A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

SECTION XII.

An Examination of the Manuscripts produc'd for John Gersen, or Gessen, an Abbot; whether there was one John Gersen Abbot of Verceil, of the Order of St. Benedict; whether John Gersen was taken for John Gerson; or on the contrary, John Gerson, for John Gersen.

THere remains only now John Gersen, whose Claim to this Book is chiefly founded upon Manuscripts.

The first and most ancient is that which is found at Arona a City of Italy, belonging to the Princes Boromees, in the Novitiat of the Jesuits, which was formerly an Abbly of St. Benedict. This Manuscript came not as Cajetan at first believ'd, from the ancient Library of the Benedictines

of this Monastery; but was brought thither from Geno•• in 1579. by Father Maiolus, who found it in his Father's House. The Author of these Books is there call'd in three places John Gesen the Abbot, once the Abbot John Gesen, and once the Abbot John Gersen. The first Title upon the first Leaf is written with Red Ink: Incipiunt Capitula libri primi Abbatis Joannis Gesen, de Imitatione Christi, & contemptu omnium vanitatum mundi, Caput primum. At the beginning of the second Book there is also written in Red Letters, Incipit tabula libri secundi Abbatis Joannis Gesen de interna Conversatione, Caput primum. At the beginning of the third Book it is also writ∣ten in Red Letters, Incipit Tabula tertii libri Abbatis Joannis Gesen, de interna Christi locutione ad animam fidelem. At the beginning of the fourth Book, that which follows is written with black Ink, Incipiunt Capitula quarti libri Abbatis Joannis Gessen, cum quanta reverentia Christus sit susci∣piendus. Caput primum. At the end of the Book is written with Red Ink, Explicit liber quartus & ultimus Abbatis Joannis Gersen, de Sacramento Altaris. After these Books there follows a Treatise of St. Bernard to his Kinsfolk, of St. Ambrose about Morality and a good Life, and another Fragment of St. Bernard's. All this is fairly written upon Parchment with one and the same hand, and in the same Character, which was judg'd by the Assembly in 1687. to be 300 Years old. This is not the Original Manuscript of the Author, who would certainly have writ∣ten his own Name every-where after the same manner, but it is some Copy.

There appears nothing which can be reasonably objected against this Manuscript. It cannot be accus'd of Falsification in five places, neither can any say, That these Titles are later, after they have been view'd and examin'd by unexceptionable Judges: Neither can the Book be thought very late, after the Judgment they have given of its Antiquity: All that can be said, is, That the Writer may have put the Name of John Gesen, Gessen, or Gersen, for that of John Gerson, But whence then comes it to pass, That he should always give him the Title of Abbot? From whence did he take it? There is no Similitude between Cancellarii and Abbatis: How then should it come into the mind of this Transcriber to give to John Gerson the Title of Abbot? This is diffi∣cult to be explain'd.

The second is the Manuscript of the Monastery of St. Columbanus of Bobio, which the Assembly in 1687. judg'd to be of the same Antiquity with that of Arona, which has the Name of John Gersen at the beginning of the 4th Book only; for at the beginning and end of the other, there is no Name at all. Here follows the beginning, In nomine Domini, Amen. Incipit libellus de Imi∣tatione Christi, & contemptu omnium vanitatum mundi. Capitulum primum. And at the end of the three first Books, Incipit liber Joann s Gersen cum quanta reverentia & devotione sacratissimum dominicum corpus & sanguinem sit sumendum. And at the end of the 4th Book, Explicit, D••o laus & Beatissimae Mariae Virgini. There is afterwards another Treatise of Piety, which begins with these Words, Quoniam Charissime, & hujus miserabilis vitae fugientis aerumnosa via, &c.

The third Manuscript is that of the Congregation of St. Justina, in the Monastery of St. Bene∣dict of Padolirona near to Mantua, as is remark'd at the end, Iste liber est Monachorum Sanctae Ju∣stinae de observantia deputatus Monasterio Sancti Benedicti de Padolirone signatus numero, 451. Where the Name of John Gersen is found twice, once in red Letters at the beginning, Incipit liber Joannis Gersen primus de contemptu Mundi & de Imitatione Christi, and at the end of the Book in black Ink, Explicit liber quartus Joannis Gersen de Sacramento Altaris. As to this last, there is no Suspicion of any changing or razing the Writing, and the Name of John Gersen is certainly written with the first hand. Mr. Naude suspected, That there it ought to have been Gerson, and that the o might have been chang'd into an e: But he durst not maintain this at last, and the very Inspection of the Manuscript which is in the Abbey of St. German de Prez, discovers, That there is no Change nor Razure in this place, as the Assembly in 1671. judg'd.

