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 VII.

An Examination of the Reasons which are alledg'd against Thomas a Kempis, viz. Whether there be Authors which mention the Book of Imitation, before he could write it, and whether it be in Manuscripts that are more ancient than he. A List of all the Manuscripts of the Imitation, whereof we have any Knowledge. An Enquiry whether the Author of this Book was a Monk.

THE first Argument which is made use of to shew, that the Book of the Imitation is not Thomas a Kempis's, is this, That this Book is more ancient than he. 'Tis certain, that if this Fact is well prov'd, it cannot any ways be ascrib'd to him. Now here follow the Proofs which are brought of it.

First, 'Tis said. That the Book of the Imitation is cited by St. Bonaventure, who was dead be∣fore the Death of Thomas a Kempis. This Fact appears notorious; for there are found among the Conferences to the Novices, which are among the Works of St. Bonaventure, and go under his Name, some Extracts taken out of Ch. 25. of the Imitation which the Author cites; Ut patet in devoto libello de Imitatione Christi. This Testimony alone would be decisive, if it were cer∣tain, that these Conferences were St. Bonaventure's; but it is maintain'd, that they are none of his, and for this a Proof is brought which appears to be unanswerable. The first Conference, say some, is taken out of the Book of a Crucified Life, by Ubertin of Casal, which he did not write, as he himself observes in the Preface, That it was finish'd in 1305. in the 32d Year of his being a profess'd Monk, Mense Septembri terminavi in vigilia Michaelis Archangeli anni prae∣sentis 1305. a felicissimo ortu veri Solis Jesu, a mea vero vili conversione anno 32 & die 9 Martii in Quadragesima in Festo 40 Martyrum inchoatus est iste liber. If Ubertin did not compose this Work till 1305. and did not enter into the Order of Friars Minors till 1273. How could St. Bona∣venture, who died in 1274. cite this Book? Add to this, That these Conferences are not found in the Editions of his Works at Strasburg, in 1489. nor in the Manuscripts of the Libraries of the Vatican, of Sforca, of Colonna, of the Oratory of Bologne, and of Thoulouse; That Marianus of Florence, who wrote his Chronicle in 1486. is the first that puts them in the Catalogue he made of the Works of St. Bonaventure, which was done very carefully; That they are to be found indeed in the Edition of Strasburg, in 1495. but in the Edition at Rome of Zamora, they are not ascrib'd to him, because tho' they had appear'd in Print under his Name, yet it was not done upon the Authority of any Manuscript, Ut in impressis hactenus Opusculis fertur; Lastly, That the Occasion of ascribing these Conferences to St. Bonaventure, was this, because he had written 91 Conferences different from these.

Those who in spite of these Reasons will still maintain, that these Conferences are St. Bonaven∣ture's, do follow Wadingus, in saying, 1st, That St. Bonaventure did not take from Ubertin what is found in these Conferences, but Ubertin took it from St. Bonaventure, and that the Citation of Ubertin (for it is there cited under his Name) is not in the Original Text, but has been inserted afterwards in some Marginal Note: But this is no ways probable, because the Author of the Con∣ferences is only a Compiler, who compos'd them of Passages taken out of four or five Authors; and therefore they have recourse to another Solution of this Difficulty. 'Tis said, That Ubertin, of Casal, wrote, That he had receiv'd the Habit of his Order from John of Parma, General of the Friars Minors, who being deposed in 1256. Ubertin must needs have been a Regular of this Order, before 1273. and that he might compose his Book since that time. 'Tis true, That John of Parma was depos'd in 1256. but he liv'd also Thirty Years in an Hermitage near to Rieti, where Ubertin of Casal says, That he went to meet him, without observing that he had given himself the Habit. However this be, the time when Ubertin of Casal entred into the Monastery, and when he wrote his Book, being certain by his own Testimony, 'tis needless to look after Conjectures. 'Tis said, That Marianus of Florence flourish'd about the Year 1400. according to Rodolphus Tossinian, or in 1430. according to Pocciantius, a Writer of the History of Florence; and therefore, that he is more ancient than Thomas a Kempis, and consequently, That the Conferences attributed to St. Bona∣venture were written before Thomas a Kempis, which is sufficient. To these Authors some oppose Mark of Lisbon, who says, That Marianus of Florence died not till after the Year 1528. But this is very uncertain, for this Author is not worthy of Credit; but 'tis certain, by his Chronicle, that he lived till the Year 1480. in which Year Servita, the Author of the History of Florence, places his Death. Now supposing that about the Year 1480. Marianus had seena Manuscript of the Conferences under the Name of St. Bonaventure, then he who is the Author of them must have liv'd before that time; and this Author, having, when he wrote, an Anonymous Manuscript of the Imitation in Italy, 'tis probable, say they, That this Book was compos'd before Thomas a Kempis could

