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 I.

A History of the Contest about the Author of the Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, from the beginning of our Age, until this present time.

THE Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, after it had often appear'd under the Name of St. Bernard, was printed many times under the Name of Gerson, and of Thomas a Kempis; but since the Edition of Badius, in 1520. it was more commonly publish'd under the Name of Thomas a Kempis, and he pass'd for the Author of it, without much contest, until the beginning of this Century, that some maintain'd it could not be his. This Doubt was first started in Spain, which was grounded upon this, That the Imitation of Jesus Christ was Cited in the Conferences attributed to St. Bonaventure, who died before the Birth of Thomas a Kempis. Don Pedro Mau∣riquez was the first that maintain'd this Opinion in Writing, in a Spanish Book Entituled, Appa∣reios para administrar el Sacramento de la Penitentia, printed at Milan, in 1604. Some Spa∣niards having spread this Opinion in Italy, Father Rossignol a Jesuit confirm'd it by the Authority of a Manuscript of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, which he found in the House of the Jesuites of Arona, which was formerly an Abby of the Order of St. Benedict, in which it is attributed in four places to John Gersen, or Gesen, or Gessen, an Abbot. He believ'd that this Manuscript belong'd to the Ancient Library of the Benedictines of Arona, and communicated this Discovery to Possevin, and Bellarmin, who thought this Opinion probable. On the contrary, Rosweidus a Flemish Jesuit wrote a Letter in 1615. wherein he maintains that Thomas a Kempis is the true Author of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, and denies that the Conferences attributed to St. Bonaventure were truly his. On the other side, Constantin Cajetan of Syracuse, Abbot of the Monastery of St. Barontus, of the Order of St. Benedict, of the Congregation of Mount Cassin, a Man very Zealous for the Interest of his own Order, having the Manuscript of Arona Communicated to him by the Jesuit Nigroni, caus'd the Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ to be printed at Rome, in 1616. under the Name of John Gessen, Abbot of the Order of St. Benedict, together with a Dissertation, wherein he maintains, that the Conferences are Bonaventure's, and that the Manuscript of Arona is a decisive Piece, to shew that the Book of the Imitation is an Abbot's of his Order. Rosweidus wrote immediately a Book against Cajetan, which he Entitles, VINDICIAE KEMPENSES, The Defence of Kempis; wherein he answers his Reasons, and maintains that the Name of Gersen was put for that of Gerson, in the Manuscript of Arona, which did not at all belong to the An∣cient Library of the Benedictines of Arona, as the Abbot Cajetan suppos'd, but was brought from Genua to Arona, in 1599. by Father Maiole a Jesuit, who found it in his Father's House. This Answer of Rosweidus came forth in 1617. and made Bellarmin change his Opinion, because he thought that Rosweidus had sufficiently answer'd the Objections of the Abbot Cajetan. This latter stay'd not long before he made a Reply, but quickly put forth an Apology for his Opi∣nion, which was printed at Paris in 1618. And that his Opinion might spread thro' the World, he ask'd leave of the Congregation de Propaganda Fide, to print the Book of the Imita∣tion of Jesus Christ in Greek, under the Name of the Abbot Gessen.

The Canons Regulars being alarm'd at this Design, presented a Petition to this Congregation to hinder it, and desir'd to prohibit the printing of this Book under any other Name than that of Thomas a Kempis. This way of Proceeding did not take effect, and the Contest was hush'd up till the year 1626. in which Rosweide reviv'd it, by Publishing a fair Edition of the Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, in which he inserted a Dissertation about the Author of this Book, which he Entituled, Plain Testimonies to prove that Thomas a Kempis is the Author of the Imi∣tation of Jesus Christ. Bollandus Reprinted it after the death of Rosweidus, in 1630. and 1634. Francis Walgrave an English Benedictin oppos'd to this Edition of Rosweidus, a new Edition of the Book of Imitation, under the Name of John Gersen, whom he Entitles Abbot of Verceil, printed at Paris by Sebastian Hure, in 1638. with Apologetical Notes about the Title and the Text of this Book, wherein he produces 4 Manuscripts out of Italy, to prove that this Book was Gersen's, that of Arona, that of the Monastery of Padolirona, where the Name of Gerson is found in two places; that of the Cardinal of Biscia, wherein the Author of the Imitation is call'd John de Canabaco, and an Edition of the Imitation at Venice, in 1501. under the Name of Gerson; at the end of which, there was written in an ancient Character, This Book was not Compil'd by John Gerson, but by John..... Abbot of Verceil, whose Manuscript is to this day in this Abbey. From this Remark Walgrave Conjectures that Gersen was Abbot of St. Stephen of Verceil, and there are 4 Manuscripts, which Cajetan calls the Chariot of Gold, upon which John Gersen is Carried in Triumph. Father Fronto a Canon Regular of St. Genvieve of Paris, wrote an Answer two years after to this Piece of Walgrave's, Entituled. Thomas a Kempis Vindicated by one of the Canous Regulars of the Congregation of France. It was printed by Cramoisy. in 1641.

