The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Part 1

The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages · Part 1

p. 277THE 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 having 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 forged piece, or at leaſt as a Book corrupted by the Proteſtants.

p. 278IN the year 1559. thoſe that were employed by the Council of Trent Book 1. of Euch. c. 1. Indic. Quirog. Ind. Clem. VIII. Indic. Sandov. An. 1612. Praefat. in Bibl. Sanct.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 judgment 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 Diſciples under the name of Bertram, (an Orthodox Author) to make it the better received. Poſſevin the Jeſuit, and ſome others, followed the opinion of Sixtus, and carried on the ſame accuſation againſt the Authors of Proleg in appar.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 Joan. Roſſeus. proleg. in 4. lib. adv. Oecolamp. Artic. 2.ſhewed that this accuſation was unjuſt and raſh, which has obliged the Author 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 Indic. Belgic. voce Bertramus.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, excuſing them, yea often denying 'em by ſome tergiverſation invented expreſly, or giving them a commodious ſenſe when they are urged againſt us in Diſputes 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 Bertramnus, leſt the Hereticks ſhould ſcoffingly tell us we ſmother Antiquity, and prohibit 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, ſeeing 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 Lib. 1. de Praeſ. Chr. in Euch. c. 2. p. 10.the Doway Divines, but this expedient is become wholly impoſſible ſince there have been ſeveral Manuſcripts found in places unſuſpected, and that p. 279theſe Manuſcripts appear wholly conformable to the Prints, as we are inform'd In Calvini effig. 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.Eccl 2by 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 Diſſert. Hiſt. c. 17. p. 134, 135.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 juſtifying 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 Hereticks, to wit, certain Stercoraniſts (who according to Cardinal Perron, appeared 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 Euchariſt, 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 teſtimony of Cardinal Du Perron, and others who have ſeen Bertram's Manuſcript, 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. Mauguin 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 Proteſtants 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.

p. 280OTHERS of better judgments in the Romiſh Communion have clearly 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 advantageous 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 famous an Author as Ratramnus, in decrying him for an Heretick on the ſubject 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 pretended 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 Treatiſe of the Euchariſt, which was publiſh'd ſince his death by the Abbot Faget 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' Tome 2. Spicil.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 acknowledging 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 Roman Faith, to ſay that Paſchaſus, which is, as it were, the head of it, according to the Hypotheſis of the Proteſtants, was oppoſed by all the learned 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 Diſſert. Hiſt. c. 17. p. 135.obſerv'd, That this Ratram was ſo famous in his time, that after theſe bickerings p. 281with Hincmar, Hincmar himſelf and the other French Prelates, commiſſion'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 attributed 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 Epiſt. ad De Luc d' Ach. T. 2. Spicil.of Bertram, and attributed to Ratram by Sigebert and Trithemius. He believed 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 unwarrantable 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. Secondly, He delivers Paſchaſus from the hands of an adverſary who was conſtantly 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 Euchariſt. Fourthly, He diſcharges his Church of the reproach of having condemned in the 11th. Century, and ſtill at this day condemning a Doctrin which was taught in the 9th. by an Orthodox Author, ſuch as was Ratram. 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 Author of the Book in queſtion, but John Scot, or Erigenus. Mr. Claude has Anſwer to the Perpetuity, part 3. ch. 1.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 importunity 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 p. 282have 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 Author 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 Perpetuity 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 tolerable, 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 indifferent 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 acknowledges 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 reproached him with this deceit, or thoſe of his Party? Where are the Manuſcripts 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 likelihood for having attributed their Maſters Books to names of far greater renown 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, p. 283named 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 Virgin, againſt three Infidels. We know likewiſe that Paſchaſus his Book touching 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 contrary 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 fathered 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 conſideration, 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 Durand. Troar. de Corp. & Sang. Chr. part 9. De Praedeſt. cap. 31. Epiſt. ad Berenger. in Lanf. oper.of Synod who cenſured it in the ſame terms. Thirdly, That another Council 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 Paſchaſus. Sixthly, That in the 12th. Century Cellot's anonymous Author teſtifies 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 attributed 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 acknowledges that Berenger or his Diſciples conſidered this Book as a Buckler for 'em, which 'twas their intereſt to preſerve at the expence of the greateſt fraud and treachery.

