposing Bertram's Book were John Scot's, the effect would not cease to be near up∣on the same, because John Scot has been a man of great note, and authority in the 9th. Century. But because our Author imagins that the name of Bertram, under which this Book has first appeared, proves clearly that it is not Ratram's, it is fitting before this to consider his Observations,

THE first of which amounts to this, that Sigebert, Trithemius, and * 1.47 Cellot's Anonymous, which are the only Authors who have spoken of Ber∣tram, attribute to him no other works, than those of the Body and Blood of our Lord, and of Predestination, of which, these two first Authors make no mention, in speaking of John Scot, altho it be most certain that John Scot has written two Books on these same subjects; whence he concludes that Bertram is a fictitious Author, which at bottom is no other than John Scot. Thus does the Author of the Dissertation argue.

BUT there is nothing solid in this remark. First, The Book of John Scot of Predestination is dedicated to Hincmar, and Pardulus; whereas Sigebert remarks expresly that that of Bertram, or of Ratram, was dedi∣cated to Charles the Bald, as we see in effect in the Impression of this Book of Ratram, which Mr. Mauguin has publish'd. Secondly, Trithemius con∣firms in two places the Text of Sigebert, altho in another place he says al∣so that Bertram's Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord was dedicated to Charles, which Sigebert was silent in. Thirdly, It is false that Cellot's Anonymous had the name of Bertram, he has always Ratram's in the Ma∣nuscript of Corbie; and in the two Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor we find that in one place this Anonymous gives for adversaries to Paschasus, Ra∣banus and Intramus, and in the following page Babanus and Ratramnus, nei∣ther in one nor in the other of these two places has the Transcriber the name of Bertram, which would be strange if the Title which this Book has had since the 11th. Century were that of Bertram, and not that of Ratram, as we affirm. Fourthly, It is false that Authors speak but of two

pieces attributed to Bertram: Trithemius says in two places that Bertram * 1.48 wrote several other Books. Fifthly, The silence of the Anonymous is im∣pertinently alledged touching the other works of Bertram, seeing he has not the name of Bertram, and should he have had the name, his drift would not carry him to speak of any other Writing of Bertram, but that of the Eucharist. Sixthly, If Sigebert mention'd not the Book of the Eucharist which John Scot wrote by the order of Charles the Bald, there can be nothing con∣cluded hence unless it may be affirm'd by the same reason, that his other works, as that of Natures, have been attributed to other Authors. Se∣venthly, There is nothing more natural than to say that Trithemius has com∣prehended the Books of Predestination, and of the Eucharist of John Scot, when he says Joannes dictus Erigena scripsit quoedam alia. * 1.49

THE second remark of this Author is, that those who speak of Ber∣tram, * 1.50 do not know him particularly, nor agree about his true name; that Sigebert who in some Manuscript Copies calls him Ratram, does not denote the quality he had, which he is wont to do in speaking of other Authors; that the Abbot Trithemius who speaks of Bertram in three places, could not say in what Diocess, nor in what Monastery he made himself so famous, altho he always made these kind of remarks in speaking of th' Illustrious men of the order of S. Bennet, so that there's reason to believe that he too lightly made the Elogium of Bertram, whose works were apparently un∣known to him; in fine, that the Anonymous who designs the other Au∣thors by their qualities, as Raban, Heribold, Paschasus, Egilon speaks of Ratram as of an unknown person, Ratramnus quidam, denoting that he knew nothing of him, but that his name was Ratram, or Intram, as speak the Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor.