As to the first Title, there is more Difficulty, Mr. Naude says in his Report, That having consider'd this Title, In∣cipit liber Joannis Gersen primus, whose Words are not in their natural Order, he perceiv'd the Footsteps of a former and more ancient Title, all whose Traces the new superadded Title could not perfectly cover, but still there appear'd I. H. O. and the Moieties of other Letters which might be seen assoon as they are look'd upon with a little Attention: Neither can it be said, That they are the Strokes of the Letters which are on the other side of the Leaf, because being pierc'd with the point of a Penknife, they do not hit against them. Lastly, These words, Liber Joannis Gersen primus, were written with a Red Ink more shining than the following, De contemptu Mundi & Imitatione Christi; so that by this Difference alone of Red and Vermi∣lion, we may certainly know, or at least more clearly prove the Fraud. Wherefore adds he, tho' the Congregation of St. Justina has forgotten it after more than 200 Years; yet 'tis certain this does not give any Antiquity to this Title, since it is altogether false and superadded to another more ancient (which was likewise false, viz. Joannis Gerson, from whence came the three old Letters, I. H. O.) not by a bare Change of Gerson into Gersen, but by reversing and changing the whole Title, for fear lest the Word Cancellarii being left, or any other which could not so well agree to Gersen, it might give occasion to discover the Fraud: For other∣wise the Letter o of the Name of Gerson, might very easily be chang'd into the Letter e.

This Manuscript being carried to Paris, was view'd and consider'd in 1652. by the deceased Mr. de Launoy, who made upon it the following Observations, in the Remarks he wrote upon a Work of a Father of St. Genevieve, Part 3. p. 89.

Upon this occasion, I will tell what I have ob∣serv'd in a Manuscript of the Book of the Imitation, which is in the Abbey of St. German des Prez, and which is said to be the Manuscript of Mantua. The Title is thus, Incipit liber Joannis Ger∣sen

primus de contemptu Mundi, & de Imitatione Christi: The end is thus, Explicit liber quart•••• Joannis Gersen de Sacramento Eucharistiae. In this end there appears not, that ever any Word was chang'd, or any Letter alter'd. That which appears, is what was written at first by the Transcriber. This being so, it seems no ways credible, that there ever was or should be any Change or Alteration in that which is common to the Title and the end, i. e. in Joannis Gersen, because there could be no Reason to change or alter Joannis Gersen in the Title of the Book, and not to change or alter Joannis Gersen at the end of the Book. I hold this, without Dis∣pute, to be reasonable; nevertheless, I have observ'd three things in this Title: 1st, That these Words, Liber Joannis Gersen primus, were written with a Red Ink a very little more shining than the rest, which I believe proceeds only from the greater Abundance of Red Ink in the Pen, when these four Words were form'd, than when the rest were made. We find by Experience, That the Letters which are form'd with much Red Ink in the Pen, are more shining than those which are form'd with less Ink in the Pen, tho' they be all form'd at the same time. 2dly, That the Line of Paper upon which these Words, Incipit Liber Joannis Gersen, are written, is a little smoothed and polished, which reaches above the Line; but I believe this happen'd by the Fault of the Transcriber, who beginning to write, and having mishap'd the first Words of the first Line, he blotted them out with his Finger by drawing it over the Line; yet he could not do it so perfectly, but there would still remain some Mark upon the Paper, where he begun to write what we now read there. However this be, 'tis not possible to say with any Cer∣tainty, what the Transcriber had first written. 3dly, That this Mark and Blot of the Paper, whatever it may have been, goeth above the Word Gersen, but cometh not below it at all; so that in this Word, there appears no Change or Alteration which may decide the Question. This Word is written with the same hand which transcrib'd the whole Book, which is very considerable; for if there had been any Falsification, it must have been in this Word Gersen, and not in that Joannis, because Joannes Gersen and Joannes Gerson, agree in this Name of Joannes. Moreover, I would very willingly perswade my self, That this Manuscript whereof I am now speaking, is not that whereof the Sieur Naude gives his Judgment in his Report, which the R. F. the Abbot of St. Genevieve publish'd in Latin and French, in the third Part of his Book. The Reasons which I have for this are chiefly four. 1st, That the Sieur Naude says in his Report, That these three old Letters, I. H. O. are to be read, which were in the Ti∣tle of the Manuscript which he saw, which are not to be read in that which I saw, and any one may see. 2dly, That the Sieur Naude says, the Word Cancellarii was in the same Title; which cannot any ways be affirm'd of the Manuscript whereof I am now speaking, as every one must believe who will take the pains to consider it. 3dly, That the Word Cancellarii is always follow'd by Parisiensis, there being no Book, nor Tract of Gerson, which goes under this Name Gerson, wherein there is Cancellarii without Parisiensis. But this cannot be affirm'd of this Manuscript which I saw, not only because there is no Appearance that ever Parisiensis was there, but also because there is no room to place it there, in that condition wherein the Title of the Book is. 4thly, That the Sieur Naude makes no doubt, but at the end of the Ma∣nuscript which he saw, there had been before Joannis Gerson: But in that which I saw these Words had never been.

