In the eleventh century the Bishops of Utrecht became temporal princes, charged with the duty of defending the frontier of the empire against the Northmen and other invaders. They gave their support to the imperial cause against the claims of Pope Gregory VII. In 1145 the right of electing the Bishops was taken away from the people because of their turbulence, and was confined to the Chapter of Utrecht, which consisted of the members of the chapters of the Cathedral of Saint Martin and Saint Saviour's Church. It was afterwards extended to include the chapters of three other collegiate churches. Pope Eugene III granted this right and the Fourth Council of the Lateran confirmed this grant in 1215.

The history of the See was marked during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries by several deplorable disputes between rival candidates, which often led to civil wars. In 1520, Pope Leo X in the Bull, Debitum Pastoralis, granted to the See of Utrecht and its 57th Bishop, [Philip of Burgundy, who reigned from 1517 to 1524], giving to him and his successors, and to the clergy and laity of the diocese, the privilege of freedom from the claim of the Popes to "evoke" local causes to be heard at Rome. Any attempt to evoke any church case from Utrecht was to be null and void. [The Theological Faculties of Paris and the Louvain, in 1717, verified this privilege, known as the Leonine Privilege. Both of these grants have been exercised by the See of Utrecht from the time of their promulgation and were of extreme importance during the period of the Counter Reformation when the ultramontane party questioned the rights of the See of Utrecht].

Philip's successor, Henry of Bavaria, was driven from Utrecht by the partisans of the Duke of Gelderland; and in 1528, four years after his election, he had not yet been consecrated. With the consent of his Chapter, and of the nobles of the province, he surrendered his temporal sovereignty to the Emperor Charles V on condition that the Emperor should restore him to his See. From this time the Bishops of Utrecht ceased to be prince-bishops.

Chapter Three

During the fifteenth century Utrecht had been remarkable for the society known as "The Brothers of the Common Life", which was founded by Gerard the Great [Geert Groote], who died in 1378, for the purpose of teaching the young, sending out preachers, and recommending the study of Holy Scripture. It was not a monastic order, but a voluntary association, the members of which did not take vows.

The parent house was at Deventer; the most famous member was Thomas a Kempis, usually regarded as the author of the Imitation of Christ, who spent most of his life at Mount Saint Agnes, near Zwolle. The Brothers of the Common Life laid great emphasis on the study of Scripture; they tried to have a translation if it made into Dutch, and they were particular about using the best manuscripts available. Among their pupils were Johann Wessel Gansfort, who had considerable influence over Luther and Erasmus, who as educated in one of their schools.

The type of piety encouraged by the Brothers of the Common Life persisted in the Netherlands, and was one of the causes of opposition to the very different type of piety encouraged by the Jesuits. Thomas a Kempis says, "Before all arts, learn to read and understand the Holy Scriptures"; but the Bull 'Unigenitus', [see Appendix III] condemned the opinion that the laity are bound to read the Bible. Another pupil of the Brothers of the Common Life was Pope Hadrian VI, who was born at Utrecht [where his house is till shown], was educated either at Deventer or Zwolle, became tutor to the Emperor Charles V, and in 1522 was elected Pope. He was the last non-Italian Pope until 1978, and is celebrated for having given as his private opinion that the Pope is not infallible.

In the sixteenth century, the Netherlands, like the rest of Germany, England and indeed nearly all Northern Europe, had far too few Bishoprics. The remoteness and the secular duties of the bishops were one reason why the Reformers did not value the episcopacy. Philip II of Spain, on succeeding to the hereditary possessions of his father Charles V, decided to reorganize the Church throughout the Netherlands, and in 1559, when the war with France was over, persuaded the Pope to set up a number of new provinces and dioceses. Utrecht became an Archbishopric, with the five new sees of Haarlem, Deventer, Grininen, Leeuwarden and Middelburg under it; they were endowed out of the revenues of wealthy abbeys, on the suggestion of Cardinal Granvelle, President of the Council of State at Brussels.

But this necessary reform came too late, and only precipitated the revolution. The provinces of the Netherlands were full of men who had learned from Erasmus to study the Bible and to adopt a critical attitude towards the abuses of the Church. The Reformation therefore found fruitful soil there. Luther, indeed, did not appear to have exercised much influence; it was the extremer forms of the Reformation that spread through the Netherlands. Charles V did what he could to surpress heresy; but there was something in the character of the burghers of the Netherlands cities which was attracted by the austerity and the independence of Calvinism, and it spread rapidly after 1550.

The seventeen provinces, which were only united because one sovereign had inherited them, were beginning to develop a national consciousness. They had their common language [except the French-speaking districts in the south], they had their States-General at Brussels, and they had the same interest. The difference between Holland and the Flemish part of Belgium which we see to-day was not in the first place due to a difference of religion or of culture, but simply to the fact that the Spaniards recaptured the southern provinces, but were unable, for geographical reasons, to recapture the northern ones. There was at first a "reformed" movement in Flanders and Brabant, as strong as in Holland and Zealand; there was all along, as there is today, a very large Roman Catholic minority in Holland [in early days a majority]. But consisting largely of villagers. Holland has never been a Protestant country in the same sense as the Scandinavian countries.

Charles V had been born in the Netherlands and spoke the language. Philip II was by birth and character a Spaniard who had not the least sympathy with his subjects in the Netherlands. His main object in setting up the new Bishoprics was to have a better organization for suppressing heresy; and the Spanish Inquisition was introduced in 1565. National hatred of the Spaniards, combined with an independent attitude towards religion, as hateful as it was unintelligible to the Spanish king and his ministers, and with a determination to maintain the ancient privileges of provinces and cities, which the king was equally determined to destroy in the interests of autocracy, led to the Dutch War of Independence [1568-1648], carried on by both sides with horrible atrocity; it became a religious war in which both sides had great numbers of martyrs.

The most celebrated martyrs on the Catholic side were the nineteen Martyrs of Gorcum [eleven Capuchins, four members of other orders, and four secular priests]. Finally the seven northern provinces - Holland, Zealand, Utrecht, Gelderland, Overyssel, Friesland, and Groningen - became a republic, and adopted the reformed religion. The independence was recognized by Spain by the Treaty of Westphalia, 1648.

