KEMPIS
KEX
all blessings flov;-, and in whom, as their final end, all siilnts lind a blissful repose'" (UUmann, ii, 140 sq.).
Naturall)' enough, Thomas a Kempis shares the no- tion of his day — of almost the whole medieval period — in reckoning monachism the highest stage of the Christian life, and the monk the perfect Christian. But this is due, first of aU, to the high ideal which Thomas had of monachism, and of which he was himself no mean example. Asceticism, therefore, characterizes all he writes. Indeed, even a taint of the Pelagianism of the mediajval theology fastens also upon him, and is es- pecially manifest in those of his writings which are de- voted to the delineation and recommendalion of the monastic life, where the notion of merit plays a not nn- important part, and the centre of Thomas's whole re- ligious system constitutes, not justification by faith, but reconciliutiou by love. It is even true that "Thomas was a strict Catholic, and directly impugned nothing which had received the sanction of the Church," and that "he practiced with great zeal the whole divine worship as it then obtained, and which, as such, appear- ed to him just what it ought to be. He insists with par- ticular urgency upon ■what is so characteristically Ifo- mish, prayers for the dead offered through the medium of the mass, especially the adoration of the saints, among whom he chiefly worships the i)atron saints of his own monastery, and, most of all, the service of IMary, to Avhom he ascribes so important a share in the divine government of the world as to say of her, ' How could a world which is so full of sin endure unless IMarj', with the saints in heaven, were daily praying for it'?' (Be Discip, C/ciustr. cap. xiv; comp. /Sermon, ad Novit. iii, 4, p. 84; and see also Trithemius, ]Je Scrijyt. eccl. c. 707, p. 164; Specul. Exemplar. Dist. x, § 7). He no less acknowl- edges the existing hierarchy and ecclesiastical constitu- tion in their whole extent, together with the priesthood in its function of mediating between God and man;" but, if he docs not attack, neither does he defend or es- tabUsh any, while, in many respects, he may be said, by his negative position, to have not only actually destroy- ed the influence of the Church, but really to have paved the way for reform. However true it be that " Thomas is not intent ioimll 11 a reformer ... he nevertheless is a reformer, for he desired the selfsame objects as Luther;" for the I'ormer, like the latter, cver^nvherc insists upon the Christian principles of spirituality and freedom which formed the very basis of the Lutheran Reforma- tion. In the 12th century mysticism was the defender of the Church, but not so the practical mysticism of the loth century, as exhibited by the Brethren of the Com- mon Life, and especially by Thomas. By this time the tal)les had turned completely. The position once occu- pied b}' scholasticism was no-\v assumed, in a measure, by mysticism, and it became, though perhaps only cov- ertly and unintentionaUy, the opponent of the Church ; it founded or gave life to the instittitions which sent forth tlie most influential precursors — the very leaders of the great German reform— and in many other respects " directly or indirectly exercised a positive influence upon the Reformation." For did not the Brethren of the Common Life labor in many new ways to prepare the way for the great reforms of the lt?th century? Who but they afforded religious instruction to the peo- ple in their mother tongue, and sought their improve- ment by every means — educated the young, and circu- lated the Bible? "And, inasmuch as h, Kempis also belongs to that side, inasmuch as he is manifestly anti- scholastical, gives prominence to the religious and moral import of the dogma, and applies it almost exclusively to the use of the mystical and ascetical life, we must, from a regard for his edifj'ing character, ascribe to him a real, although an indirect influence on the dissolution of the creed" (UUmann, ii, 158).
See Brewer, Thomre h Kempis Bior/raphia ; UUmann, Reformers before the Reformation, W, 1\4 sq. ; Bahring, Thomas a Kempis nach seinem diisseren ii. inneren Le- ben dargestellt (Berlin, 1854, 8vo) ; Jlooren, Nachrichten
ii. Thomas a Kempis (Crefeld, 1855, 12mo) ; Rosweydo, VindicicK Kempenses ; J. Fronteau, Kempis Vindicatus ; Heser, Bioptra Kemjiensis ; Th. Carre, Thomce a Kempis a seipso restitutus ; Ens. Amort, Plena Informatio de statu controversiee quw. de uiictore libelli de Imitatione Chrisii ayitatur, etc.; Y>(;\\^xaX,Verhandelinf/ over het Broodir- schap van G. Groot (Leyden, 185G) ; Scholz, Dissertatio qua Thomce a Kemjns sententia de re Christiana exponi- tur, etc. (Gronmg. 1839) ; Malou, Recherches historiqucs et critiques sur le veritable auteur du livre de Vlinitaiion de Jesus Christ (Louvain, 1849)— the most recent and best account of the details of the discussion on the au- thorship of the Imitation; Herzog, Reed-Encyklopddie ; Schrockh, Kirchengesch. xxxiv, 302 ; Erhard, Gesch. dcs WiederuufblUhens, i, 2G3 ; Gieseler, Kirchengesch. ii, 4, p. 347; Hodgson (William), Reformers before the Ref- ormation (Philada. 18G7, r2mo), chap, x ; Kiihn, in the Rev. Chret. Aug. 1857 ; Contemp. Rev. Sept. 18GG ; Meth. Quart. Rev. Oct. 185G, p. G42; Am. Presb. Review, .Tan. 18G3, p. 1G4 ; Jahrb. deutsch. Theol. x, 1. (J. H. AV.)