At the same time Cardinal Richlieu having given Orders to print at the Louvre the Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ; Father Gregory Tarissus, Superior of the Benedictines of the Con∣gregation of St. Maur, desir'd of this Cardinal, that this Impression should be publish'd under the Name of John Gersen, a Regular of the Order of St. Benedict, whom he affirm'd to be the true Author of this Book, upon the Authority of four Ancient Manuscripts which were at Rome. Cardinal Richlieu answer'd Father Tarissus, that he would write to Rome to have a Certificate from some Person worthy of Credit, that these Manuscripts were agreeable to what he had said, and gave order to Mr. Desnoyer to search what Light he could find upon this Subject. And it was Resolv'd that this Question should be Examin'd by the Messieurs, Du Val, Hallier, and St. Beuve, Doctors, and by the Fathers Petavius, and Sirmondus, Jesuits, who might call in to their assistance the Priors of St. German de Prez, of St. Genevieve, and St. Victor. Father Taris∣sus having written to Rome, the R. R. F. F. Dom. Placidus le Simon, Proctor General of the Benedictines, of the Congregation of St. Maur, in the Court of Rome, and Dom John M. Proctor-General of the English Benedictines, came on the 30th of January, in 1641. to Cardinal Bagni, who had been Nuncio in France, and pray'd him to look upon the four Manuscripts which they presented him, that he might assure Cardinal Richlieu they did really bear the Name of John Gerson. Cardinal Bagni answer'd them, that to make an Authentical Instrument, it would be convenient to appoint two Persons expert in these Matters, to examine these Manu∣scripts, and make a Report of them, in the presence of himself, and a Notary. They agreed upon the Sieur Gabriel Naudaeus Secretary to this Cardinal (in whose hands they left the Manu∣scripts) and the Sieur Fioravente Martinel, one of the Under-keepers and Writers of the Vatican-Library. The Sieur Naudaeus having Examin'd these Manuscripts by himself, found in that which belong'd to the Cardinal of Biscia, and which was then Allatius's, the Name of Canabaco at the top, tho' this might be written by the same hand, and by the same Writer. He found also in this Manuscript a Bull of the Apostolical Legate in Germany, which was dated in 1448. which shew'd that this Manuscript was later than that year, whereof he judg'd the Writing to be at the end of the Fifteenth Century, or the beginning of the Sixteenth. As to the Second Manuscript, which was that of Padolirona, he found that these words had been written some time after the rest, Incipit Liber Johannis Gerson Primus, which were of a Vermilion more bright and fresh than the rest of the Title; and that at the end of the same Manuscript Gerson was chang'd into Gersen. As to the Third, which was that of the Abbey▪ of Cave, as it was without the Name of the Author, and had only the Figure of a Benedictine upon the first Letter, from which they would draw some Inference; he Remarks that nothing can be concluded from this Representation, and that there is no manner of proof that this is the Figure of the Author of this Book. The Fourth was not a Manuscript, but was printed at Venice under the Name of John Gerson, and at the bottom of the Page it was observ'd, that this Work was not Gerson's, but Gersen's, the Abbot of Verceil. He meddles not at all with the time of writing this Note, which he judg'd a very late Forgery, and to be put in the room of another which had been carefully eraz'd; that the traces of some whole words were still to be seen, and even the Letters of Thomas which had been eraz'd. Monsieur Naudaeus having made these Remarks, Communicated them to Cardinal Bagni, and to Sieur Fioravente, who was of the same Opinion. The Fathers Dom Placidus, and Dom John coming afterwards with their Notary, the thing was Examin'd in their presence, and even the traces of three Letters were pick'd out in the Ancient Title of the first Manuscript, which did not at all correspond to the new Letters. They did not find that this Report would be to their advantage, and therefore they never order'd an Instrument of it to be drawn up before a Notary. But Messieur Naudaeus drew up one by his own Authority, which he caused to be attested by Vincent Galeotte, Auditor to Cardinal Bagni, and sent it the same year to the Messieurs D•• Puy.