DARE the Author of the Diſſertation ſay that Hincmar has underſtood p. 284the 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 deceived in it, that Berenger nor his Adverſaries, nor his Diſciples, have not comprehended what made for 'em or againſt 'em during ſeveral years Diſpute, 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 acknowledged 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 acknowledged 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. Secondly, 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 Catalogue. 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.

p. 285AS 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 Ratram 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 Doctrin 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 publiſh'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 without queſtion ſome Manuſcripts of the Book of Our Lords Body and Blood under the name of Ratramnus, without which they could not ſay of Bertram, what they have ſaid. Thirdly, Cardinal Perron atteſts he ſaw at In Indic. … voce Bertram … lib. 2. de … Aut. 39. p. …. 6.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 p. 286there was no Author named Bertram: ſo that this muſt needs be a corrupted name thro the ignorance of ſome Tranſcribers. It is then fitting to attribute 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 Erotem, page 132, 133.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 Tranſcribers finding in Manuſcripts the Title of this Book, B. Ratrami, or Be. Ratrami, 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, whereof they have made the barbarous name of Phornutus. Secondly, It is likely 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 Si… medit Tho. Waldenſis, an. 1521. Paris. Labbe de Script. p. 205. T. 2.Rabanus. And thus do we read in ſome Manuſcripts of Haimon of Halberſtat, 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 preciſely 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 conſulted 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 explain'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, p. 287That 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 ſentiment Erotem, p 132. Diſſert. Hiſt. p. 134.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. Epiſt. 3. S. xxiii. & ſeq. opp ad hiſt. Goth. p. 569. col. 2.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 publick, 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 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.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 perſon, citing always Ratram of the Body and Blood of our Lord. The famous Preſence of Jeſus Chriſt in the Sacrament, book 5. ch. 2. p. 264.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 believe 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 remains that I refute in a few words what the Author of the Diſſertation offers moſt conſiderable againſt ſome of theſe reaſons.

TO one of theſe reaſons, viz. that the Religious of Corby being named Artic. 2. of the Diſſert. on John Scot.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 reaſon, I ſay, our Author anſwers, that altho Cellot cauſed the name of Ratramnus to be Printed in the two places of his Anonymous, wherein are mention'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 ſecond 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 Anonymous to be Printed from Father Sirmond's Copy, who had taken it from a p. 288Manuſcript of Corby, and not from the Manuſcripts of the Abby of S. Victor. 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 Manuſcript De Succeſſ. Eccleſ. p. 39. c. 2. Du Perron, Book 2 Auth. 39. p 666.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 Ratramnus, juſt as his Babanus is the famous Raban.

TO another reaſon drawn from Sigebert, who makes the Author of the De Succeſſ. Eccl. c. 2.Eccl 2Book 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 repreſent the name of Ratramus, inſtead of Bertramus: to this reaſon, I ſay, the Author anſwers, Firſt, That the work of Bertram of Predeſtination is different 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 conſtantly the name of Bertram, we may believe that a fault has ſlipt into the Manuſcripts of Gemblou, and of Vauvert, where we have the name of Ratramnus.

BUT theſe two Anſwers are not ſatisfactory: As to the firſt, Trithemius as well as Sigebert, ſays poſitively in two places that the Book of Bertram 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 Trithemius ſaw a Treatiſe of Predeſtination under the name of Bertram which contain'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 Predeſtination, 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 eſcaped 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 Gemblou and Vauvert ought to be preferred to theſe Editions, becauſe the Manuſcript 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 p. 289Manuſcript of Gemblou, and the other Editions publiſh'd from Manuſcripts See Labb. de Script. Eccleſ. in Sigiber.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 repreſented.

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, Ratramnus 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 being 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 Parentheſis, 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 Preſence of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in the Euchariſt, rejects likewiſe as an abſurdity, 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 Tom. 1. Spicil. p. 323, 324. c. 3.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 natural conſequences of Paſchaſus his opinion, which certainly ſuffices to juſtifie Ʋſher if he reſpected this matter.

