The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Part 2

The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages · Part 2

p. 303THE 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, ſuppoſing 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 Predeſtination. Theſe two things, ſays he, exalt your Majeſty, in a manner really illuſtrious. T. 1. Maug. p. 29.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 Concil. apud Vermer. T. 2. Nov. Bibl. Mss. p. 735.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 Hiſt. Fr. T. 1. p. 470. Annal. 876. ſect. 3. 39. T. 3. A. 886. ſect. 10, 11.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 Engliſh Annals.

HE that wrote the lives of the Biſhops of Auxerre, deſcribing the advantages 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, T. 2. Nov. Bib. Mss. p. 4…5.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 T. 2. Maug. 132.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 p. 304him 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. Syll. Epiſt. Hyber. n. 33. p. 64. & ſeq.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 Fathers, and eſpecially the Greek ones, which was very rare in the 9th. Century, wherein the learning of the greateſt men was bounded by the knowledg 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 following Ages, as appears from the authentick Teſtimonies, which all Hiſtorians 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 Part 3, ch. 3.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 fertur, perforatus martyr oeſtimatus eſt, Secondly, That of Petrus Crinitus, De honeſta Diſcipl. 14. c 11. Genev. p. 30.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 Roman 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, p. 305and 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 Doctrin of the Euchariſt, turns the buſineſs into admiration, and offers a pitiful reaſon of this ſilence; I cannot ſufficiently wonder, ſays he, that leaving Append. ad Hiſt. Gotheſc. p. 583.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 matter 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 vaniſh, 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 Artic. 1. of his Diſſert. o… John Scot.ſame of John Scot's name, and gives a reaſon why his Book touching the Euchariſt 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 conceal that John Scot did not offer 'em of his own head, but herein only follow'd the opinions of ſeveral famous Fathers amongſt the Greeks and Latins, 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 queſtions, 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 excited p. 306much clamour in the Church. Secondly, Altho the Book of Natures had been known, the errors which are therein contain'd being of the Fathers, 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 common 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 borrow'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 reputation 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 Companion Art. 4, 5, 6, 7. of his Diſſert. on John Scot.of Alcuinus, nor the Founder of the Univerſity of Paris. Secondly, That he was not Abbot of Etheling in England. Thirdly, That the Hiſtory 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 Martyrology.

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 Artic. 4.735. 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 p. 307Univerſity 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 renowned amongſt Authors) would advance by the ſame of his perſon the Original 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 Erigenus 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 Monaſtery was that of Aetheling.

SO that here we have at leaſt Mr. Claude's ſincerity ſecured. Harsfield Sect. 9. cap. 12.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 Append. ad Hiſt. Goth. p. 885.who are of the Roman Church.

I confeſs 'tis ſomewhat difficult to determin preciſely whether the teſtimony 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 general 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 conſtant and univerſal Faith of the Church.

MOREOVER, the reaſons which the Author of the Diſſertation offers 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 Aetheling, 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 oriundum, as ſpeaks William of Malmsbury, are not inconſiſtent with the ſurname 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 p. 308ſurnames 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 become as proper, one retains 'em till death, and after it; which is not inconſiſtent 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, Adelingioe Monaſterii ſui conſtituit Praelatum. When he ſays, De veteri Saxonia Joannem cognomento Scotum; he ſhews ſufficiently that there is not according 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 Impoſtor, 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 follow'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 Alfred, Cujus munificentia illectus, & magiſterio ejus, ut ex Scriptis Regis intellexi, 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 according 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 diſguſt 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 return'd Hiſt. Fran. T. 3. p. 359.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, p. 309ſent on purpoſe by Alfred for him, is different from our John Scot; it cannot 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 Embaſſadors, 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 famous 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 Character, 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 Pariſius 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 Author, 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 obſerv'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, Anaſtaſius 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 altho Aſſerus refers the ſending for of Grimbald and John, to the year 884 p. 310yet 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 Hiſtorians 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 gather 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 Grimbald, 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 Antiq. Brit. p. 340, 341, 342.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 perſons 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 mention 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 Aſſaſſinated 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 Scholars at Malmsbury, and there interred. But it is certain there could be nothing p. 311more 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 wounded at Aetheling, he was carried to Malmsbury, or dying at Aetheling, his body was carried thither, or having been Abbot of Aetheling and Malmſbury 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 Martyrdom, T. 1. Maug. p. 739. Append. p. 585. Aunal. Angl. Ann. 883. ſect. 41.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 Guill. Malmsb. de geſt. Reg. Angl. l. 2. c. 4. p. 24.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 Adeſmibirig.Uſſer de ſucceſſ. Eccl. c. 2.Eccl 2

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 p. 312of 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 acknowledges 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 wherewithal to refute what he himſelf ſays. To fortifie this conjecture he obſerves 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 conjectures 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 William'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 William 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 different 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 Continuer has taken from William, and that the rather, becauſe William has enlarged his Hiſtory farther than the other by thirty years, which is the natural Character of a later Hiſtorian.

p. 313BUT 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 Convent 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 Monuments 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 Hiſtorians 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 tranſiently, 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 Aetheling, 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 Alfred, 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 Doctrins contrary to the principal Fundamentals of Chriſtian Religion.

p. 314I anſwer firſt, That our Author returns continually to his fabulous Hiſtory, 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 miſtake 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 Author 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 pueris 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 Diſſertation 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 expreſſion 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 aeſtimatus 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 verſus: To build hereon conjectures of the falſity of this Hiſtory, is very idle.

p. 315IN fine, the Argument which the Author of the Diſſertation draws from the ſilence of Berenger and his Diſciples who never mention'd the Hiſtory 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 famous Monaſtery of S. Angilbert, nor is he in the Catalogue of the Saints, Fruſtra tamen Angilbertum quaeras, ut & innumeros tutelares noſtros ſanctos Syntagm. de Nith.inter moderna ſanctorum ſyntagmata, ſaid the deceaſed M. Peteau, Counſellor in the Parliament of Paris. A man may ſay the ſame thing of Ingelramnus, 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 forgotten. But thirdly, Suppoſing Berenger and his Diſciples had a particular notice of the Martyrdom and Holineſs of John Scot, all that can be concluded 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 De Euch. p. 1. c. 21. In vita Paſch.have treated John Scot as an Heretick, he would have put a difference between 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, unleſs that Aſcelin ſuffered himſelf to be tranſported by his paſſion and prejudice; 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 remarking 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 Artic. 7.truth of the relation which William of Malmsbury makes touching the Martyrdom of John Scot, nor the eſteem of his Holineſs in that Church wherein he lived.

IT is certainly no leſs vain and irrational for the Author of the Diſſertation 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 martyrology which makes mention of John Scot in the 4th. of the Ides of November 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 p. 316away the name of John Scot from the Roman Martyrology: and tho the words of Henry Firtſimon cited by Fuller and Varoeus were not well underſtood 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 likewiſe 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 Ʋſuard for the Roman one. And in effect the learned are agreed, that the Martyrology Vide Valeſ. append ad Euſeb. Hiſt.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 Menard, 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 Ad 4. id. Nov.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 England, Printed at Liege in 1663. wherein having mention'd him as a Martyr, A. 884 n. 4. & indic. Chron.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 Martyrology.