Meanwhile the new bishops took possession of their Sees. Frederick Schenk, Baron von Teutenburg, was consecrated in 1560, as the first Archbishop of Utrecht since Saint Willibrord and the fifty-seventh occupant of the See. His suffragans were Nicolas Nieuwland, Bishop of Haarlem, who had been coadjutor to the last Bishop of Utrecht; John Mahusius, Bishop of Deventer; John Knyff, Bishop of Groningen; Cunerus Petersen, Bishop of Leeuwarden [the first bishop, Dirutius, was appointed to Bruges before he had been consecrated]; and Nicolas de Castro or Verburgh, Bishop of Middelburg.

On October 12, 1565, Archbishop Schenk held a provincial synod, which accepted the decrees of the Council of Trent, on faith, the Sacraments, and morals; the Chapter protested against interference with its rights and privileges, but the Synod rejected its protest.

The Revolution began in 1565; it was at first a movement for the defence of the rights of the provinces, "with no other design but to preserve the Catholic religion in its purity" [William the Silent]. But the most ardent and successful of its promoters were Calvinists, who, whenever a city fell into their hands, stripped the churches of their ornaments and handed them over to the Reformed ministers, while the practice of the Roman Catholic religion was prohibited, in spite of all guarantees to the contrary. The change was effected at Haarlem on May 29, 1578, when the garrison attached the congregation assembled in the cathedral, and the bishop had to flee for his life.

According to the terms of the Union of Utrecht, January 23, 1579 [from which date the independence of the Dutch Republic is reckoned], the rights and privileges of the Roman Catholic religion were guaranteed. But on June 14, 1580, the practice of that religion was forbidden by the magistrates of Utrecht, and the Cathedral of Saint Martin was taken from the archbishop and his Chapter. In truth the Prince of Orange and the Government were unable to control the extremists.

On August 25, 1580, Archbishop Schenk died, and the See remained vacant until 1602. The Bishop of Haarlem, Godfrey de Mierio, a Dominican who had succeeded Nieuwland in 1569, took refuge at Bonn, and died there in 1587; he had no successor til 1742. John Mahusius, Bishop of Deventer, was succeeded by Aegidius van den Berge [de Monte] in 1570, both were Franciscans. Van den Berge died at Zwolle, May 26, 1577. He had no successor til 1758. Philip II did indeed nominate Gisbert Coeverinck as Bishop of Deventer in 1590, but he was never consecrated, as there was no money to pay even his fees to the Pope.

Cunerus Petersen, Bishop of Leeuwarden, founded a Cathedral Chapter there, but it did not survive his death in 1580, at Cologne. He had no successors. John Knyff, Bishop of Groningen, who was not so violently opposed as the others, died in his cathedral city in 1576. He had no successors; for John de Bruherzen, Dean of Utrecht, who was appointed to succeed him was elected Archbishop of Utrecht, though never consecrated; and Arnold Nylen, who was then appointed, had to flee to Brussels and died there in 1603, without having been consecrated. Nicolas Verburgh, the first Bishop of Middelburg, died there in 1573, and was succeeded by John van Styren, who, though consecrated, was never able to live in his diocese, and died at Louvain in 1594. Thus the six sees of the ecclesiastical province of Utrecht were not all left vacant.

The diocesan organization, however, continued especially at Utrecht and Haarlem. Although Roman Catholic services were forbidden, a large proportion of the people was still Roman Catholic. It was the duty of the Cathedral Chapter to appoint "Grand Vicars" or Vicars General to administer the diocese during the vacancy of the See, according to the directions of the Council of Trent; but at Utrecht the Dean of the cathedral was by statue Vicar General ex-officio. John de Brutherzen, Dean of Utrecht therefore became Grand Vicar on the death of Archbishop Schenk; he was elected archbishop, but the Pope never confirmed the election. He had been banished from the country, because he had refused, as President of the Council of Utrecht; to invite William the Silent to the city; and he died at Cologne in 1600. He was succeeded as Vicar General in 1583 by Sasbold Vosmeer, Dean of Saint Mary's Church, The Hague, who was also, in 1592, appointed by the Pope Vicar Apostolic [a post not to be confused with that of Vicar General] for the whole of the United Provinces. The Chapter of Deventer, removed to Oldenzaal in 1591, continued until 1665.

Chapter Four

It was in 1592 that the Jesuits first entered the country; and the difference between their policy and that of Vosmeer and the national clergy, which ultimately led to the separation, began at once.

The Roman Catholics of Holland had their own diocesan organization; the Chapters had the right to elect bishops and present them to the Pope for confirmation. They regarded the Pope as their lawful superior, but held that he was bound to respect their canonical rights. A parallel may be drawn, perhaps, between their attitude towards their ecclesiastical and their civil ruler. They recognized the King of Spain as their sovereign, but held that he was bound to respect the privileges of the provinces; they regarded the Pope also as a constitutional sovereign, bound to respect the canonical rights of local churches. But neither King no Pope would recognize these limitations. Both were convinced believers in the Renaissance ideal of absolute monarchy; both demanded blind obedience to their edicts.

The Jesuits were the new papal militia, vowed to absolute obedience to their General. Their conception of the Church left no room for local rights, or for diocesan organizations. Their policy was to abolish the hierarchy and the dioceses, and to secure that the Roman Catholic mission in the Netherlands should be controlled entirely by the Congregation de Propaganda Fide at Rome - that is, in practice, by them.

With this object, the Jesuits did their utmost, from the moment of their arrival in the country to prevent the Bishoprics from being filled. They held that the bishop who was needed for ordination and confirmation should be only a Vicar Apostolic appointed by the Pope and removable at his direction; not a diocesan bishop with canonical rights of his own and power to hinder the designs of their Society.

The Chapters, on the other hand, and the majority of the clergy and people, while perfectly loyal to the Pope, did not want to be directly controlled from Rome. They valued their ancient rights, and were determined to maintain them. They detested what they regarded as the moral laxity of the Jesuits. And they thought that their countrymen were more likely to return to the Church if the ancient constitution and the ancient type of piety were retained, and the bishops were elected by their clergy, than if the Church were entirely administered by Jesuits, whose moral teaching and exotic piety were alike repugnant to the Dutch. Moreover, the Jesuits, who were believed to be in favour of political assassination, were particularly odious to the government.