write it. But this is what those deny who maintain, that the Book was written by Thomas in 1410. And so the Testimony drawn from these Conferences is not concluding.

'Tis alledg'd, That St. Thomas took something out of the 4th Book of the Imitation, and inserted it into the Office of the Holy Sacrament, viz. That which he says in the Responses of the Magni∣ficat, at the Feast of the Holy Sacrament; O quam suavis est, Domine, spiritus tuus, qui ut dulce∣di••em tuam in filios demonstrares, Pane suavissimo de Caelo praestito, esurientes reples bonis, fastidio∣ses divites dimittens inan••s; for the very same Words almost are to be found in Ch. 13. of B. 4. of the Imitation; O quam suavis est spiritus tuus, Domine, qui ut dulcedinem tuam in filios demon∣stra••es, pane suavissimo de Coelo descedente illos reficere dignaris. But what Proof is there, That St. Thomas did rather take this from the Imitation, than the Author of the Imitation should take it from the Office of the Holy Sacrament; especially if we consider, That this Author does often take Sentences out of the Offices of the Church, as in ch. 3. of the Same Book, O mira circa nos tuae Pietatis dignatio? Which Words are us'd at the Blessing of the Easter Wax-Candle; and again in ch. 55. there is a Prayer taken from the Orison on the 16th Sunday after Whitsunday.

Matthias Farinator is also alledg'd, but to this pretended Witness we have already answer'd; from whence it appears, That it is not demonstratively prov'd, that the Imitation of Jesus Christ was cited by any Author, before that Thomas a Kempis could have written it.

There remains only a Passage of Trithemius, which we have already produc'd, which is, That his Ancestors said, that their Ancestors had seen the Book of the Imitation many Years before; Quem ante multos annos seniores nostri suos ferunt legisse seniores. Trithemius wrote this in 1495. His Ancestors were then between Sixty and Seventy Years of Age, and these being young men, had seen the Book in the hand of their Ancestors, who read it many Years ago: This will make his Age at least to go back to the beginning of the Century; which is the Reason also why Tri∣themius ascribes it to a Thomas more ancient, and not to him that liv'd until his time. It may be said, That supposing Thomas had written the Imitation in 1410. which Trithemius in that Place says, may be true, and that the Ancient Thomas to whom he ascribes it, was no older; then consequently the whole matter depends upon knowing, whether in 1410. Thomas was capable of composing this Book, which we shall examine hereafter.

Let us now see, whether there are any Manuscripts of this Book, whether they be Anonymous, or have the Author's Name, whether they be dated or without Date, which prove that this Book was in being before it could be compos'd by Thomas a Kempis.

The first of all which we produce, shall be that which is pretended to have been written with the hand of John the Abbot of Verceil, who is said to be the Author, which Manuscript was in the Abbey of that City, if it be true which is written upon an ancient Edition at Venice in 1501. under the Name of Gerson; Hunc librum non compitavit Joannes Gerson, sed D. Joannes..... Abbas Vercell...... ut habetur us{que} hodie propria manu scriptum in eadem Abba∣tia; But since it is not known by whom, nor when this Note was first put upon this printed Book, and that it was certainly done since the Year 1501. since that Mr. Naudaeus avers, that this was written even since the Controversie about this Book begun; and the F. F. Benedictines did not produce this Copy, in 1671. nor in 1674. altho' they had it in their hands, I think we need not be concern'd about it.