BUT our Author is mistaken in his suppositions. First, It is not true Sigebert gives constantly to the Writers, of which he speaks, the Ecclesia∣stical qualifications they had, the contrary appears from the 84. 91. 93. 94. 103. and other Chapters of his Catalogue. Secondly, I know not what Trithemius was wont to do in his second Book of Writers of the Order of S. Bennet, I never saw this work. Yet the little certainty which I found in the judgment of our Author, on the custom of Sigebert, makes me be∣lieve that he has not judged better of that of Trithemius. In the main, I am not greatly solicitous whether Trithemius has seen, or not seen the Wri∣tings which he attributes to Bertram. Yet I cannot but observe here the va∣nity * 1.51 of mens judgments. In 1652. the Elogies which Trithemius gives to Bertram, oblige Mr. Herman to believe, that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, is the most Orthodox piece in the world. And in 1669. these same commendations which Trithemius gives to Bertram, oblige the Author of the Dissertation to affirm that Trithemius never read it, and so prais'd Bertram without any consideration. Thirdly, It seems to me that the manner after which Cellot's Anonymous has treated Ratram, not know∣ing him, but by his Book, makes him not an Author unknown to others. For supposing Ratram were entirely unknown to this Anonymous, who li∣ved in the 12th. Century, we know that Florus the famous Deacon of the * 1.52 Church of Lyons was likewise treated no better than a quidam by the Histo∣rians of the 12th. and 13th. Century, and Paschasus himself was so little known by Gaudefredus the Monk of Claravod, at the end of the 12th. Cen∣tury, that Gaudefredus confounds him with Paschasus Deacon of the Roman Church, who lived about the year 500. Amalarius was very famous in the

9th. Century, and well known by Lewis the Debonnair, by whose order he * 1.53 wrote. The Transcribers have corrupted his name in the Catalogue of Si∣gebert, and turned it into Attularius; Trithemius speaks of him in his Cata∣logue under the name of Hamularius, and after an hundred Disputes he re∣mains still in a manner unknown. Fourthly, It is surprizing enough to see the Author of the Dissertation attributing to the Authors themselves the faults of the Transcribers, who have written the name of Ratram. He tells us that Sigebert gives to Bertram the name of Ratram in some Manuscript Copies, that Trithemius speaks of him under three different names, of Ber∣tram, of Bertramnus, and of Bertrannus, that the Anonymous Author calls him Ratramnus, or Intram: I know not whether he speaks in good earnest, or to deride us: But if he speaks seriously that those who according to his supposition changed the Title of the Book of John Scot, made it pass on purpose under these different names in different Copies 'twould have been good before a conjecture of this kind was offered, to undertake the con∣firming of this discovery by the Authority of some Manuscripts of the Body and Blood of our Lord, wherein might be seen these different names.

THE last mark of the supposition which the Author of the Disserta∣tion * 1.54 offers is, that if we will not acknowledg Bertram for a feign'd Author, and the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord for the work of John Scot, we shall find our selves forced to admit such strange consequences, and which approach so near to impossibilities, that the like cannot be parallel'd by all Antiquity.

BUT we need only to run thro the principal difficulties which our Au∣thor proposes to find that all this is nothing. First, It is not an absurdity to pretend that in the 9th. Century there were two Authors, one named John Scot, known of all the world for the Author of the first Translation of the Hierarchy of the feign'd Denys into Latin: The other called Ratramnus, whose name thro the ignorance of Transcribers, was corrupted into that of Bertram, or Bertramnus, or Bertran, as that of Amalarius has been into At∣tularius, that of Aimoinus into Aumoinus, Ammonius and Annonius, under which this Author was first publish'd at Paris in the year 1514. Secondly, Neither is it any more an absurdity to say they were both of 'em adversaries to Paschasus, not sercet, as our Author affirms, but open ones, in writing against his Doctrin. The Anonymous Author mentions several adversaries of Paschasus, as Raban and Ratramnus. Thirdly, It is not so monstrous an impossibility to maintain that Ratramnus and John Scot wrote both of 'em on the subject of the Eucharist, and on Predestination: There were in their times two Disputes on these subjects, and in effect we have their two Treatises of Predestination, publish'd by Mr. Mauguin. We know that in the 11th. Century the Popes burnt John Scot's on the Eucharist, and with∣out doubt their partisans who suppressed all Berenger's Books, and those of his Disciples, have likewise exterminated with the greatest care the Copies of that of John Scot. By good hap that of Ratramnus, who is mention'd in the 12th. Century, as an adversary to Paschasus, is yet extant, under the corrupted name of Bertram. Fourthly, Neither is there any absurdity to conceive that the Writings of these two Authors touching the Eucharist have been, the one dedicated to King Charles the Bald, and the other com∣posed by his Order. Ratramnus and John Scot were both of 'em particularly known and esteem'd by this Prince. Ratramnus has written by his Order the Book of Predestination, and John Scot in obedience to his Commands has