This was the real cause of the dispute, which began more than forty years before the publication of Jansen's Augustinus.

The accusation of Jansenism was brought against the Chapter of Utrecht much later, on the principle of "Give a dog a bad name and hang him". But from the first to last the real issue was the rights of the Chapters; and, behind it, the claim of the Papacy to unlimited obedience.

As early as 1598 the Jesuits successfully prevented the appointment of Vosmeer to the See of Haarlem. In 1602 he went to Rome to protest against the intrusion of the Jesuits on the rights of the secular clergy, and to ask for the appointment of an archbishop. The Archduke Albert, who had married the daughter of Philip II, and to whom the sovereignty of the Netherlands had been left by the King's will [Philip died in 1598], believed [mistakenly] that he had the right to nominate the Archbishop of Utrecht under an edict of Charles V. He nominated Vosmeer, who was also elected archbishop by the Chapter, and, much against his will, was consecrated at Rome, September 22, 1602,with the title of Archbishop of Philippi [in order not to offend the Dutch Government], but with the condition that he might assume the real title of Archbishop of Utrecht when circumstances would permit.

Neale, History of the Church of Holland, Appendix 2, gives the evidence that he was indeed Archbishop of Utrecht at length. The following are some examples of it. On January 11, 1603, the archbishop wrote to his brother, Tilman Vosmeer [who had been suggested for the See of Haarlem]: "The Pope wished to promote me by a foreign title: but he gave me the people of Saint Willibrord, that I may be truly called Archbishop of Holland, Zealand and Utrecht". In 1609 he wrote to Gravius, his agent at Rome, that the Archduke had nominated him as Archbishop of Utrecht, but the Pope, in giving him the title of Archbishop of Philippe, and said to him, "You may change your title as soon as your Archduke pleases". [From the standpoint of the Roman Catholic clergy, the Archduke was the lawful sovereign of the whole of the Netherlands and the Dutch Government mere 'insurgents'.] In 1613 Vosmeer told Gravius that his title of Philippe referred, not to Philippi in Macedonia, but to King Philip!

He was banished by the government for having sought and accepted nomination to the Archbishopric of Utrecht from the Archduke Albert: which was naturally regarded as high treason by the Republic. [Dr. Neale thinks the Jesuits themselves denounced him to the government]. Moreover, the Jesuits ordinarily addressed him as Archbishop of Utrecht - e.g., Louis Makeblyd, August 6, 1611, Gerard Contonnel, September 18, 1613. He himself used the title regularly, often in the form Archiepiscopus Ultrajectenis et Philippensis. Besides his 'ordinary' jurisdiction as archbishop, he had his special jurisdiction, as Vicar Apostolic of the Pope; these two separate forms of authority are carefully distinguished in his official documents.

Having been banished from the United Provinces, Vosmeer had to govern his diocese from abroad, first from the Spanish Netherlands, later from Cologne, though he visited it when he could at the risk of his life. He had continually to struggle against the intrusion of the Jesuits and the mendicant orders; he once wrote to his brother, "The inconvenience caused by the Protestants is less than the trouble due to the Jesuits". There were only eight Jesuits in the country in 1609, but in that year the republic agreed to a truce with Spain for twelve years, and the Jesuits were able to enter the country more easily.

By every means in their power they encouraged the clergy and people to ignore the authority of the archbishop, with the object of increasing the power and wealth of their own order. They complained to the internuncios at Brussels that the archbishop was hindering their work; but, as Vosmeer's correspondence shows, they left the really labourious and dangerous work of ministering in the villages to the parish priests.

On December 16, 1609, the archbishop formally inhibited the Jesuits and the mendicant orders from the administration of the Sacraments and from preaching, and forbade the people to have recourse to them. The Jesuits complained to the Pope, who deprived Vosmeer of his Vicariate Apostolic, but the archbishop made a complete defence of himself and the Pope gave way.

Chapter Five

Archbishop Vosmeer died on May 3, 1614, and was buried in the Franciscan church at Cologne. The Chapters of Utrecht and Haarlem had already recommended that Philip Rovenius, Dean of Oldenzaal, should be consecrated as his coadjutor. Rovenius was unwilling, and the Chapter of Utrecht recommended Henry Vorden; but the Chapter of Haarlem insisted on having Rovenius, and the dispute was decided in favour of Rovenius by Jacobus Jansonius, then President of Hadrain VI College at Louvain.

Rovenius was elected by the clergy immediately after the death of Vosmeer and was consecrated Archbishop of Utrecht, November 8, 1620 at Voorst near Brussels, by the Papal Nuncio. He had already been Vicar Apostolic for six years.

In 1583 there had been about 600 priests in the United Provinces. By 1614 the number was reduced to 170. But from that time the number, both of priest and people, began to increase. In 1663 there were 383 parishes in the six dioceses. The cause of the increase seems to have been the cessation of the persecution after the truce with Spain had been agreed to.

The new Archbishop had the same titles as his predecessor. Since the sovereignty of the Netherlands [according to the legitimist view] had reverted, on the death of the Archduke Albert, to Philip III of Spain, the clergy asked Cornelius Jensesn, who was going to Madrid on other business, to request the King formally to confirm the election of Rovenius as Archbishop of Utrecht. It does not appear that the King ever did so; but on March 10, 1640, Rovenius was banished by the magistrates of Utrecht for having taken the title of Archbishop of Utrecht. Until then he had lived at Utrecht, in secret, in the house of Mademoiselle de Duivenvoorde, a lady of noble birth who had bound herself by a vow of chastity; and he had at least one narrow escape from the officers of the Burgomaster.

Rovenius continued his predecessor's struggle against the intrigues of the Jesuits; he even had to go to Rome to get his rights over the Jesuits and other orders confirmed. They were compelled to sign an agreement promising obedience, but they did not keep the promise.