The Manuscript of Arona, which goes under the Name of the Abbot Gersen, and that in the Monastery of St. Columbanus of Bobio, were judg'd in 1687. to be 300 Years old, Scriptura non videtur inferior annis tricentis; and if so, then they were written at the end of the 14th Century, and consequently before Thomas a Kempis could write them.

Father Sirmondus has given the same Judgment of an Anonymous Manuscript which he had, and which is in the Library of the College of Jesuits at Paris. Mr. Naude judg'd it much later, but I shall rather refer my self to F. Sirmond than Mr. Naude.

There is also alledg'd an Anonymous Manuscript in the Abbey of Grandmont, together with the Certificate before a Notary, of Peter Almaert, a Monk and Library-keeper of the Monastery of St. Adrian of Grandmont, who testifies, That he had seen and read upon the last Leaf of this Manuscript which was tore off some Years after, an Inscription which said, That this Book was written by Friar Louis Du Mont, who died before the Year 1400. Hic liber conscriptus fuit a F. Ludovico de Monte, qui obiit ante Annum millesimum quadringentesimum. But since, 'tis not known by whom this Note was added, nor at what time, and that this Manuscript contain'd the Book of the Discipline of those who are in the Cloyster by Thomas a Kempis, it cannot be made use of to prove, that the Imitation is more ancient than he.

The Manuscript of the Monastery of St. James of Liege, in Paper, wherein is found the 4th Book of the Imitation, under the Title of a Book about the Sacrament of the Altar, without the Name of the Author, has this Note written upon the first Leaf, Anno Dom. 1417. die mensis Octobris 15. indutus fui habitum Ordinis sancti Benedicti, in Monasterio aedificato in honore sancto∣rum Apostolorum Jacobi & Andreae: But it is not necessary, That this Note should be written from the time that this Regular was profess'd; and it happens sometimes, that the Regulars set down the Day of their being profess'd upon Books, which they had not till a long time after; yet 'tis very probable, that this was not written a long time after.

The First Manuscript which has a certain Date, is that which was cited in a Register of the Monastery of Melice, written and fram'd in 1517. by F••ia•• Stephen Purckhardi, wherein there is mention made of a Volume in Manuscript containing the Treatise of St. Austin, of the Visitation

of the Sick, the first Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, and a Meditation upon the Passion by St. Bernard, at the end of which it is remark'd, Explicit Contemplatio B. Bernardi de Passione Domini, sinita Anno. 21 in die sancti Joannis Baptistae. This Date of 21 can be nothing but 1421. since the Register was fram'd in 1517. It may be said perhaps, That the Imitation of Je∣sus Christ was by another hand and at another time, than the Treatise of St. Bernard; but the Register supposes them both to be of the same time and the same Writing, and in the same Vo∣lume, and those who have seen them, have given us no Advertisement about them.

The Date of the Manuscript at Weingarten is yet more certain; for the Manuscript it self is produc'd, wherein are the three first Books of the Imitation, and at the end of the third is writ∣ten with the same hand, Explicit liber internae Consolationis, finitus Anno Dom. 1433. secunda Fe∣ria ante Festum Assumptionis Beatae Virginis Mariae per me fratrem Conradum Obersperg, tunc tem∣poris Conventualem in Weingarten. Here then is a Manuscript in 1433. which is not the Origi∣nal of Thomas a Kempis, and which does not bear his Name.

The Second Manuscript of Melice follows quickly after this, and is dated in the Year 1434. It contains The Manual of St. Augustin, the Rule attributed to St. Jerom about the manner of living in Monasteries, the Book of the Reformation of Man, divided into four Parts, whereof the first Book is of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, and the Contempt of the Vanities of the World; and after the four Books of Imitation, there are some Treatises of Gerson, whereof the last is, 25 Considerations for hearing of Confessions, at the end whereof p. 120. is written, Explicit die Kiliani 34. which denotes the Year 1434. because there is mention made of it in the Register, fram'd as we have already said, in 1517.

Father Mabillon assures us in his Journey into Italy, That he saw at Padua in the Library of the Abbey of St. Justina, a Manuscript of the Imitation dated 1436. whereof the Ancient Title was eraz'd, and instead of it there was written Gerson, or rather Thomas de Campis. The ancient Title therefore was not by Thomas a Kempis; for if it had been so, it would not have been raz'd to write the same again with a later hand.