translated the Hierarchy of the pretended Denys, and was always greatly esteem'd by him. Fifthly, It is not absurd to believe that John Scot was oblig'd to write on the same subject as Ratramnus; their judgment was so considerable in their time, that Hincmar and Pardulus, two famous Bishops, oblig'd John Scot to write on Predestination, and an Assembly of Bishops oblig'd Ratramnus to write against the objections of the Greeks, which Pope Nicholas had sent them. Sixthly, It is an imaginary difficulty to say they have both of 'em had the fancy to give to Charles the Bald, the Title of Charlemain. I have shewed that they have not done it; but that Berenger has been mistaken in explaining this Title Ad Carolum Regem: and that it is very possible those who Printed the Book of Bertram have understood this Title as Berenger did in a like subject, and in the same dispute. Seventh∣ly, It is not an impossibility for two Books of the Body and Blood to con∣tain each of 'em but one Book of a very indifferent size. Eighthly, There is no more difficulty to believe that two Writers who treat on the same sub∣ject have used the same Witnesses, the same Orison which was said every day in the Service, than that they have drawn the same conclusions, and in terms perhaps not absolutely the same, but very near one another. Paschasus brag∣ged in his Letter to Frudegard, that this Orison was made for him, which caused all his Adversaries to examin it, and urge the proper terms of it against him, without changing any thing therein. Neither do I any more believe that after what I have represented of the genius of these Authors, any bo∣dy will imagin they were both of 'em equally addicted to Aristotle's Philo∣sophy, and were both wont to illustrate the mysteries of Religion by Argu∣ments put in form, by Enthymemes, by Maxims and Principles drawn from Philosophy: I have shew'd the difference which there is between the genius of Bertram and that of John Scot. Tenthly, It is equally false that neither of 'em dared to discover their minds touching the Real Presence. Our Au∣thor himself will have Bertram's Book to be John Scot's, and John Scot's Book was burn'd in a full Council, because it opposes it. Eleventhly, There is no great matter of wonder that after the question was moved, and the Book of John Scot burn'd, there should be more diligent search made after the Books which respected a Dispute touching which Berenger maintain'd that Paschasus gave the occasion by his novelties, and thus the Book of Ra∣tram has appear'd since that of John Scot has disappear'd.

IN fine, twelfthly, There are no rational people that will be perplexed with this imaginary difficulty of the Author of the Dissertation, to wit, that of one of these Authors, which is Bertram, there should remain nothing that is certain to posterity, neither in respect of his quality, nor his name, altho his Book has remain'd, and that the quality of the other, to wit, John Scot, should be well known, altho his Book be lost. It is apparent enough who Ratramnus was, and that Bertram is but a name corrupted thro the ignorance of the Transcribers. But what I now represented is sufficient to dissipate the illusion, which the name of Bertram had produced, and all reasonable people will be fully convinced that Ratram is the Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, and not John Scot. We have only then to shew that the authority of this Book will be of no less weight, sup∣posing John Scot were the Author of it. For which purpose I have design'd the second part of this Answer.