The principal work of Archbishop Rovenius was the reconstitution of the Chapter of Utrecht. The canonries had never been suppressed, but most of the members were not Calvinists; the chapter still had its estates, and held regular meetings. In 1622 the Government of Utrecht ordered that only Calvinists should be presented in future. Archbishop Rovenius then chose nine of the few priests remaining in the chapters, added to them two others whom he had intended to present shortly to canonries in the months when he had the right of patronage and constituted this body with the "Vicarinate" of the Chapter of Utrecht, with all the ecclesiastical rights of the old Chapter.

This reorganization, which was completed on June 9, 1633, was necessary if the Chapter, as a Roman Catholic institution, was not to come to an end. No protest was raised at the time; most of the canons, which were priests but had not been selected by Rovenius, had left the country to avoid persecution. Rome accepted the nominations made by the reorganized Chapter, down to the death of Archbishop Codde in 1710; and the chapter itself was recognized expressly, on many occasions, by Papal Nuncios. After this, Rovenius and his successor'' ceased to use their right of appointing members of the legal chapter, which had ceased to have any significance for them.

Another important achievement of Rovenius' episcopate was the foundation of the "Klopjes" or "Knocking Sister", who, wearing ordinary dress and living in their own homes, did the work of teaching and nursing among the persecuted Roman Catholics in the villages. In 1639 the government forbade them to teach children; but after 1667 the laws against them fell into disuse. The last of them died in 1853. They were called "Knocking Sisters" because they went from house to house to summon the people to church.

In 1641 Rovenius, with nine of his priests, gave their approval to the Augustinus of Cornelius Jansen. It seems that he also made certain liturgical changes. During his episcopate, in spite of the persecution, the number of Roman Catholics increased from 200,00 to 300,000. In 1647, Jacobus de la Torre was elected by the Chapters of Utrecht and Haarlem to be his coadjutor, and consecrated with the title of Archbishop of Ephesus; but he was shortly afterwards banished, and went to live at Antwerp.

When Rovenius died in 1651, de la Torre succeeded him. He was a weak man, and was induced by the Jesuits to sign a document, known as the "Concessiones Ephesinae", which allowed them to increase their missions, although they had done their best to hinder his appointment. He was out of his mind for some time before his death, and had a coadjutor, Zacharias de Metz [appointed by the Pope, though last on the list sent in by the Chapter], whose hasty temper caused much trouble, but who died two months before the archbishop. Johannes van Neercassel was elected to succeed Metz, and as coadjutor, had the right to succeed on the diocesan's death, but when the archbishop died on September 16, 1661, Baldwin Catz was appointed archbishop and Vicar Apostolic by the Pope, with Neercassel as his coadjutor. They were consecrated together at Cologne on September 8, 1662, Catz as Archbishop of Philippi, and Neercassel as Bishop of Castoria. But Catz soon became an imbecile, and died on May 18, 1663, when Neercassel came into possession of the Archbishopric.

Chapter Six

Archbishop van Neercassel was the last and greatest of the Archbishops of Utrecht who died in full communion with Rome. He succeeded in solving an important problem of marriage for the whole Roman Communion. The Council of Trent, in order to prevent secret marriage had decreed that no marriage should be recognized as valid without the presence of a priest.

This was interpreted as meaning that all Protestant marriages were invalid. That a married person, on joining the Roman Communion must leave his or her spouse until the should be remarried; and that if the other spouse refused to repeat the marriage the Roman Catholic spouse might then marry any other person. Archbishop van Neercassel, on the other hand, taught that marriages between persons not in communion with Rome were by natural law valid and indissoluble; and that if such persons afterwards joined the Roman Communion, their previous marriage only required the Church's blessing to make it sacramental. The view was accepted by the Roman Penitentiary in 1671, and was made the law of the Church by Pope Benedict XIV in 1741.

van Neercassel continued to suffer from the attacks of the Jesuits, who boasted that they would drive the secular clergy out of Holland and were always trying to discredit him by accusing him of false doctrine. In 1670 he found it necessary to go to Rome to defend himself. Taking with him letters of recommendation from the French ambassador at The Hague, M. de Pomponne [Simon Arnauld, brother of Antoine], the Princesse de Contil [a niece of Cardinal Mazarin], the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and Christina, the former Queen of Sweden. He was completely successful, and obtained from the Congregation de Propaganda Fide two decrees in his favour. He at once returned to Holland. During his stay in Rome he was much ridiculed for his simplicity of life, because he had only one servant with him. During his journey to Holland he took every opportunity of preaching, especially in the diocese of Munster, where great crowds assembled everywhere to hear him; the Prince-Bishop, who could not preach himself, was delighted to find a bishop who could.

In 1748 Spain had recognized the independence of the Dutch Republic, so that the Dutch Roman Catholics no longer felt bound to regard the King of Spain as their real sovereign, and no longer felt obliged to risk being accused of high treason by seeking his confirmation for Church appointments. On the other hand, the war with France caused some difficulty. In 1672, when the French occupied Utrecht, the cathedral was restored to the Roman Catholics; and when they retired, the Archbishop thought it wise to take refuge at Huissen in the Duchy of Cleves, where he founded a diocesan seminary.

Some of the French Jansenists took refuge in Holland at this period. In particular, Antoine Arnauld, who was an intimate friend of Archbishop van Neercassel, wrote, during his retirement at Huissen, a book called Amor Poenitens, defending the thesis of Arnauld, that contrition, founded on the love of God, is necessary to penitence and salvation, and that attrition, or sorrow due to punishment is not enough.

This book was attached with great violence by the Jesuits, but it was formally sanctioned by thirty French bishops, and received the commendation of Pope Innocent XI, who remarked, "The books is a good one, and the author is a saint." Under Alexander VII a decree was published forbidding the distribution of the book "until corrected"; but it was never formally condemned and the author published in 1685 a new and corrected edition.

In 1685 the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and the arrival in Holland of crowds of Huguenot refugees from France, led to the last persecution of Roman Catholics. It was not very severe, because the Roman Catholics have liberally to the funds raised for the support of the French exiles.