The Manuscript of the Monastery of St. Ulric of Ausburg, which contains the first Book of the Imitation without the Name of the Author, is written in 1437. at the time of the Council of Basil, as is observ'd at the end; Et est finis hujus Tractatus scripti in Consilio Basileensi Anno Dom. 1437. Et sic cum Dei adjutorio finitus est iste Tractatus per me Georgium de Gottingen, tunc temporis Capellan. in Wiblengen.

The Manuscript written by Thomas a Kempis in 1441. may pass for one that is Anonymous, since Th. a Kempis put his Name to it as a Transcriber, and not as an Author.

The Manuscript of the House of the Carthusians of St. Barbe of Colen, wherein the first Book of the Imitation is found written, in 1447. has not the Name of the Author; only it is observ'd in the Index, that this Treatise, and those which follow that are Tho. a Kempis's, are a Devout Regular's, Cujusdam devoti Regularis.

The Manuscript of St. Martin of Louvain, which contains the 3d Book of the Imitation, Dated in 1449. and produc'd by the F. F. of St. Genevieve, is Anonymous.

The ancient French Anonymous Version made in 1447. by a Regular of Marchia, for Ber∣nard of Armagnac, is printed at Roan, in 1498.

Another French Version which was found in 1467. in the Study of Monsieur the Count of Angoulesme, is under the Name of St. Bernard.

There is in the Abby of St. German de Prez, a Manuscript of the 4 Books of Imitation, Dated in the year 1460. under the Name of Gerson.

That of Allatius, which goes under the Name of Canabaco, is Dated in 1463.

That of Saltzburg of the same year, bears the Name of John Gerson.

There is an Anonymous Manuscript of the same year at Brussels, Cited by Chiffletius.

That of Parma, which has the Name of Gersen at the beginning of the 4th Book, contains, besides the 4 Books of Imitation, a Rule of St. Benedict, written with the same hand, at the end whereof the Date is set down, Die Octo. Aug. 1466.

There is also one Cited which was given in 1468. to a Monk of the Order of Olivet, by a Visitor of that Order, and which the Father Delfau found in the Cabinet of Monsieur of St. Hilary.

Those of Slusa and Padolirona, which have the Name of Gersen, were written about the same time, being judg'd to be 200 years old in 1671, and 1674.

That of St. Peter of Dalhem is Anonymous in the 1st Writing, and 'tis only since that, 'tis observ'd, that the Book of the Imitation is Tho. a Kempis's.

The First Manuscript which attributes this Book to Tho. a Kempis as the Author, is that in 1477. quoted by Rosweidus, and written by Offermans.

The Second is that of James of Leyden, Dated in 1482.

The Third is a Manuscript of the Holy-Cross at Ausburg, which some give out to be of 1440. but is without Date, as are also those of Rebdorf, and Lappius, to which we must joyn the Col∣lections and Catalogues which we have above related.

That which is in the Library of St. Genevieve, and which attributes this Book to St. Bernard, is without Date; it is at least 200 years Old.

That of Mr. Lechassier, Cited by Mr. Launoy, wherein the 4 Books of Imitation are under the Name of Gerson, is written before 1497. for it is written by James Lupus, who is design'd Batchelor of Divinity, who was Licentiate in 1497. and Died in 1498.

These are almost all the Manuscripts of the Books of the Imitation, which we could come to the knowledge of. The Reflections which may be made upon them are these. 1. That there are Manuscripts either Anonymous, or under the the Name of Gersen, which the most Able Men in these matters judge to be written at the end of the Fourteenth Century, and in the first years of the Fifteenth. 2. That there are some Manuscripts in 1421, 1433, 1434, 1436, 1437. and that during all that time from 1420. to 1441. there is not any Manuscript that goes under the Name of Thomas a Kempis, and that these Manuscripts are not the Author's, but the Transcribers, who Copied them out from others which were more ancient. 3. That the Manuscript of 1441. does not discover him for the Author but for the Transcriber. 4. That from 1441. until the end of that Century, there are divers Manuscripts which are either Anonymous, or which attri∣bute this Book to Gersen, to Gerson, or to St. Bernard. 5. That there is never a Manuscript du∣ring the Life-time of Thomas a Kempis, until the year 1471. which goes under his Name, as the Author. 6. That after his death, his Name is found in Manuscripts and Editions, until the end of that Century; but that there are many other Manuscripts, and many Editions at the same time, which give it to St. Bernard, to Gerson, or to Gersen.

