http://www.romancatholicism.org
|
|
A History of the So-Called Jansenist
Church of Holland By the Rev. J.M. Neale, M.A. Oxford: John Henry and James Parker,
1858 Chapter X. Cornelius Steenoven, Seventh
Archbishop Of Utrecht. 1723 — 1725.
[253] 2. The eyes of all Catholic
Europe were now fixed on the proceedings of the Chapter. That Rome would
yield none could imagine; but would the canons have courage to persevere? How
were the three bishops to be found? Would the Bishop of Babylon venture to
consecrate alone? Was the election a mere bravado, or was it to be carried
out to the end? “I can think of nothing,” writes Langlois, Bishop of
Boulogne, “except of les affaires présentes de cette glorieuse Eglise
d’Utrecht.” No answer from Rome. A second letter from the Chapter on the
4th of August[2]; a third on the 29th of December[3]. No answer
still. The spring of 1724 came on. Van Erkel’s dialogues were doing good
service; and Ultramontane pens were employed to reply to them. One of these
works so produced was an ingenious counter-dialogue between Warmond and
Regthart; the other, a letter from a Doctor of Louvain to a friend in
Holland, on the rights of the so-named Chapter of Utrecht. 3. On the 9th of March the Chapter
addressed a circular letter to all Catholic bishops on the sufferings of the
Church of Utrecht. It had scarcely been sent out, when intelligence arrived
of the death of Innocent XIII. The Ultramontanes were now in consternation.
The late Pope had not approved, but neither had he condemned, the election;
during the vacancy of the Holy See the neighbouring bishops might feel less
fettered; the new head of the Church might be moderate in his views, and
might acquiesce in the consecration. The cardinals, therefore, in conclave,
issued a letter[4] on the 8th of April, in which they applied the most
scurrilous reproaches to the Chapter, and to the Bishop of Babylon; the
Internuncio, holding [254] the same language, addressed a circular to all the
Catholics of Holland[5], and the pamphlet was sedulously dispersed. It
is curious that the day before the Cardinals had issued their manifesto,
Steenoven and Van Dyck, as Vicars-General, had published a pastoral letter,
in which they desired the prayers[6] of the faithful for the departed
Pope. To the Internuncio’s letter[7] the Chapters returned a firm
reply; and, determined to leave no stone unturned, they next addressed a
circular to all Catholic Deans and Chapters[8], urging them to make
common cause against an invasion of common rights. This producing no effect,
they next wrote to the Universities[9] of Louvain, Douai, Paris,
Rheims, Nantes, Caen, Poictiers, Cologne, Vienna, Prague, and Strasbourg.
Still no answer. “Verily,” says Kemp, with a touch of
natural bitterness, “they were all dumb dogs — they could not bark!” “Let
them all,” he continues, “let bishops, canons, universities, be silent! Such
a silence, noble clergy and illustrious Chapter, is a clear proof that your
Archbishop has been well and validly elected, and that you may proceed with
full assurance to his consecration.” 4. Now came intelligence that
Cardinal Orsini had been elected to the vacant See, and had taken the title
of Benedict XIII. The Chapter addressed him most submissively[10], but
to as little purpose as before. Letters were sent to the neighbouring
prelates, conjuring them for the love of Christ to come to the relief of the
distressed Church, and to consecrate Steenoven. Few replied: those who did,
wrote with every expression of sympathy[11], but declined more [255]
active assistance. Even De Caylus, the most prononcé of the French
bishops, could give no warmer comfort than “Si j’étais en ce pays la, je ne
ferai pas la moindre difficulté de lui imposer mes mains.” It was understood,
however, that the Bishops of Antwerp, Arras, and S. Omer were all but
persuaded to come forward, and the first-named took a singular method of
shewing his sympathy. On the 30th of July he consecrated his brother Bishop
of Rhodes in partibus, without the assistance of any other prelate,
which he might easily have procured, — as if he would thereby exhort the
Bishop of Babylon to act, without scruple, by himself. In the meantime, the
question was universally asked, How long is this state of things to continue?