The Assembly in 1671. judg'd, that the Writing of the first Inscription of this Manuscript was entire and unchang'd in the proper Name, and that there was no just Suspicion of Falsification there, nor yet in the Subscription which is at the end written with the same hand.

I saw this Manuscript a little while after, and when I had well-consider'd the Title in question, I judg'd, 1st, That it was written wholly with the same hand. 2dly, That 'tis the same hand which wrote the whole Work. 3dly, That 'tis true, the first Words had been blotted out, and particularly the Word Incipit. 4thly, That still some Letters of that which had been written at first might be observ'd, and among the rest the Term Incipit; and that it might be, the same was also observ'd at the time when Mr. Naude saw the Letters I. H. O. tho' they do not appear at present, nor yet the Prickings which are said to have been made in that place. 5thly, That these Words were not defac'd by scraping the Parchment, for looking upon it by the Light, it is of the same thickness, and it appears not at all to be diminish'd in that place; besides, That if there had been any such Razure, the ancient Letters would no more be seen. 6thly, I observ'd after Mr. Launoy, That there remain'd at the top above the first Line, a speck of dark Red, which appear'd to me to proceed from hence, that the Transcriber had dash'd out with his finger what he had written in Red, and so spread the Red further, which could not so perfectly be taken off, but that still some speck of it would remain. 7thly, I judg'd from hence, That the Transcriber ha∣ving begun the first Words of his Title, Incipit Liber Joannis, had dash'd them out again; per∣haps, because his Pen being over-charg'd with Red Ink, had made a Botch, which oblig'd him to blot out the whole. 8thly, The Space will not allow, that ever there should have been a longer Title in it. 9thly, The Traces of the old Word Incipit are yet to be seen, and those of Joannis were seen at the time when the Title was view'd by Mr. Naude, and therefore it was the same Title. 10thly, It is of a brighter Colour at the beginning, because the Pen of the Transcriber was then more full of Red Ink than at the end, but the first Words are not so lately written as the last. Besides, the Age of this Manuscript, according to the time that it has been in the Congre∣gation of St. Justina, to which it belongs, is no more than 200 Years, according to the Judgment of expert Men, and the Confession of Mr. Naude.

There is one important Remark to be made upon this Manuscript of Padolirona, which is this, That upon the first Leaf there is the Epitaph in Verse of John Gerson, Chancellour of the Univer∣sity of Paris, the same which is to be found upon his Tomb in the Church of St. Paul, at Lyons express'd in these Words,

Magnum parva tenet virtutibus urna Joannem, Praecelsum meritis Gerson cognomine dictum. Parisius celsae Professor Theologiae, Claruit, Ecclesiae qui Consolarius Anno Milleno Domini centum quater at{que} viceno Nono, luce petit superos Julii duodena.

Cajetan mentions this Epitaph: The Sieur Naude never perceiv'd it; for he makes no mention of it in the Report made in 1671. Father Delfau says nothing of it; whereupon his Antagonist crowing over him, he who answer'd confesses, That it was in this Manuscript, but of a late Writing. If it had been written with the same hand which wrote the rest of the Manuscript, there is do doubt but it would have clearly prov'd, That the Name of John Gersen was put in that place for that of John Gerson; but since it is written with a much later hand, as the bare In∣spection of it discovers, it shews only that a certain Person, into whose hands this Manuscript fell, finding there the Name of Gersen at the top, and imagining that this should be Gerson, to whom he knew this Work had been ascrib'd thought fit to write upon the first Leaf being blank, this Epitaph of Gerson; and therefore from hence no Consequence can be drawn as to the first Author.