On June 6, 1686 the archbishop died of fever at Zwolle while visiting the eastern part of his jurisdiction. According to Bellegarde, the episcopate of van Neercassel was the golden age of the Church of Utrecht; the persecution was just severe enough to keep the Church pure, the priests were united, obedient, and devoted to their work, and the number of adherents steadily increased. Out of two million in the territory of the United Provinces, 330,000 were Roman Catholics. [In England at that time the number of Roman Catholics was only 30,000].

On the death of Archbishop van Neercassel, the Chapters of Utrecht and Haarlem unanimously elected Hugo Francis van Heussen as his successor; Peter Codde and John Lindeborn were appointed Vicars General to administer the diocese during the vacancy of the See.

Heussen was the favourite disciple of van Neercassel, who called him his "Timothy", and he had already in 1682 been elected coadjutor-bishop. To prevent his consecration the Jesuits had denounced a treatise on indulgences, which he had written in 1681 as heretical.

The Holy Office at Rome was still examining this book when he was elected by the Chapters to succeed van Neercassel. The result of this attack was the condemnation of the book on May 15, 1687. But this decree was found to be full of mistakes and the Pope suppressed it. However, the Chapters saw that there would be difficulty in getting the election of Heussen confirmed at Rome, so they sent in three alternative names, of which that of Peter Codde was the first.

All four, however, were accused of Jansenism and of supporting the Four Galican Articles by the other side. On September 29, the Congregation de Propaganda Fide rejected Heussen. They decided that in future the Church in the civil provinces of Utrecht, Holland, Zealand, and Gelderland should be placed under Bassery, the Vicar Apostolic of Hertogenbosch [Bois-le-duc], and the other provinces under a Vicar Apostolic to be chosen by the nuncio at Cologne and the internuncio at Brussels.

Cardinal Howard [uncle of the Duke of Norfolk] prevented this arrangement which would have brought the ancient dioceses to an end. He had been a friend of Archbishop van Neercassel, and who used his influence as agent of King James II [this was a year before the English Revolution] to persuade the Pope to reject the decision of the cardinals.

Various other proposals were made, but in the end Peter Codde was chosen. Heussen was being rejected solely on account of his book on indulgences. Heussen was profoundly thankful that he had not been made archbishop; he had now leisure to write two large historical works, Batavia Sacra and History of the Bishoprics of the United Netherlands, upon which his fame chiefly rests.

Chapter Seven

Peter Codde was born at Amsterdam, November 27, 1648 and educated at Louvain, where he joined the Congregation of the Oratory. He lived for some time in devout retirement in the Oratorian houses at Paris and Orleans.

Archbishop van Neercassel called him back to the Netherlands and in 1683 put him in charge of the most important parish at Utrecht. Codde had published a Dutch translation of Bossuet's Exposition of the Catholic Faith, and he was also a celebrated preacher. The Archbishop of Malines and the Bishops of Antwerp and Namur, on Septuagesima consecrated him at Brussels Sunday, February 6, 1689 with the title of Archbishop of Sebaste. Before the consecration, the internuncio, De Via asked him to sign a document condemning Jansenist beliefs: this was the "Formulary" [Ad Sanctam Beati Petri Sedem], [see Appendix IV] though Codde did not know it. He replied that he had not studied the Jansenist controversy and that he must consult his friends before signing such a document.

The internuncio said that it was of no importance and changed the conversation. However, Archbishop Codde's work was continually interrupted by the complaints made by the Jesuits at Rome that he was a Jansenist and a Galican. As early as 1691 the worry caused by these complaints, together with overwork, threw him into a serious illness of which he nearly died. Pope Innocent XII appointed a commission to inquire into these charges and presided over it himself. The Archbishop was unanimously and unconditionally acquitted.

However, the attacks continued, and in 1699 the cardinals secretly decided to get rid of Codde, and to appoint Theodore de Cock in his place. The Chapters had sent this priest to Rome in 1686 to defend their interests; but since then personal ambition had led him to change sides.

The archbishop was invited to come to Rome for the Jubilee of 1700. He did not want to go, but decided that it was less dangerous to go than to stay. Before he went, rejecting the suggestion of the internuncio at Brussels that he should appoint Theodore de Cock as his deputy during is absence, he appointed four "Pro Vicars" to take charge of his province; Catz and Heussen for Utrecht, Deventer and Middelburg; Groenhout and Swaen for Haarlem, Leeuwarden and Groningen. This shows that the six sees, though all but Utrecht had been vacant for over a century, were regarded as still in existence.

On his arrival at Rome the archbishop found that Innocent XII was dead, and that Cardinal Albani, who was entirely devoted to the opposite party had succeeded as Clement XI. Codde was well received but fresh accusations were brought against him and his clergy.

A protest in support of the archbishop was signed by 300 of his priest, headed by the four Pro Vicars, and sent to Rome; among those who signed it were Steenoven and van der Croon, who afterwards became Archbishops of Utrecht themselves. These 300 constituted the majority of the priests in the six dioceses of whom there were altogether 470, 340 secular and 130 regular.

The commission appointed to decide the truth of the charges against Codde was equally divided [December 1701]; nevertheless, in the following May; Theodore de Cock was appointed Pro Vicar Apostolic of the United Provinces, in the place of Peter Codde, deposed. No mention was made of any reason for the deposition; the brief was not published at Rome, and Codde only heard of it by letters from his friends in the Netherlands. The commission appointed to try the case had not yet issued its report. Even the Ultramontane canonist, Hyacinth de Archangelis, issued a formal opinion that a Vicar Apostolic with the rights of an ordinary, as Codde undoubtedly was, could not be arbitrarily deposed.

Precisely how this event occurred will probably never be known, for all the members of the commission were ordered to be silent, on pain of excommunication.

The Chapters of Utrecht and Haarlem unanimously decided not to recognize the authority of de Cock on the grounds that the Pope had no canonical right to deprive even a Vicar Apostolic, still less an archbishop without trial and condemnation.

From This Point Begins The Schism Between The Two Parties In The Dutch Roman Catholic Church.

In some places the adherents of the Archbishop and the Chapters and those of de Cock ceased to communicate with one another. There were popular disturbances; and the Dutch Government, having summoned Van Erkel, one of the leaders of the archbishop's party, to explain the position, issued a decree forbidding Theodore de Cock to exercise any jurisdiction over the Roman Catholics in its dominions.