The Archbishop had been elected a year and a half, and not one step had
really been effected towards his consecration. No one urged on the affair so
much as Dom Thierry de Viaixnes, who made it his especial business to enquire
into the sentiments of the French bishops. In a letter of the 10th of September,
1724[12], he tells the Chapter that, to his certain knowledge, the
Bishops of Montpelier, Senez, and Auxerre were for the consecration; and
that, from the best evidence he could collect, those of Bayeux, Pamiers,
Macon, Rhodez, Angoulerne, Metz, Troyes, and the ex-Bishop of Tournay, were
in the same sentiments. 5. The Chapter, after having vainly
requested the assistance of the nearest bishops[13], Antwerp,
Roermonde, Namur, S. Omer, on the 13th of October, 1724, addressed a letter
to the Bishop of Babylon, briefly recapitulating what had been done, the
extreme necessity of their Church, their repeated applications [256] to the
Church of Rome[14], and mentioning the consecration at Antwerp as a
pattern and an excuse: — “It is,” they wrote, “as in old times:
if we all do as our brethren have done, and fight not for our lives and laws,
they will quickly root us out of the earth.” — “You see,” they continue,
“that we are as sheep that have no shepherd, who may be Christ’s vicar in our
Church: by Him, then, Who is the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls, we
beseech, entreat, and conjure you to give us the desire of our hearts. What
will be your praise in the Catholic Church, if you raise up again a Church
that has almost fallen, a Church which God has perhaps preserved free from
certain new bondages and scandals,” — (they not obscurely hint at the
Formulary and the Unigenitus,) — “to this end, that when He shall
renew His signs, and shall do wondrously, it may minister to the execution of
His counsels?” 6. Accordingly, after so many delays,
on the nineteenth Sunday after Trinity, Oct. 15, 1724, the Chapter assembled
in the private chapel of the Bishop of Babylon, at Amsterdam. Van Erkel and
Daellenoort assisted in the place of the wanting prelates, and Cornelius Steenoven
was rightly and canonically consecrated Archbishop of Utrecht. The time was
the somewhat unusual hour of 6 a.m.: this was chosen to suit the convenience
of the parish priests, Jacob Krys, Luke Ahuys, and Theodore Doncker, who had
officially to be present, and who had to do their own parochial duties later
in the day. The bold step was taken, — the Rubicon was passed; and it
remained to see what sympathy and assistance the Church of Holland might
expect. The result was not long doubtful. Letters of congratulation flowed in
from all quarters. The Bishops Colbert, of Montpelier; De Caylus, of Auxerre;
De Lorraine, of Bayeux; De Tilladet, of Macon; [257] De Verthamon, of
Pamiers; Soanen, of Senez; wrote in person. Tourourre, of Rhodez; Dreuillet,
of Bayonne; D’Arbreuve, of Dax; De Corslin, of Tarbes; Meaupon, of Lombez;
Beaujen, of Castres; De Verthamon, of Lugon; wrote by deputy: and the host of
letters from dignitaries of the second order was countless. “You may
rightly,” says Ruth d’Ans, addressing the new Archbishop from Brussels, Oct.
16, 1722, “you may rightly call yourself Archbishop of Utrecht ‘by the grace
of God;’ for what other grace could have overcome the obstacles which have
opposed the happy consummation of this so great work?” — “I feel for you,”
writes Thierry de Viaixnes, from Amsterdam, “when I think of the weight of
business by which you will be at once overwhelmed. You knew yourself how it
would be, and therefore it was that you shrank from an office formidable even
to angels. But the Spirit of God, Who animates you, will make this burden
light.” — “If the consecrator,” writes Chas-saigne, “had never performed any
other episcopal act than this, I should regard him as the first Bishop in the
Church.” — “The Lord hear thee,” says Barchman Wuytiers, with a juster
appreciation of the impending storm, “in the day of trouble: the Name of the
God of Jacob defend thee! Send thee help from the sanctuary, and strengthen
thee out of Sion! Remember all thy offerings, and accept thy burnt-sacrifice!