AS to the reaſon which we draw from the conformity which there is between the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, and the works of Ratram, the Author anſwers that this conjecture might have ſome force were p. 290the 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 Writings of Ratram, and in that of Bertram, for which he alledges ſome examples 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 ſentences 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, T. 1. Mauguin, p. 29. Microp. p. 512. T. 1. Maug. p. 109.Ratramnus, and that of the Body and Blood of our Lord begins Glorioſe Princips; whereas John Scot calls Charles Seniorem. He is treated with the Title 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 obeying; which alſo appears in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Ratram 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 Authors; 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 T. 1. Maug. p. 30.Ratram in his Books of Predeſtination, he deſcends to the foundation, and divides his whole ſubject into two queſtions: we find the ſame regularity Microp p. 513, 514. T. 1. Maug. p 61. T. 1. Maug. p. 13.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 Moderator 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 Body and Blood of our Lord with the other works of Ratram, were that trouble 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 evidently th' injuſtice which has been done to Ratram in attributing the Book of Bertram 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 concerning Predeſtination, and this expreſſion Trina Deitas; and who on the other condemned as an error and novelty contrary to the Faith the Opinion p. 291of 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 Ratram, 'twas becauſe he had the Council of Creſſy on his ſide, 'twas becauſe Maug. Diſſert. Hiſt. p. 141.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 Paſchaſus; the King knew it, and kept him in his Palace, which was a ſufficient prejudice againſt Hincmar. The famous Raban conſulted by Heribold Biſhop of Auxerre and Arch-Chaplain, that is to ſay, great Almoner, had clearly taken part againſt the ſentiments of the ſame Paſchaſus; and the learned Church of Lyons who had perſecuted John Scot, whilſt he defended the opinions 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 believed this Controverſie to be as important as it is at this day, which is contrary to all probability. For, Firſt, Hincmar contents himſelf with criticiſing on the opinion of John Scot in very ſoft terms, he does not call it Hereſie, 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 Vide Diſſert. Hiſt. Maug. p. 357, 358. Penit. cap. 33.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 anſwer to Heribold, publiſh'd by Stewart. Hincmar always mentions Heribold T. 1. Maug. p. 21.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 T. 2. de Sacra. c. 61.that Ratram did not write the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, becauſe Hincmar would have reproached him with it, what judgment muſt we make of this Authors affirming that John Scot wrote this Book of Bertram'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 Treatiſe 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 p. 292profeſt enemy to the Real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation? Why did Nicholas the firſt ſuffer this Hereſie growing in the boſom of Charles the Bald, without warning this Prince of it? That ſame Nicholas who concerned himſelf 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 queſtion agitated at the Court of Charles the Bald, in which this Prince did intereſt 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 without being concerned? The fault which our Author commits in this reflection 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, Diſſert. Hiſt. p. 357, 358. Apol. for the Holy Fathers, part 5. p. 297.For example, he always treats Gottheſcalc as an Heretick, altho it be believ'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 Hincmar 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 Hereſie. 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 perſuade that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, Publiſh'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 whatſoever the Author of the Diſſertation alledges to fortifie the Conjecture 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 forein Title. Nevertheleſs I will ſhew that the proofs which he offers have no ſolidity.

p. 293THESE proofs are, 1. That the Book of Bertram is entirely conformable Art. 3. of the Diſſert. on John Scot.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 Ibid. ſect. 1.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 preſently 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 Fathers, 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 general, there having been ſcarcely any of the Authors of the 9th. Century, who have not affected to follow chiefly theſe three Doctors. 3. Our Author 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 veritate, is not of Bertram, nor of John Scot, but the Text it ſelf of the Prayer 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 manner than in forming it thus, Specie gerunter iſta non veritate. We muſt alſo p. 294obſerve, and that as Aſcelin relates, that John Scot cited this Oriſon under 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 informs 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 dedicated 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 Sigebert, from the Abbot Trithemius, from John Biſhop of Rocheſter, and the De Script. Eccl. catai. c. 95. Catal. fol. 57. Prolog. in lib 4. adv. Oecol. Indic. Belg.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 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.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 acknowledg 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 very 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 Title is true, it will be moreover very ſtrange for the fancy of two different perſons 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 p. 295prove 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 Lib. de Corp. & Sang. Dom. part 9.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 ſoluto 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 heretical, 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 aſſembled 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 only John Scot when they ſpeak of the adverſaries of Paſchaſus and their condemnation, one muſt conclude that from the time of Lanfranc and Berenger, there was no other Book known which appeared contrary to the Doctrin 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 Raban, 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 Lanfranc, 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 either named, or at leaſt apparently meant, which is not ſo in the Writings p. 296of Bertram, who handles matters in a leſs polemical manner, and never names Paſchaſus, nor ſeems to give the leaſt hint of him, which has apparently 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 ſeveral Article 3. of the Diſſert. on John Scot.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 contradict 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 Predeſtination; whence he concludes that we muſt not doubt but the Book of Bertram 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 hapned to the Fathers themſelves, as every body knows, and eſpecially in matters which have perplexed John Scot, and wherein he has contradicted himſelf, 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 alledg 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 Centuriators 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 Commentar. in 1 ad Cor. 10. p. 190.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, altho 'twas well known in the 12th. Century that Raban wrote againſt Paſchaſus. The Cenſurers who condemned Bertram's Book, and who are publick perſons, are ſooner to be believed than private men.