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. * 1.55 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 * 1.56 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 * 1.57 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, * 1.58 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 * 1.59 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. * 1.60 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 * 1.61 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, * 1.62 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 * 1.63 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 * 1.64 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 * 1.65 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 * 1.66 735. 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 * 1.67 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 * 1.68 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 * 1.69 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 * 1.70 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, * 1.71 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 * 1.72 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. * 1.73

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 * 1.74 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 * 1.75 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 * 1.76 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 * 1.77 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 * 1.78 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, * 1.79 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

  Book 1. of Euch. c. 1. Indic. Quirog. Ind. Clem. VIII. Indic. Sandov. An. 1612. Praefat. in Bibl. Sanct.
• * 1.2

  Proleg in appar.
• * 1.3

  Joan. Rosseus. proleg. in 4. lib. adv. Oecolamp. Artic. 2.
• * 1.4

  Indic. Belgic. voce Bertramus.
• * 1.5

  Lib. 1. de Praes. Chr. in Euch. c. 2. p. 10.
• * 1.6

  In Calvini ef∣fig. spect. 3. Col. 21. & Spect. 8. col. 72. Book 2. of Euch. Auth. 39. p. 666. and Usher de success. Eccl. c. 2. p. 41.
• * 1.7

  Dissert. Hist. c. 17. p. 134, 135.
• * 1.8

  Tome 2. Spicil.
• * 1.9

  Dissert. Hist. c. 17. p. 135.
• * 1.10

  Epist. ad De Luc d' Ach. T. 2. Spicil.
• * 1.11

  Answer to the Perpetuity, part 3. ch. 1.
• * 1.12

  Durand. Troar. de Corp. & Sang. Chr. part 9. De Praedest. cap. 31. Epist. ad Berenger. in Lanf. oper.
• * 1.13

  In Indic. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 voce Bertram 〈◊〉〈◊〉 lib. 2. de 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Aut. 39. p. ••. 6.
• * 1.14

  Erotem, page 132, 133.
• * 1.15

  Si•• medit Tho. Waldensis, an. 1521. Paris. Labbe de Script. p. 205. T. 2.
• * 1.16

  Erotem, p 132. Dissert. Hist. p. 134.
• * 1.17

  Epist. 3. S. xxiii. & seq. opp ad hist. Goth. p. 569. col. 2.
• * 1.18

  Praefat. in T. 2. Spicil. Part 3. c. 5. T. 1. de Script. Eccl. p. 53. & T. 2. p. 06. Triumph of the Euchar. p. 18, 63, 66, 68, 94, 95, 96, 97.
• * 1.19

  Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacra∣ment, book 5. ch. 2. p. 264.
• * 1.20

  Artic. 2. of the Dissert. on John Scot.
• * 1.21

  De Success. Eccles. p. 39. c. 2. Du Perron, Book 2 Auth. 39. p 666.
• * 1.22

  De Success. Eccl. c. 2.
• * 1.23

  See Labb. de Script. Eccles. in Sigiber.
• * 1.24

  Tom. 1. Spicil. p. 323, 324. c. 3.
• * 1.25

  T. 1. Mauguin, p. 29. Microp. p. 512. T. 1. Maug. p. 109.
• * 1.26

  T. 1. Maug. p. 30.
• * 1.27

  Microp p. 513, 514. T. 1. Maug. p 61. T. 1. Maug. p. 13.
• * 1.28

  Maug. Dissert. Hist. p. 141.
• * 1.29

  Vide Dissert. Hist. Maug. p. 357, 358. Penit. cap. 33.
• * 1.30

  T. 1. Maug. p. 21.
• * 1.31

  T. 2. de Sacra. c. 61.
• * 1.32

  Dissert. Hist. p. 357, 358. Apol. for the Holy Fathers, part 5. p. 297.
• * 1.33

  Art. 3. of the Dissert. on John Scot.
• * 1.34

  Ibid. sect. 1.
• * 1.35

  De Script. Eccl. catai. c. 95. Catal. fol. 57. Prolog. in lib 4. adv. Oecol. Indic. Belg.
• * 1.36