In France Father Sirmondus having met with a Manuscript of the Imitation in the Library of the College of Jesuits which was Anonymous, but such as he judg'd to be more ancient than Thomas a Kempis, founded upon this his Opinion, that Thomas was not the Author of it. On the contrary, Father Petavius considering the agreement of the stile of this Book, with that of the other Books which were uncontestably own'd to be Thomas a Kempis's, made no scruple to affirm that it was his, being otherwise perswaded that Rosweidus had answered all the Diffi∣culties of the Abbot Cajetan. Monsieur de St. Beauve declar'd, That it was more probable, that this Book was Gerson's, the Chancellour of the University of Paris, than Gersen's or Thomas a Kempis's. The Opinion of the other two Doctors is not known. The Result of this whole En∣quiry was, That the Book of the Imitation was printed at the Louvre, without the Name of the Author. Notwithstanding the Remarks made by Monsieur Naudaeus, the Abbot Cajetan would still maintain his own Opinion, and alledg'd the same Manuscripts attested by the bare Instru∣ment of a Notary, and the same Reasons which he had formerly made use of in an Apology which he publish'd at Rome, in 1644. for John. Gersen, together with a new Edition of the Imitation under his Name.

The Book of Walgrave, and the Apology of Cajetan, were refuted by a Flemish Canon Regu∣lar, and by Simon Werlin, Rector of Diessen, who wrote in 1641. a Treatise against Walgrave, and a second in 1647. against Cajetan: This second was not printed till the Year 1649. after the Death of the Author, with this Title, Vindiciae Vindiciarum Kempensium.

In the same Year Father Fronto, a Canon-Regular of St. Genevieve, reprinted the Dissertation which had appear'd in 1641. wherein he inserted the Relation of Mr. Naudaeus, about the Ma∣nuscripts of Rome. His Work is divided into three Parts. In the ••st he intends to prove, That the Imitation is not Ge••sen's, nor a Benedictin Abbot's; In the 2d, That it is not Gerson's; And in the last, That it is Thomas a Kempis's: And at the same time, he printed the Book in a large Character under the Name of Thomas a Kempis.

This Book of Father Fronto was, as it were, a new Signal which renew'd the War between the two Parties, whereof one was for Gersen, and the other for Thomas a Kempis: For immedi∣ately Father Robert Quatremaires, of the Congregation of St. Maur, being a Man of Wit and Learning, but hot and eager, made an Answer to the Book of Father Fronto, by Word of Mouth, wherein he accus'd Mr. Naudaeus of Unfaithfulness in the Examination of the Manuscripts, and in the Relation he had made of them; he suspected him of having falsified the Manuscripts in Question while he had them in his hands, and of having given this Testimonial, for the Reward of a simple Priory which he had in their Order, altho' it was not given him till four Years after he had sent this Relation to the Messieur Du Puy.

Some time after, Father Francis Walgrave wrote another Answer, wherein he treats the Sieur Naudaeus no better. Both the one and the other publish'd a Tract of the deceased Monsieur Lau∣noy, Doctor in Divinity, of the Faculty of Paris, which was much more wise and moderate; wherein he gives his Judgment about the Author of the Books of Imitation, in favour of Gersen, and against Thomas a Kempis.