p. 297OUR 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 another; 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 Arguments in Bertram's Book, (our Author produces but three, and thoſe alſo contain'd in the ſame Period) he muſt immediately draw this concluſion, therefore 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 appears 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 proteſts De Nat. l. 1. p. 56. & lib. 4. p. 167.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. Auguſtin, S. Fulgencius, Iſidor, S. Gregory; and John Scot affects others, as S. Baſil, 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 alledges only becauſe 'tis found in a paſſage of S. Iſidor which he cited. Whereas Epiſt. ad Card. Calv. in Syll. Epiſt. Hiber. De Honeſt. diſ. l. 24. c. 11.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 ſingular and difficult, as it has been obſerved by Anaſtaſius the Library Keeper, and Petrus Crinitus.

p. 298BERTRAM has no barbarous words, whereas John Scot ſeems to affect them.

BERTRAM makes uſe only of Authors known for Orthodox, John T. 1. Maug. … 109. 111. Ibid. p. 112, 113.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 De Natur. l 5. p. 343.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 infinite number of Arguments taken from Philoſophy, which he does not do; whereas John Scot makes uſe every where of Philoſophical Arguments even T. 1. Maug. p. 111, 112. 182.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, Lib. 2. p. 75, 76. 99.he fell into the error of Origen on this queſtion.

I might moreover ſhew that John Scot, according to his genius and hypotheſis, 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 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.therein almoſt all the conſequences of Paſchaſus his Doctrin, in a very convincing 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 ſeveral 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 genius of John Scot was wholly different from Bertram's.

p. 299CHAP. 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 ſuſpicion 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 upon 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 Diſſert. Art. 3. ſect. 3.Cellot's Anonymous, which are the only Authors who have ſpoken of Bertram, 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 dedicated 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 confirms in two places the Text of Sigebert, altho in another place he ſays alſo 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 Manuſcript 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, Rabanus and Intramus, and in the following page Babanus and Ratramnus, neither 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 p. 300pieces attributed to Bertram: Trithemius ſays in two places that Bertram De Script. Eccl. fol. 57. & in chron. Hirſaug.wrote ſeveral other Books. Fifthly, The ſilence of the Anonymous is impertinently 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 concluded 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. Seventhly, There is nothing more natural than to ſay that Trithemius has comprehended the Books of Predeſtination, and of the Euchariſt of John Scot, when he ſays Joannes dictus Erigena ſcripſit quoedam alia.Ibidem.

THE ſecond remark of this Author is, that thoſe who ſpeak of Bertram, Diſſert. ibid.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 unknown to him; in fine, that the Anonymous who deſigns the other Authors 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 Eccleſiaſtical 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 believe 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 Writings which he attributes to Bertram. Yet I cannot but obſerve here the vanity Hieron. ab ang. Forti Epiſt. 3. p. 63.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 knowing him, but by his Book, makes him not an Author unknown to others. For ſuppoſing Ratram were entirely unknown to this Anonymous, who lived in the 12th. Century, we know that Florus the famous Deacon of the Guil. Malmsb. A. 883. Sim. Dunelm, p. 148. Math. Weſtm. ann. 889. apud Baron. A. 1118. ſect. 29.Church of Lyons was likewiſe treated no better than a quidam by the Hiſtorians 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. Century, that Gaudefredus confounds him with Paſchaſus Deacon of the Roman Church, who lived about the year 500. Amalarius was very famous in the p. 3019th. Century, and well known by Lewis the Debonnair, by whoſe order he See Labb. of Writ Eccleſ. in Amalar.wrote. The Tranſcribers have corrupted his name in the Catalogue of Sigebert, and turned it into Attularius; Trithemius ſpeaks of him in his Catalogue under the name of Hamularius, and after an hundred Diſputes he remains 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 Bertram, 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 confirming 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 Diſſertation Ibidem.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 Author 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 Attularius, 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 without 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 compoſed 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 p. 320tranſlated 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. Seventhly, It is not an impoſſibility for two Books of the Body and Blood to contain 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 ſubject 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 bragged 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 body will imagin they were both of 'em equally addicted to Ariſtotle's Philoſophy, and were both wont to illuſtrate the myſteries of Religion by Arguments 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 Author 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 Ratram 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, ſuppoſing John Scot were the Author of it. For which purpoſe I have deſign'd the ſecond part of this Anſwer.