  Sigeb, Catol. c. 85. & 99. De Script. Eccl. fol. 53. & 55. Praefat. gener. in vit. Sanct. c. 4. sect. 7. Labbe de Script. Eccl. T. 2. p. 820. & seq.
• * 1.37

  Lib. de Corp. & Sang. Dom. part 9.
• * 1.38

  Article 3. of the Dissert. on John Scot.
• * 1.39

  Commentar. in 1 ad Cor. 10. p. 190.
• * 1.40

  De Nat. l. 1. p. 56. & lib. 4. p. 167.
• * 1.41

  Epist. ad Card. Calv. in Syll. Epist. Hiber. De Honest. dis. l. 24. c. 11.
• * 1.42

  T. 1. Maug. •• 109. 111. Ibid. p. 112, 113.
• * 1.43

  De Natur. l 5. p. 343.
• * 1.44

  T. 1. Maug. p. 111, 112. 182.
• * 1.45

  Lib. 2. p. 75, 76. 99.
• * 1.46

  Lib. p. 17, 18. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. 2••. 30. 35. 37, 38, 39. 42. 46, 47, 50. 56. Lib. 2. p. 76. Lib. 2. p. 162. 178. Lib. 4. p. 292. 297. 300. 306, 3••7. Lib. 5. p. 343. 345. 348 350. 364.
• * 1.47

  Dissert. Art. 3. sect. 3.
• * 1.48

  De Script. Eccl. fol. 57. & in chron. Hirsaug.
• * 1.49

  Ibidem.
• * 1.50

  Dissert. ibid.
• * 1.51

  Hieron. ab ang. Forti Epist. 3. p. 63.
• * 1.52

  Guil. Malmsb. A. 883. Sim. Dunelm, p. 148. Math. Westm. ann. 889. apud Baron. A. 1118. sect. 29.
• * 1.53

  See Labb. of Writ Eccles. in Amalar.
• * 1.54

  Ibidem.
• * 1.55

  T. 1. Maug. p. 29.
• * 1.56

  Concil. apud Vermer. T. 2. Nov. Bibl. Mss. p. 735.
• * 1.57

  Hist. Fr. T. 1. p. 470. Annal. 876. sect. 3. 39. T. 3. A. 886. sect. 10, 11.
• * 1.58

  T. 2. Nov. Bib. Mss. p. 4••5.
• * 1.59

  T. 2. Maug. 132.
• * 1.60

  Syll. Epist. Hyber. n. 33. p. 64. & seq.
• * 1.61

  Part 3, ch. 3.
• * 1.62

  De honesta Discipl. 14. c 11. Genev. p. 30.
• * 1.63

  Append. ad Hist. Gothesc. p. 583.
• * 1.64

  Artic. 1. of his Dissert. o•• John Scot.
• * 1.65

  Art. 4, 5, 6, 7. of his Dissert. on John Scot.
• * 1.66

  Artic. 4.
• * 1.67

  Sect. 9. cap. 12.
• * 1.68

  Append. ad Hist. Goth. p. 885.
• * 1.69

  Hist. Fran. T. 3. p. 359.
• * 1.70

  Antiq. Brit. p. 340, 341, 342.
• * 1.71

  T. 1. Maug. p. 739. Append. p. 585. Aunal. Angl. Ann. 883. sect. 41.
• * 1.72

  Guill. Malmsb. de gest. Reg. Angl. l. 2. c. 4. p. 24.
• * 1.73

  Usser de success. Eccl. c. 2.
• * 1.74

  Syntagm. de Nith.
• * 1.75

  De Euch. p. 1. c. 21. In vita Pasch.
• * 1.76

  Artic. 7.
• * 1.77

  Vide Vales. append ad Euseb. Hist.
• * 1.78

  Ad 4. id. Nov.
• * 1.79

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