The fourth Manuscript, which is that which the Benedictines bought of Mr. Sulsa, and which they have in their Library, is also 200 Years old, according to the Confession of those able men, who gave their Judgment about it in 1674. There we find at the end these Words written with Red Ink by the first Hand, Explicit liber quartus & ultimus de Sacramento Altaris Joannis Gersen.

The fifth is the Manuscript in the Monastery of St. John of Parma in little, which contains a Rule of St. Benedict and the Book of the Imitation written with the same hand, whereof the Year is set down at the end of the Rule of St. Benedict; Sanctissimi Benedicti explicit Regula discre∣tione praecipua & sermone luculenta die octavo Augusti, 1466. At the end of the fourth Book of the Imitation is written with the same hand, Explicit liber quartus & ultimus Joannis Gersem de Sacramento Altaris, Amen. The Name is written in this Manuscript as in that of the Monastery of Bobio with an m Gersem, and not Gersen, as in the rest.

The sixth is the Manuscript of Leo Allatius, which belong'd formerly to the Cardinal of Biscia, which probably came from Germany; for the binding was of that Country, and it contain'd the Works of Nicholas D' Inkelspuel, Rector of the University of Vienna, and of John of Tambach, Regent of the University of Prague, and the Bull of a Legat publish'd at Vienna, in 1448. 'Tis written on Paper, and has this Title in Red Letters, Incipit Tractatus Joannis de Canabaco de Imi∣tatione Christi, & contemptu omnium vanitatum mundi, & dividitur in quatuor libros. The Bull dated in 1448. written with the same hand, shews that it could not be written before this Year The Name of Canabaco was added some time after, and above the Line, but still it is done by the same hand, in the same Writing, and with the same Vermilion. Mr. Naude and the As∣sembly in 1671. are in this of the same Opinion. Mr. Naude judg'd, that the Writing of the Manuscript was no older than 1480, or 1500. The Assembly gave no Judgment of its Antiquity. This Surname of Canabacum given to John the Author of the Book of the Imitation, has been dif∣ferently explain'd. Some say, That Canabacum was the place of the Birth of this John, whom they suppose to be the same with Gersen; and since Canabacum is a Place unknown, they have interpreted it Cavaglia, which is a Borough in the Country of Verceil: This was the Opinion of Quatremaires and Walgrave. Father Delfau and those who have written since, seem to have forsaken this Opinion, and durst not maintain, that Canabacum was the Country of John Gersen, and that this Place was Cavaglia: And so it is not known, what the Surname is, from whence it was taken, nor what gave occasion to mention it here. Some may conjecture, that the Writer of this Manuscript having copied it from another, wherein de Gersonio, was ill written, wrote Ca∣nabaco for Gersonio; or rather, that lighting upon a Manuscript wherein there was Cancellario ab∣breviated, as Can••lrio, he read it Canabaco. Howsoever this be, it cannot be prov'd by any Place, that this Joannes de Canabaco is the same who is call'd Joannes Gersen in the other Manuscripts.

The seventh is the Manuscript of Cave, upon which it is written, Iste Liber est Congregationis Cassinensis, and a little after, asservatur in Monasterio Cavae. The Book of the Imitation in this Manuscript is written upon Parchment, in fair Characters, and has no Name of the Author, nor any Date of the Time, being imperfect at the end. But in the first Letter Q there is the Image of a Benedictine Monk, having a Cross in his hand; some think that this is the Pourtraiture of Gersen. Afterwards 'tis said, That the Words of ch. 56. B. 3. gave occasion to this Picture, I have receiv'd from your hand a Cross, and I will carry it until Death. It may indeed be, that this Sentence gave occasion to him who wrote this Manuscript to make this Picture at the beginning: But upon what grounds can it be thence concluded, That the Book of the Imitation was therefore written by a Benedictine Monk? All that can be thence conjectur'd is, That the Writer of this Manuscript was a Benedictine.