Grant thee thy heart’s desire, and fulfil all thy mind[15]!” 7. The Archbishop lost no time in
acquainting the Court of Rome with his consecration. His letter to Benedict
XIII. is no less forcible than touching. He dwells on the long-delayed hopes
of his Church, [258] the exultation of her adversaries, and the righteousness
of her cause; while he dwells on her inviolable attachment to Catholic unity,
and undiminished reverence for the chair of S. Peter[16]. Six weeks
later, he addressed Cardinal de Noailles on the same subject, and wrote to
several other influential bishops[17]. One of the most strenuous
adversaries of the National Church, Tilemann Backhusius[18], a priest
who had at first espoused the cause of his brethren, put forth an impertinent
epistle to Colbert of Montpelier, as the supposed author of one of the most
striking letters of Communion received by Steenoven: — “Tacitus gemo,” writes
he, “summoque animi dolore afficior cum hos dissensionis filios literis tuis,
Pater Reverendissime, in Schismatis confirmationem tam impudenter abuti
videam.” This attack did no harm: but the national clergy had a severe loss
in the death of Jacob Krys, whom we have seen concurring in the election and
consecration of Archbishop Steenoven, and who was the first to interest the
Bishop of Babylon in the affairs of the Church of Holland, and had throughout
been one of the most zealous defenders of the national cause to be found in
the diocese of Haarlem. He died, somewhat suddenly, on the 29th of October,
only a fortnight after the consecration of Steenoven, and was succeeded by a
young priest who inherited his zeal and learning, Cornelius Harteveld. 8. On the 21st of February in the
following year, Benedict XIII., newly elected to the Papal throne, declared
by a Brief the election of Cornelius Steenoven null, and his consecration
illicit and execrable: forbade all Catholics to hold any communication with
him in divinis; and fulminated the severest censures [259] against the
consecrating prelate and his assistants. The national clergy took a firm
attitude; pointed out the errors in matter of fact which the Brief contained,
and contended that it bore such evident marks of being surreptitiously
obtained, as to be utterly invalid. It reached Holland at the end of March,
and was indefatigably circulated, both in Latin and Dutch, by the Internuncio
Spinelii and his agents. A host of replies, rejoinders, protestations,
counter-protestations, &c. swarmed through Holland: of some of these I
shall speak presently. 9. Towards the end of March the
Archbishop was seized with a severe illness. He was already confined to his
bed when the Brief reached Holland. Summoning his remaining strength, he
replied by a protest, which is a model of composition in its way: — “In extreme danger, through the
violence of disease, and soon to appear before the tribunal of the Supreme
Judge, I wholly submit myself to His will, without Whose permission not one
sparrow falleth to the ground. And although I acknowledge my sins to be many
and great, — woe is me! too many and too great! — and confess that I am
unable to answer my Judge, if He should sentence me according to justice
without mercy, yet I cast not away hope, because I know that I have this same
Judge, our Lord Jesus Christ, as my Advocate with the Father. I declare that
I profess the Catholic faith, which I have always held, and my confession of
which I lately sent to Rome, with the instrument of my election — that I now
hold it, and that I desire to hold it to my last breath.” After forgiving his enemies, and
expressing the unwillingness with which he had acquiesced in his election, he
continues: — “I am ever ready to acknowledge in
the Holy See all the prerogatives which the Catholic faith asserts; and I
commend the rights of this Church to the strenuous defence of its [260]
Canons, whom nevertheless I charge to shew all reverence to the Apostolic
Chair … And now, from this Brief, from all the charges which it contains, and
from all evils which through it, directly or indirectly, may threaten me and
my Church, first calling on the Name of God, and protesting all due
submission to the Roman Pontiff, I appeal to the first OEcumenical Council to
which there may be free access, both for myself, for the Canons, and for all
parish priests committed to my charge; and earnestly, and most earnestly, I
demand the letters called Apostoli from those whose business it is to
grant them. And I place myself, my clergy, my people, and the rights of this
Church, under the protection of God and the said OEcumenical Council; and I
reserve to them the right of renewing this appeal when and before whom shall
seem to them good. — Done at Leyden, this 30th of March, 1725. Four days afterwards, the Archbishop,
having received the last Sacraments, with great resignation rendered up his
spirit to the God Who gave it. He had bequeathed the defence of his Church to
the Chapter, and we shall see how gallantly they fulfilled his trust. [1] “J’ai crû qu’il seroit bien pour beaucoup de
raisons,” writes Codde under date of Aug. 19, 1700, “que je fusse accompagné
par un membre du Chapitre de Haerlem, et par un de celui d’Utregt. Celui de
Haerlem sera M. François Groenhout, frère de celui qui est Pro-Vicaire: et
puisqu’ il y a une place vacante dans le Chapitre d’Utregt, on la remplira de
M. Steenoven avant mon départ.” Tract. Hist. i. 144. [2] Kemp, vol. ii. 41. [3] Ibid. 53. [4] It is given in Kemp, ii. 228 — 235. [5] Kemp, ii. 237 — 242. [6] Ibid. 152 — 157. [7] Ib. 251 — 290. [8] Ib. 174 — 196. [9] Ib. 198 — 217. [10] Ib. 294 — 304. [11] One such is given in Kemp, iii. 3, but the name of
the prelate is suppressed. I did not find it in the Archives. [12] This is in Kemp, iii. 16 — 26, but the names are
there suppressed. In the Recueil the names are given. [13] The letter is in Kemp, iii. 53 — 57. [14] This letter is given in Latin and French in the
Second Apology of the Bishop of Babylon, p. 467; and in Dutch in Kemp, iii.
58 — 65. [15] These, and many other testimonies, are to be found
in the Recueil des Témoignages, p. 319, &c. [16] The letter is given at length by Kemp, iii. 104 —
112. [17] Ibid. 113 — 120, and 121 — 128. [18] Ibid. 132.
|
John Mason Neale, 1818-1866 |