The Sieur Naudaeus seeing himself attack'd, and accus'd of Forgery and Falsification, did not only make use of the ordinary Defence to Men of Learning, which is, to justify himself by pub∣lick Writings, that discover the Innocence of the accus'd; but he had recourse also to the Magi∣strates to demand Satisfaction, for the Reproach that had been thrown upon him, and presented his Libel to the Court of Justice at Paris, praying, That the Copies of the Books of Quatremaires and Walgrave, might be seiz'd and suppress'd. But the Benedictins remov'd the Cause to the Court of Requests at the Palace, wherein the Sieur Naudaeus offer'd to justify the Truth of his Re∣lation, by exhibiting the Manuscripts. All the Difficulty was how to fetch them from Rome. He was Master of the Manuscript of Allatius, the Inspection of which plainly shew'd, That the Word Canabaco was interlin'd, and added some time after the other Words, tho' it was of the same Writing and the same Vermilion. As to the other three Manuscripts, he could not fetch them, whatever Diligence and Importunity he us'd with the Benedictines of Rome to produce them: He offer'd even in the Court of Justice to consign a Sum of 3000 Livres, to be distributed for the Benefit of the Hotel Dieu, or employ'd to make a Silver Lamp, which should be plac'd before the Grand Altar of the Church of St. Germain de Prez, provided the Benedictines would send the three Manuscripts in Question within six Weeks, and that these Manuscripts should not be judg'd to agree with what he had said in his Relation. This Process lasted some time; the Canons-Regulars of St. Genevieve interpos'd in the Cause, and desir'd that the Book of the Imita∣tion might be prohibited to be printed under any other Name but that of Thomas a Kempis. At last, after the Cause had been pleaded by all Parties, it was ordain'd Feb. the 12th, 1652. That all reproachful Words which had been us'd by any Party should be suppress'd; That nevertheless Justice should be done upon the Copies of Walgrave's Book which had been seiz'd; That all Persons should be forbidden to print the Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, under the Name of John Gersen, the Abbot of Verceil, and a Permission should be granted to print it under the Name of Thomas a Kempis. The Benedictines appeal'd from this Sentence of the Court of Requests at the Palace to the Grand Court, but this Appeal was not prosecuted.

While this Cause was depending before the Magistrates, the Writers continued still to publish their Books. Father Fronto answer'd the Book of Walgrave, and that of Mr. Launoy. The Sieur Naudaeus wrote many Pieces about it in French and Latin, in an elegant Style, but brisk and pas∣sionate, and cruelly outrag'd the poor Abbot Cajetan in his Piece, Entituled, Causae Kempensis Correctio. He attack'd also very rudely Mr. Launoy in another Piece, Entituled, Velitatio Kem∣pensis. An English Priest, Confessor to the English Benedictines at Paris, call'd Thomas Carr, who had formerly written in English about this Controversy, wrote a Book more moderate than those of Mr. Naudaeus, to defend the Cause of Thomas a Kempis, which he Entituled, Thomas a Kempis a seipso restitutus. The chief thing which he did in this Book, was to compare the Terms, Phrases, Sentences and Doctrin of the Book of the Imitation, with the other Books of Thomas a Kempis, and thereby to prove, that there is a perfect Agreement between them; yet to this, he added some ancient Editions and ancient Testimonies. Tho' it is not the most elegant, yet it is the most solid Piece that hitherto had been written in Defence of Thomas a Kempis. Father Fronto produc'd two new Arguments, one taken from the Agreement of the Imitation, with the Books of the Canons-Regular of that time; and the other taken from the Name of Devout, which the Canons-Regular assum'd, and is sometimes us'd in the Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ. Mr. Launoy did not keep silence, but wrote a Reply to the Answer of Father Fronto. About the same time Father Vanquaille wrote also a Confutation of what Mr. de Marilla•• had said in his Preface to the Translation of the Imitation, in favour of John Gersen.

But the Canons-Regular had no sooner gain'd their Cause, as to what concern'd the printing of the Imitation, under the Name of Thomas a Kempis, but they presently cry'd out Victoria, and printed a Latin Book, Entituled, The Triumph of Thomas a Kempis over his Adversaries, which

was written by Father Desnos, and a Treatise in French, Entituled, The Contest about the Author of the Imitation of Jesus Christ fully clear'd, by comparing together all the Proofs offer'd by the Be∣nedictines and Canons-Regular, together with the Proofs justifying the Claim of Thomas a Kempis. This Book had not the Name of the Author; but 'tis well enough known, That it was written by Father Boissy, a Canon-Regular of St. Genevieve. It is divided into three Parts: The first contains the Proof of the Claim of Thomas a Kempis; the second, The Answer to the Reasons which are made use of to oppose it; and the Third, The Claim of Gersen produc'd and rejected: At the end there are added some Pieces justifying the Claim of Thomas a Kempis. This Book repeats every thing in the best Order, which had been said hitherto, to prove that the Book of the Imitation was Thomas a Kempis's. This Book met with no Reply from the Benedictines; but Mr. Launoy made some Notes to it, as to what concern'd himself, in a French Dissertation, dedi∣cated to Mr. de Montmor.