The Defenders of Tho. a Kempis answer, that all those Manuscripts make nothing against him, because all those who have a Date, are posterior to the year 1410. wherein they say that Tho. a Kempis Compos'd that Work, and that it cannot be prov'd, that those who have no Date are more ancient. To them 'tis reply'd, That as to the Manuscripts without Date, there are some of them, as those of Arona, and Bobio, which appear more ancient than the year 1410. to those Persons who are most expert in matters of this kind. As to those which are Dated, tho' there be none but what are since the year 1410. (in which year it pleases them, without Proof, to place the Composing of the Book of Imitation by Tho. a Kempis,) yet it may probably be inferr'd that this Book was Compos'd before this year; for these Manuscripts being taken from other Copies, and being found in Places far distant from the Abode of Tho. a Kempis, as in Italy, 'tis difficult to imagin that this Book was so lately made. But some go further, and maintain, that in 1410. Tho. a Kempis was not capable of Composing this Book. Thomas was in 1399. a Scholar at De∣venter, about the end of that year he entred into the Monastery of Zwoll. He was not a Monk profess'd, 'till in 1406. he had Learn'd to Write and Read the Bible, and to hear Books of Piety, as he himself observes in the Life of Arnoul of Schonhove: Ibi quippe didioi scribere, & Sacram Scripturam legere, & quae ad mores spectant devotosque tractatus audire. He endur'd at first much hunger, and had great pain; he set himself afterwards to write out Books for Mony, and for the House, Pro Domo & pro Pretio; these are the words of the Continuator of his Chro∣nicle of Mount St. Agnes. He perfectly Transcrib'd a Missal, and the Prayers of the Office in 1414. The Bible he did not finish till 1439. He was not made a Priest 'till 1423. Which Circumstances do shew, that 'tis very probable, he was not capable in 1410. of Composing the Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, for he was then young, and had not Studied much, nor had made any progress in a Spiritual Life. He was not then a Priest, and the Imitation is the Work of an Ancient and perfect Regular, who had Practis'd for a long time what he had Written, who had made great Advances in the Spiritual Life, who had read very much, and me∣ditated upon the Holy Scripture, and the Books of Spiritual Men, and who was a Priest. The Imitation by the Confession of all the World is more sublime and perfect than the other Works of Thomas a Kempis; who then can believe that it is his First Essay, or one of his First Works? This is no ways probable.

Mr. Launoy brings also another Reason, drawn from the advantageous Testimony which the Author of the Imitation gives of the Life of the Monks of his time, Book 1. Ch. last; which does not at all agree to the state of the Monks at the beginning of the Fifteenth Century, who liv'd in great Disorder, as Nicolas Clemangis observes. Father Fronto Answers this Argument, that there were at this time a multitude of Regulars very orderly, that those of the Cistertians liv'd very Regularly; that the Benedictines were reform'd from the time of the Council of Basil, that the Dominicans had been Reform'd in 1400. and the Friars Minors in 1411. that about the year 1350. which is the time wherein it is suppos'd that the Author of the Imitation Liv'd, there were also Regulars Disorderly, as many Authors of that time testifie; that Clemangis has stretch'd the matter too far, in the Description he has given of the Disorders of the Monks. It must be confess'd, that Launoy's Argument is not very strong, because the Author of the Imita∣tion speaks not of the Regulars in general, but only of many Monks who liv'd very Regularly; and 'tis certain that it was then true of some, as the Carthusians, and Cistercians, whom this Author gives for an Example in the same place, and some others. The Author of the Imitation does not dissemble the Disorders among the Monks in his time, Lib. 1. Cap. 18. N. 5. 'Tis thought much at present, not to transgress the Monastick Rule, Ibid. Ch. 3. N. 5. If Men would take as much pains to Extirpate Vices, and Establish Vertue, as to Debate Questions, there would not be so much Mischief done, nor so great Scandal given to the People; neither would there be so great a dissolution of Manners in the Monasteries; Nec tanta Dissolutio in Caenobiis.