The last Piece which is produc'd is a Copy of some Works printed at Venice in 1501. among which is the Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, under the Name of John Gerson, Chancellor of the University of Paris, at the end whereof are to be found these Words written upon De∣sign; Hunc librum non compilavit Johannes Gerson, sed D. Johannes. This Word Johannes has been mended by the Confession of Father Delfau, and that which follow'd has been raz'd out, in the room whereof there is still a blank space, and after it there are these Words, Abbas Ver∣cellensis: After which there is yet more Writing raz'd out, and then at last follow these Words; Ut habetur us{que} hodie propria manu scriptus in eadem Abbatia. This Copy being one of those which were presented at Rome in 1641. to Sieur Naude, he judg'd that this Manuscript Obser∣vation had been falsified, and pretends, That Johannes had been made of the Name Thomas, after so gross a manner, That the Sieur Vincent Galeotti, when he came to read this Writing, read Thomas for Joannes. This Copy was not produc'd at the Assembly in 1671. tho' it was at Paris, and Father Delfau gave no other Reason for it, but that it was in the Library among the printed Books without his knowledge. If this had been the only Reason which hindred the Benedictines from producing it then, they would certainly have shewn it in the Assemblies in 1674. and 1687: But they had Reason to suppress it, because they truly judg'd that this Manuscript Note was of no Authority: First, Because 'tis well known that 'tis much later than 1501. but 'tis not known at what time it was written, nor who is the Author of it: Secondly, Because the Name of Johannes being foisted in, and that of Gersen, or Gessen being not there, it was unserviceable to their Cause: Thirdly, Because this Note, however very late, yet was falsified by a Forger who put into it all that he pleas'd: Fourthly, Because the space might be fill'd up with any other Name besides that of Johannes Gersen, or even that of Thomas a Kempis, that perhaps he might be call'd Abbas Windesemensis, or perhaps even Abbas Vercellensis, be∣cause there was one Thomas a Canon-Regular of St. Victor, Abbot of St. Andrew of Verceil, whom some make a Canon-Regular upon the Credit of an ancient Register of Burials of St. Vi∣ctor's, and others a Benedictin, according to the Picture of a Monk which is said to be upon his Tomb: Fifthly, Because 'tis not certain whether these Words Abbas Vercellensis are the For∣gers, or his who first wrote this Note. And thus the Title of the Abbot of Verceil, which is given to John Gersen, being founded only upon this Note is a meer Chimaera, since Gersen is not at all nam'd there, and the Name of John is foisted in, and therefore no regard ought to be had to a Piece of this Nature. There are two Abbies at Verceil, that of St. Stephen, and that of St. Andrew: This latter was founded at the Expence of Henry II. King of England, after the Murder of Thomas of Canterbury: Whereof the first Abbot in 1227. was Thomas Gallas, a Canon-Regular of St. Victor, or according to others an English Benedictine. He was Abbot till the Year 1260. Upon which account John Gersen is made Abbot of St. Stephen of Verceil, and not of St. Andrew. This Monastery is more ancient, and was of the Order of St. Bene∣dict, until Paul III. in the Year 1536. gave it to the Canons-Regular, after which it was de∣stroy'd in 1581. But no ancient Author speaks of this Abbot John Gersen. Francis Augustin a Clergy-man hath indeed plac'd him in the Edition of his Chronicle at Piemont in 1648. among the Abbots of Verceil, and ascrib'd to him the Imitation of Jesus Christ, but 'tis only upon hear-say from some Benedictine since the Contest of Cajetan, and he durst not mention him in his History of Verceil. There is also cited a Manuscript History of Verceil, written by John Baptista Modena, who says, That we still read in an ancient Manuscript of other Abbots of St. Stephen, which were never reckon'd among the rest. Among whom is another John, who is thought to be the Author of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, because this John, Abbot of Ver∣ceil, cannot be Abbot of any other Abby but the Monastery of St. Stephen. 'Tis doubted whe∣ther this Testimony is true; but supposing it were, 'tis plain, That this Author said this only upon occasion of what had been alledg'd since the starting of this Controversie by the Abbot Cajetan. It must be confess'd, That there is no Proof that John Gersen was Abbot of St. Ste∣phen's at Verceil, no more than there is, That he was a Native of Canabaco, and that Cana∣baco was Cavaglia: And it is not at all known who is this John Gersen, Gersem, Gesen, or Gessen, whose Name is found in the Manuscripts of the Imitation which we have now mention'd. There is none of them which gives him the Title but that of Arona, where he is always styl'd the Abbot Abbatis; but 'tis never observ'd, of what Order, or what place he was: And there∣fore the Benedictines have no more right to appropriate him to themselves than the Bernardins or any other Regulars, which have Abbies and Abbots. John Gesen, or Gersen, or Gessen an Abbot, is grounded upon nothing but only the Manuscript of Arona. John Gersen, or Gersem, without a Title, is founded upon four uncorrupted Manuscripts worthy of Credit, That of St. Columbanus of Bobio, That of Padolirona, That of Slusa, and that of Parma. John, sirnam'd of Canabaco, is only to be found in the Manuscript of Allatius, written since the Year 1448. and this Sirname is there interlin'd, tho' it be written with the same Hand. John, Abbot of Verceil, is founded only upon a Forgery. But for none of these John's can any ancient Author be produc'd who knew him, of has mention'd him, nor any Edition before that of Cajetan in 1616. taken from the Manuscript of Arona, which is Entitled, Venerabilis viri Joannis Gessen Abbatis, Ordinis Sancti Benedicti; wherein the Order, of which he was Abbot, is added without Proof, and without Authority. Walgrave has chang'd the Name of Gessen into Gersen, and has ventur'd to set down his Country and the Place of his Abby, by causing the Imitation to be printed with this Title in 1638. Johannis Gersen Abbatis Vercellensis, Italo-Benedictini. At last,