The Controversy was for some time hush'd up, till the Benedictines gathered from all parts, such Manuscripts as might give new Strength to their Pretensions. They fetch'd out of Italy the Manuscripts of Padolirona, of Allatius and Cave, which Mr. Naudaeus had accus'd of Forgery, and many others out of Flanders and Germany; and being thus arm'd, they presented them in 1671. to Mr. de Lamoignon, first President, at a Conference where the F. F. Lalemant and du Moulinet oppos'd them, and maintain'd that these Manuscripts were unserviceable to their Cause. Some time after, they address'd themselves to Francis Harlay, Archbishop of Paris, and pray'd him that these Manuscripts might be examined in his Presence by Learned Men; to which this Pre∣lat consented. Whereupon they brought into his Palace, on the 14th of August, 1671. twelve Manuscripts and some ancient Editions, under the Name of Gersen. Mr. Faure, Doctor in Di∣vinity, of the Faculty of Paris, Father le Cointe, of the Congregation of the Oratory, Mr. Vion of Herouval, Mr. Valesius, Mr. Baluzius, and Mr. Cotelier, were there present: They examin'd these Titles in the Presence of the Archbishop, made their Report; of which they drew up a Process in writing, and among other things, judg'd the Writing of the Manuscript of Padolirona to be unchang'd, which the Sieur Naudaeus had judg'd to be corrupted. Upon this Report, the Benedictines reprinted in 1674. cum Privilegio, the Books of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, by Billain, in a fair Character, under the Name of John Gersen, Abbot of St. Stephen of Verceil, of the Order of St. Benedict, together with the Instrument which we just now mention'd; and a Dis∣sertation which they printed also apart, written by Father Delfau, which produces all the Reasons which can be alledg'd, to maintain the Opinion of those who believ'd, That John Gersen was the Author of this Treatise.

Some time after, the Benedictines of the Abbey of St. Germain de Prez, receiv'd also another Manuscript from Mr. Sluse, which had at the end the Name of John Gersen, which was examin'd, judg'd unalter'd, and 200 Years old, by the Messieurs Du Cange, Herouval, Baluzius, Valesius, Launoy, Cotelier, and by Father Cointe, according to the Act which they publish'd, bearing Date August 23d, 1674.

The Canons-Regular put forth in 1677. an Answer to the Dissertation of Father Delfau, under the Name of Vindiciae Kempenses, written by Father Testellette, a Canon-Regular; which was quickly confuted by some Observations.

At last the Canons-Regular, that they might oppose an Authentick Instrument to that of the Benedictines, made a Collection also of the Manuscripts and Titles upon which they grounded their Opinion; and having examin'd them in Order, in the Presence of the Archbishop of Paris, by the Messieurs Faure, Baluzius, Vion of Herouval, du Cange, and by the F. F. Gardiner and Hardouin, Jesuites; F. Du Bois, of the Oratory, and F. Alexander, a Jacobin, a Process in writing was drawn up of this Matter, March 4th, 1681.

At last F. Dom John Mabillon, and F. Dom Michael, having brought with them at their Re∣turn from their Journey into Italy, the Famous Manuscript of Arona, together with a Manu∣script of the Monastery of Bobio, and another of the Church of St. John of Parma, wherein the Name of John Gersen was found, assembled on the 28th of July, 1687. the Messieurs Faure, Du Cange, D' Herouval, and many other able Men, well vers'd in these Matters, who did me the Honour to receive me into their Number; who having examin'd these three Manuscripts, judg'd, That the Name of Gersen was written in them by the first Hand; That the Writing of the first Manuscript did not appear less ancient than 300 Years; Non videtur inferior trecentis annis; That the second was of the same Antiquity, and that the third contain'd (before the Book of Imitation) the Rule of St. Benedict, which had been fully written and finish'd, according to the Date which is at the end, August the 8th, in the Year 1466.

Thus you see what is the State of the Controversy, which remains undecided to this Day, altho' the Process was wholly drawn up, and the Cause ripe for a Sentence, from the Books and Reasons which have been produc'd and alledg'd on both sides; and were at first examin'd, own'd, and verified by Persons of Probity and Ability, as all must acknowledge. Let us now therefore make an Extract out of the Writings, and Exhibits of the Parties, and let us then see if there be any way left to give a Decision, and in whose Favour, Justice and Truth require it should be given.