But there is another Argument against Thomas a Kempis, which appears much stronger. The Author of this Book declares himself a Monk, Lib. 5. C. 10. N. 2. Ye have shewn great Mercy, says he, to your Servant, and ye have favour'd and gratified him much beyond his merit. What then shall I render unto you for this Grace, for it is not given to all to Renounce the World, by quitting all, and embracing a Monastick Life. And at Ch. 56. N. 4. of the same Book, I have receiv'd from your hand the Cross, I will carry it until Death, as ye have laid it upon me. Yes, the Life of a good Monk is the Cross, it is that which Conducts him to Heaven, L. 1. Ch. last, N. 8. How do many other Regulars, who being lock'd up by the Discipline of the Cloyster, go forth but seldom, live and eat poorly, are coarsly Cloath'd, Labour hard, &c. 'Tis certain that these things agree only to Monks, and not to Canons Regulars. The Author therefore reckoning himself among the Regulars, tam multi alii Religiosi, 'tis reasonable to believe that he was a Monk in the same sense. In fine, he proposes always the Rule of St. Benedict, the Benedi∣ctines and Monks for his Pattern. He says nothing of the Rule of St. Augustin, nor of the Ca∣nons Regulars, whereof Tho. a Kempis speaks in almost all his Works.

To this, 'Tis Answer'd, that the Name of Monk is commonly given to the Canons Regulars, as Mauburne Remarks in his Book, Entituled, Venatorium, Nam & generali compellatione Canonici Clerici Monachorum nomine compellantur, ut Juristae notant. That nothing is more common in the Works of Thomas a Kempis, than to give the Name of Monks to his Friars, Part 2. Serm. 1. N. 6. Caenobium Monachorum est sicut salsum Mare, Part 2. Serm. 4. N. 3. O Frater Monache, qui Sanctitatis speciem geris habitu & nomine. In the same Sermon, N. 7. Beatus Mo∣nachus desolatus, cui mundus exilium, Coelum Patria, cella▪ Paradisus, Serm. 5. N. 6. Onus quippe Ordinis diurnum & nocturnum collo Monachi impositum, Part 3. Serm. 1. N. 12. Haec est via Sanctae Crucis; haec Doctrina nostri Salvatoris, haec sapientia Sanctorum, haec Rogula Monachorum. Ibid. O Religiose Monache, & sectator arctioris vitae, noli ab assumpta Cruce in Ordine recedere, sed sustine & porta Crucem usque ad Mortem. A Passage which is very like that which is cited, Opusc. 11. Ch. 1. Monache ad quid venisti, quare Mundum dereliquisti? These are words which he Address'd to hsi Brethren the Canons-Regular, whom he therefore designs by the word Monks. It was for them also that he wrote the Books Entituled by the same Name; as the Epitaph or Abridgment of Monks, the Life of a good Monk. Not to mention the Monk's Al∣phabet, which some have attributed to St. Bonaventure. There are also some Works wherein he makes no mention of the Canons-Regular, as in his Sixth Tract of the Discipline of these who are in the Cloyster, C. 3. N. 3. Recte suum (Diabolus) per totum mundum subtiliter texit ac latissime expandit; Monachos & Moniales, subditos & praelatos, solitarios & Officiales circumd••c & tentat, Ch. 4. N. 3. Fortissimum vincendi genus est seipsum perfecte vincere, & abnegare propter obedientiam, quae Monachorum est laus maxima, & omnium Religiosorum Corona pulcherrima, Ch. 6. N. 4. Accipe ergo exemplum bona operandi a Christo Jesu, a S. Paulo, a S. Antonio, a S. Augustino, a S. Hieronymo, a S. Benedicto, a S. Francisco, a S. Dominico, & ab omnibus Sanctis Patribus, qui Regulas Monachorum Scripserunt. And therefore tho' the Author of the Imitation of Jesus Christ ranks himself among the Monks, it does not follow that he was not a Canon-Regular; and much less that he was a Benedictine. This is what may be said for and against Thomas a Kempis: Let us now see what may be alledg'd for Gersen.