It is clear that at this point the question at issue was not doctrinal, but the demand for blind obedience. According to the canons, bishops could only be deposed after a proper trial and condemnation with full opportunity to defend themselves. But to the Jesuits and their pupils the Pope was an absolute monarch, and any rights or privileges interfering with his will were intolerable.

The Counter-Reformation, of which the Jesuits were the chief agents, had practically put the Roman Communion under martial law.

Meanwhile the archbishop found himself in a difficult position at Rome. The Jesuits announced in the Netherlands that he was in the hands of the Inquisition, and would be imprisoned for life, beheaded, or burned. In reality, he was not interfered with but the Italian clergy could not understand his lack of personal ambition or his refusal to sign what he called "equivocal documents", even to further his own cause.

However the Dutch government, urged on by his three nephews, who were among the Burgomasters of Amsterdam, commanded him to return within three months. And warned the Court of Rome that if he were prevented from coming the Jesuits would be banished from the country and de Cock confined to his own house. De Cock accordingly begged the Pope to allow Codde to return and on April 12, 1702, the archbishop left Rome with special passports from the Emperor and the Republic of Venice, and with permission from the General of the Dominicans to celebrate Mass in every house of their order. After travelling by Vienna and Dresden in order to avoid the war then raging in Europe, he arrived in the Netherlands on June 27. He had four priests with him, one of who was Cornelius Steenoven, afterwards his successor.

de Cock, who had rashly accused the government of being bribed by the secular clergy was banished and fled to Rome, where he was given a canonry in the Basilica of Saint Lawrence.

The Chapter of Haarlem was in a different position from the Chapter of Utrecht. The Archbishop was not their diocesan; his authority over them was that of a Metropolitan. To make sure that they were right in rejecting the authority of Theodore de Cock as Vicar Apostolic, they consulted Van Espen, the great canonist of Louvain. His formal answer, the Motivum Juris pro Capitulo Cathedrali Haarlemiensi, laid down that the authority of a Vicar Apostolic could not override the right of the Chapter to govern the diocese during the vacancy of the See [which in the case of Haarlem had been vacant since 1587]. But that in any case the authority of even a diocesan bishop reverted to the Chapter is he were exiled, just as it would if he died; therefore, whatever authority de Cock had possessed had ceased when he was exiled.

Though de Cock had been banished, his party remained; and Archbishop Codde found his flock divided by a schism. He had been deprived, unjustly and uncanonically, of his powers as Vicar Apostolic of the Pope, but he was still Archbishop of Utrecht. He had before him three possible courses:-

• a] to submit to the decision of Rome, and retire into private life. But this would have been to desert his friends and to surrender the rights, and even the existence of his See.

• b] to continue to exercise his authority as archbishop, while appealing against his suspension as Vicar Apostolic. As archbishop he had diocesan jurisdiction in Utrecht, and Metropolitan jurisdiction in the other dioceses; as Vicar Apostolic he had diocesan jurisdiction wherever there was no bishop or Chapter. This was the course that Van Espen advised him to follow. It would have led to an immediate breach with Rome; but this was in any case inevitable.

• c] to retire from the exercise of his office, while protesting against his suspension. This was the course advised by Quesnel, and this he did, because he was afraid of hurting the consciences of simple people if he continued to resist the Pope.

The new archbishop at once wrote to Pope Benedict XIII and to the chief Roman Catholic bishops everywhere to inform them of his consecration. He also published a manifesto addressed to the whole Church, explaining the principles on which he and his clergy had acted and with it a formal appeal to the future General Council confirming the appeal of May 9, 1719.

On February 21, 1725, the Pope issued a brief, declaring the election of Steenoven null and void and his consecration "illicit and execrable". Forbidding the Roman Catholics in the United Provinces to recognize him as their archbishop or to have any dealings with him, especially in matters of religion, and pronouncing the severest censures on the Bishop of Babylon and his assistants. Surprise was caused by the Pope's accusation of false doctrine against the Church of Utrecht, an accusation that was indignantly repudiated.

When the brief reached Holland, Steenoven was already seriously ill. After making a solemn declaration of his belief in the Catholic Faith, including the prerogatives of the Roman See, and appealing for himself and his flock to the future General Council, he died April 3, 1725.

Chapter Ten

On May 15, Cornelius John Barchman Wuytiers, a priest of noble family who had been one of those ordained by Bishop Soanen of Senez, was elected unanimously by the Chapter of Utrecht to fill the vacant See.

As in the case of Steenoven, the Chapter announced the election to the Pope, and asked for the confirmation of the archbishop-elect and for a dispensation for consecration by a single bishop. Every effort was made by Rome to prevent the consecration.

Already diplomatic pressure had been applied to the Dutch Republic by Venice, and by the Roman Catholic Electors of the Empire to induce it to forbid the consecration of a successor to Steenoven. The Dutch Government replied to the Doge of Venice that it intended to protect both parties among its Roman Catholic subjects. Because it believed that in matters of religious persuasion and not constraint should alone be practiced, and that it could not admit the right of the Pope to exercise unlimited authority over its subjects.

On this the Ultramontane party asked that they might be allowed a Vicar Apostolic and there was a rumour that Rome might permit him to take the title of Bishop of Haarlem; but the Government though this would only prolong this schism and refused its consent.

Persuasion having failed, an attempt was made to try force. The Bishop of Babylon [upon whom, of course, the possibility of the consecration depended] was staying with the parish priest, Pastoor Verheul, at Helder, at the entrance to the Zuyder Zee. He was told that a lady warmly attached to the other party had boasted that he would not trouble the country much longer. A few days later he was invited to dinner by the captain of an unknown ship. On his refusal, the ship set sail, and he had no doubt that there had been a plot to kidnap him.