Father Delfau, who nevertheless ought to have observ'd the weakness of the Proofs upon which the Title of Abbot of the Order of St. Benedict of Verceil is founded, has carried this Mat∣ter yet higher, by giving him the Name of the Abbot of Stephen of Verceil in his last Edition of 1674. Johannis Gersen Abbatis Sancti Stephani Vercellensis Ordinis Sancti Benedicti. There is nothing of this Title but the bare Name of Johannis Gersen, which is Authoriz'd by many Ma∣nuscripts, and the Title of Abbatis, only by the Manuscript of Arona: All the rest is without any Foundation.

When there want Editions and Authors who give the Imitation to John Gersen an Abbot, then the Editions and Authors are alledg'd which ascribe it to Gerson, which are said to be favour∣able to John Gersen. For since, as they suppose, 'tis manifest that the Book was not Gerson's the Chancellor of Paris, and that the Author was certainly a Monk; 'tis pretended that the Reason why it is ascrib'd to Gerson the Chancellor is the similitude of the Name; and that John Gersen being less known than John Gerson, and almost altogether unknown in France, the Name of John Gersen was taken for that of Gerson. That this is much more probable than to say, that the Name of John Gesen, Gessen, Gersen, or Gersem, was put for that of John Gerson. 1. Because there are Manuscripts of Gersen which are thought more ancient than the time wherein Gerson could have Compos'd this Work; for there is one of Melice Dated in 1421. and those of Arona and Bobio without Date are of the Fourteenth Century. 2. Because the Name Abbatis is in that of Arona, a Title which no ways agrees to Gerson. 3. Because it is no ways credible, that it should be written so many ways, in so many different Places, Gersen, Gesen, Gessen, or Gersem, for Gerson, which was a Name well enough known. To this it may be answer'd, that the Name of Gerson was put there, either because he was the Author of it, or because this Work was joyn'd to the Works of Gerson in the same Manuscript as is really found in the Manuscript of Melice, in 1434. After the same manner it has been ascrib'd to St. Bernard, because it was joyn'd with the Works of this Father, as in the former Manuscript of Melice, wherein Gersen is put for Gerson, because the Name of Gerson was perhaps abbreviated in the Manuscript from which this was Transcrib'd, as in the Manuscript of Saltzburg 'tis written John Gers. or rather because the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was taken for an e. That one Manuscript of that Nature, such as that of Arona, could never be the Cause of the Mistake which is found in all the rest; That this Mistake is found only in the Manuscripts of Italy, which may have been Copied out from that of Arona; that the Name Ab∣batis which is in this, may proceed from the Ignorance of the Transcriber; that the various ways in which this Name is written, sometimes Gesen, sometimes Gessen, and sometimes Gersen, all which are found in the same Manuscript of Arona, do plainly shew that the Name of the Author was not well known to him who wrote it; that he added of his own head the Title of Abbot. Lastly, That this Abbot John Gesen, Gessen, or Gersen being wholly unknown, and no Person having ever mention'd him before the Controversie arose between the Benedictines, and Canons Regular about the Author of the Imitation; it is very probable, that he is only a Phantome who never had any real Existence.