Thirdly, There is no convincing proof that it is Thomas a Kempis's, for this proof must either be founded upon the Manuscripts, or the Editions, or the Report of Contemporary Authors, or the Agreement of the Stile. The Manuscripts do not at all prove it in a convincing manner, since the first which was in the year 1441. has not the Name of Thomas a Kempis as the Author, but only as the Transcriber of the Book, and this may have given occasion to put his Name to other Manuscripts, and to Writers who follow'd him to ascribe it to him. 'Tis very probable that the Passage of Busch was added, and tho' it were not, yet neither he, nor other Authors, nor the Manuscripts nor Editions later than the Manuscript in 1441. are any convincing Proofs, since these are found in conjunction with other Manuscripts, Editions, and Testimonies, even such as are more ancient in favour of St. Bernard, of Gerson, and Gersen. The agreement of Stile, with the other Works which go under the Name of Tho. a Kempis is not still a certain Proof, for in general the agreement of the Stile of one Work with another is not commonly suf∣ficient to ascertain who is the Author of it. Besides this Agreement is not entire; and lastly, neither is it certain that all the Works which go under the Name of Thomas a Kempis are his; since by the Confession of those who favour him, his Humility would not suffer him to put his Name to any of his own, and he Transcrib'd many Books of others.
Fourthly, There is some probability that the Book of the Imitation is more ancient than Tho. a Kempis, the Manuscripts of Arona, of Sirmondus, and Bobio, tho' without Date, are judg'd more ancient, by those who are best skill'd in such matters, which is a proof of it. The Manuscripts of Italy, Dated in the years 1421, 1433, 1434, 1436, and 1437, make it credible. They are indeed later than the year 1410. wherein 'tis suppos'd without ground, that T. a Kempis Compos'd this Work, tho' there is little probability that he did write it at that time. But two things are to be observ'd; 1st, That these Manuscripts are found in different places, far distant one from another. 2. That these are not Originals written with the Author's own hand, but Copies written out from other Copies more ancient. Now there is scarce any probablity, that in so short a time the Book of the Imitation should have been Copied out so often, and carried to so many different Places. The same Reflection may be made upon the French Version in 1447. and upon the French Manuscript found in 1467. in the Library of the Count of Angoulesme; and this may be Confirm'd by the Testimony of Trithemius, who says plainly in 1494. that the Seniors of his Seniors had read this Work, which carries us up to the beginning of the Century.
Fifthly, 'Tis certain that in the Life time of T. a Kempis, the Book of the Imitation was ascrib'd to St. Bernard, to Gerson, and Gersen: The Manuscripts and Editions are a proof of this; which is a strong Argument that T. a Kempis was not then own'd for the Author of it.
Sixthly, 'Tis also certain that the most ancient Manuscripts are either Anonymous, or else go under the Name of Gerson; which is a good reason why it cannot be ascertain'd that Thomas a Kempis is the Author of this Book.
Seventhly, John Gerson Chancellor of the University of Paris, among the 3 Competitors, seems to have the best Right to this Book: If we consider only external Testimonies, he was in posses∣sion of it before Tho. a Kempis. All the Manuscripts which are for John Gersen, or Gesen, except only that which gives him the Title of Abbot, may be understood of him by a Corruption of his Name. The Common Opinion of France and Italy was for him in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Century: He is a solid Author, and of great Reputation, who has written Books of a like Na∣ture. But there are 2 things which counter-poize these Proofs, the Title of Monk which is given to the Author of the Imitation, and the difference of Stile.
Eighthly, The Titles of Abbot of St. Stephen of Verceil, of the Order of St. Benedict, which are given to the pretended John Gersen, are not built upon any good ground, nor upon any Te∣stimony worthy of Credit. There is only the Title of Abbot in the Manuscript of Arona, and in the rest he appears Naked and divested of all Titles, sometimes under the Name of Gersen, sometimes under that of Gesen, or Gessen, or Gersem, an Author unknown to this very day.
Lastly, 'Tis not easie to decide, whether John Gesen, Gessen, Gersen, or Gersem, is really the Name of an Abbot, or whether it be only the Corruption of the Name of John Gerson. There are Conjectures Pro and Con, which have their probability on both sides.
After all, the Author of the Book of the Imitation remains still uncertain, as he was at the beginning of this Discourse; and each of the three Pretenders may still preserve the probability of his Right, tho' he be not able to establish it by uncontestable Evidence.