An attempt was next made to reconcile the Bishop of Babylon to Rome by means of his old friend, M. de Montigny, the agent at Rome of the Society of Foreign Missions at Paris. But he said clearly that the sole aim of this attempt was to delay or prevent the consecration of Barchman Wuytiers. On August 23, however, a papal brief was published which condemned the election of Barchman Wuytiers in still more violent terms than that of Steenoven. Which made the Pope ridiculous by mentioning as visible signs of Divine vengeance, not only the death of Archbishop Steenoven, but also that of "the laymen Doncker", and by asserting that the archbishop had been consecrated in his house. Theodore Doncker, one of the assistants at the consecration of Steenoven, was a priest, not a layman, and was not dead, but alive and well.

It will be remembered that one of the points of issue was the duty of good Roman Catholics to accept without doubt facts officially stated by the Pope, such as the presence of the Five Propositions in the "Augustinus." Doncker, standing in his pulpit at Amsterdam, with the brief in his hand, asked his people how the Pope, who had declared him to be dead, could expect his own decrees to be treated as infallible oracles.

As before, the neighbouring bishops were invited to consecrate the new archbishop, but no answer was received from them. The Bishop of Babylon was then approached, and on September 30, 1725, the 18th Sunday after Trinity in the Church of St. James and St. Augustine at The Hague [which is still in use], he consecrated Cornelius John Barchman Wuytiers as Archbishop of Utrecht. As before, the archbishop announced his consecration to the Pope, who replied by excommunicating him and all his clergy and all that should in any way assist or encourage him. He answered by appealing to the future General Council and by a letter to the Pope in which he offered to resign for the sake of peace. But only on condition that he and his clergy should not be asked to accept the "Formulary" or the "Unigenitus", and that the rights of the Chapters should be recognized.

In the meantime, the Chapter of Haarlem, which, though maintaining it right to exist [denied by Rome], had deserted the cause of Utrecht, had elected a Vicar General on the express condition that he should not exercise the functions of his office in any way. But before it did this, the Chapter of Utrecht, after inquiring of the canonists of Louvain whether it had a right, as Chapter of the Metropolitan See, to appoint a Vicar General for Haarlem if the Chapter of Haarlem refused or delayed to do so, appointed Barchman Wuytiers, [afterwards Archbishop] as Vicar General for Haarlem. As archbishop he continued to govern the parishes in the dioceses of Haarlem, which recognized his authority, in the capacity of Vicar General as well as of Metropolitan.

Archbishop Barchman Wuyties received more letters of congratulation and communion after his consecration than any of his predecessors or successors. They numbered more than 100 and were signed by at least 2,000 ecclesiastics in France and the Austrian Netherlands. Among them were all the bishops who had congratulated Steenoven, and there were said to be thirty others in France who were in sympathy a list of these were sent in October 1725 to the archbishop by M. Dilhe. There were also letters of congratulation from many distinguished laymen. Thirty-one Carthusian and fourteen Cistercian monks, driven from France because they had refused to accept the Bull "Unigenitus", fled to Holland and placed themselves under the Archbishop of Utrecht.

As the Bishop of Babylon was getting old, the archbishop was anxious to secure the succession by consecrating a Bishop of Haarlem. After consulting Van Espen and others, he gave notice to the Chapter of Haarlem that unless they elected a bishop within three months he would exercise his right as Metropolitan and nominate one. The three months passed, the archbishop assembled the Chapter and Theodore Doncker was unanimously elected. But owing to a controversy about usury, which was then raging, the consecration was postponed and Doncker died in 1731. On May 13, 1733, Archbishop Barchman Wuytiers died suddenly at his house at Rhynwyck, near Utrecht.

On July 22 in the same year, Theodore van der Croon, parish priest of Gouda, who had been associated with the party of the Chapter since the days of Archbishop Codde, was unanimously elected archbishop. The same formalities and excommunications took place as in the case of Steenoven and Barchman Wuytiers. An attempt was made by the French and Portuguese ambassadors to bribe the Bishop of Babylon to return to France. An interview was arranged at the castle of Zeist. The bishop was accompanied by M. Jube, but instead of finding there the Portuguese ambassador as he expected he found the French ambassador who offered him, in the name of Cardinal Fieury [who was practically Prime Minister of France], benefices sufficient for him to live in episcopal state. The bishop asked for two days to consider the offer, as a polite way of refusing; but Acunha, the Portuguese ambassador, bitterly reproached his French colleague for not having kidnapped the bishop. He answered that such methods were not to his taste, and also might offend the Dutch Government.

On October 28, 1734, the Bishop of Babylon consecrated Theodore van der Croon. The new archbishop was a man of particularly gentle disposition and he asked the Archbishop of Malines to use his influence at Rome in his favour. This only provoked a violent controversy in which, as in all the other controversies on the subject, the supporters of the Chapter had the last word. The archbishop died on June 9, 1739.

He was succeeded by a man of much more determined character, Peter John Meindaerts, who had been ordained in Ireland by Bishop Fagan, and who was now Archpriest of Leeuwarden and Dean of Friesland. The usual forms were observed and Meindaerts was consecrated on St. Luke's Day, October 18, 1739. He announced his consecration to the Pope, and declared himself ready to resign if by doing so he could bring peace to the Church.

It is from Archbishop Meindaerts that all the later Old Roman Catholic bishops derive their succession, for the Bishop of Babylon, after having consecrated four archbishops, died on May 14, 1742 at The Hague and it became necessary to consecrate another bishop in order to provide for the succession.

Meanwhile, Prospero Lambertini, the great canonist, had in 1740 become Pope under the name of Benedict XIV. This modest and learned Pope, the greatest occupant of the Roman See in the eighteenth century might have been expected, perhaps, to heal the schism. But Benedict XIV, though not as much under the influence of the Jesuits as some of his predecessors, was a thorough Ultramontane. Professor von Schulte, the great Old Roman canonist, says that Benedict XIV did for canon law what the Vatican Council did for dogmatic theology; he brought it under Papal control. He though that the Bull "Unigenitus" had been a mistake, perhaps did not even believe it, but he felt bound, in loyalty to his predecessors, to insist on its being accepted. And he not only excommunicated Archbishop Meindaerts, but also abused him in language exceeding that of his predecessors, as "a child of iniquity, a most unnatural son of the tenderest of fathers, a deceitful and savage wolf, an accomplished deceiver, a madman who case was almost desperate". The reason for this violence was that Meindaerts was supposed to have directly disobeyed the brief of Clement XII declaring the election invalid, although in reality that brief had not and indeed could not have reached Holland before the consecration.

Chapter Eleven

Archbishop Meindaerts lost no time in providing for the succession. The Chapter of Haarlem had continued to refuse to exercise their right of election and the metropolitan there had the right to nominate the bishop [per just devolutionis]. With the consent of those of the clergy of Haarlem who acknowledged his jurisdiction, he nominated Heironymus de Bock. de Bock had also been ordained in Ireland, and who was in charge of one of the parishes at Amsterdam, to the See of Haarlem, [vacant since 1587] and consecrated him on September 2, 1742. As usual, the Pope excommunicated everyone concerned. Bishop de Bock died within three years, and John van Stiphout was nominated as his successor and was consecrated on July 11, 1745.

Three different attempts to bring the schism to an end were now made. The first failed because Rome insisted that the archbishop and his clergy should accept the "Formulary" and the "Unigenitus" and revoke all their appeals to the future General Councils and that the archbishop should asked for absolution. Then a certain Father Norbert proposed that the Dutch clergy should not be required to accept the "Unigenitus' on the ground that if they did so, they would be breaking the civil law. But they found that they were being represented as really accepted the "Unigenitus", and only refusing to do so publicly for fear of civil penalties. As honest men, they could not permit themselves to be placed in such a false position. They explained their real attitude towards the Bull, whereupon the negotiations came to an end.

A third attempt failed through the death of Benedict XIV. The Marquis Nicolini, a Florentine, who made this attempt, declared his astonishment that Rome should accept the regicides of Portugal but anathematize the best Catholics in the Church. Cardinal Tamburini promised that if he were elected Pope he would at once reconcile the Church of Utrecht; but he was not elected and nothing was to be hoped for from Clement XIII, a weak man who could not resist the Jesuits.

As reunion appeared to be hopeless, at any rate for the present, Archbishop Meindaerts decided to strengthen his position by consecrating a third bishop. There was one faithful congregation in the diocese of Leeuwarden, and it appeared desirable to appoint a bishop for that See, but some of the clergy preferred a coadjutor-bishop. The canonists of Paris and Caen were consulted, and agreed unanimously that the archbishop had the right to consecrate a bishop for Leeuwarden, and indeed for all the other vacant Sees. Bishop Verthamon of Lucon supported this opinion. But as the Government of Friesland objected to the consecration of a bishop for that province, the archbishop, with the unanimous consent of the Chapter, nominated as Bishop of Deventer, Bartholomew John Byeveld, a canon of Utrecht, who was in charge of one of the parishes at Rotterdam.

He was consecrated on the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul, January 25, 1758. The revived Bishopric of Deventer had never been more than a titular one; as there have never been any parishes in that diocese which have accepted the archbishop's jurisdiction. The nomination of Byeveld was denounced by the Pope as usual, and the archbishop replied with a letter which was translated into French, Latin, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese and went through three editions in France in less than a month; it also made a great impression at Vienna. No brief was issued against the consecration though it had been forbidden.

In 1763 Archbishop Meindaerts decided to hold a provincial synod. Though the Council of Trent had ordered that provincial synods should be held every three years, it had not been possible to hold one at Utrecht since 1565. The main purpose of the synod was to condemn the erroneous teaching published by Pierre Le Clerc, a French subdeacon living at Amsterdam. By7 which means it was hope that the Pope might be induced to judge the Church of Utrecht favourably; and at the same time to condemn the teaching of Hardouin, Berruyer, Pichon, and other Jesuits. The members of the synod were the three bishops, the Dean and Chapter of Utrecht, and representatives of the clergy of both dioceses. They met in the Cathedral Church of St. Gertrude at Utrecht.

The synod began by securing the rights of the rest of the clergy of the province if at any future time they should submit to the authority of their lawful bishops. Then formally recited the Nicene Creed, anathematized, and adopted Bossuet's Exposition de la Foi [Exposition of the Faith] as the expression of its own faith.

Le Clerc had declared that the Five Propositions attributed to Jansen contained the Catholic Faith on the question of grace. This opinion was formally condemned by the Synod; for the contention of the Dutch "Janenists" had always been, not that the Five Propositions were true or orthodox, but that they were not to be found in Jensen's Augustinus.

In condemning Le Clerc's account of the schism between Rome and Constantinople, the synod most injudiciously declared the Greek Churches to be schismatic because they were separated from the 'chair of Peter'. No doubt the synod was not acquainted with the case for the other side. It also condemned Le Clerc's opinion that the Church is never infallible except when it is assembled in Ecumenical Councils, and that bishops and priests are equal; and it renewed its adhesion to the creed of Pius IV, which Le Clerc had rejected.

It condemned various doctrinal errors of the most serious kind taught by the Jesuits, Hardouin and Berruyer [the former of whom had put forward the remarkable theory that all the classical literature was composed in medieval monasteries!] and errors in moral theology taught by Pichon, another Jesuits. It also condemned several works on Probabilism, one of which had already been condemned at Rome. In opposition to the opinion of the Jesuits, that the Pope might dispense subjects from their civil allegiance, and that regicide was in certain cases permissible, the synod rejected this dispensing power, and asserted the Divine right of kings. This was one of the main issues between the Roman and English Churches in the century after the Reformation: Pius V had declared Queen Elizabeth deposed, and released her subjects from allegiance to her, which had been the chief reason for the persecution of Romanists in England.

Attempts to murder her, as well as Henri IV of France and William the Silent in the Netherlands, successful in the last tow cases, and been defended on the principles now condemned. The Jesuits had been accused of attempting to murder King Joseph of Portugal, September 3, 1758 and this had led to their expulsion from the kingdom.

The synod also passed twenty-four canons on discipline. The most interesting of these directed that those who neglected the opportunity of being confirmed risked their salvation. That there should be no music during the Mass between the Elevation of the Host and the Lord's Prayer [as already directed by Archbishop Rovenius]. And that marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics, even when performed without the forms required by the Council of Trent were valid, but, on the part of the Catholic partner, sinful. This was in accordance with the instructions of Pope Benedict XIV