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 XI. Cornelius John Barchman Wuytiers,
Eighth Archbishop Of Utrecht. 1725 — 1733. 1. The death of Cornelius Steenoven
was undoubtedly a great blow to the Church of Holland, not only from the loss
of a faithful and diligent pastor, but because his decease, so shortly after
his elevation to the episcopate, was stigmatized by the Ultramontanes as a
notable punishment of sacrilege. This argument, however, was, as we shall
see, pushed a little too far, and recoiled on its inventors. The Chapter
assembled at Utrecht six days after the Bishop’s death, and nominated as
Vicar-General, the see vacant, Gisbert van Dyck, whom we have previously seen
entrusted with the same office, and Cornelius John Barchman Wuytiers, at the
same time raised to the place in the Chapter vacant by the decease of
Archbishop Steenoven. The latter was a man of noble family; had studied,
first with the Oratorians at Huissen, then in the College of Viglius at
Louvain, and then at S. Magloire in Paris, where he resided several years.
During that period he was one of the priests ordained by Bishop Soanen of
Senez. 2. A curious and delicate point now
occurred. The Chapter of Haarlem, persisting in its selfish separation from
Utrecht, had, nevertheless, to perpetuate its rights, elected a Grand Vicar,
on the express condition that he should exercise no functions pertaining to
that office. As early as 1715, the Chapter of Utrecht had [262] consulted the
theologians of Louvain on the subject. It was granted on all hands that, if
the Chapter of a suffragan diocese neglect, within the appointed time, to
nominate a Vicar, their right lapses to the Metropolitan. The question
therefore rose, — If the metropolitical see is vacant, does the right devolve
to its Chapter? The divines found the enquiry one of difficulty. The Bishop, qua
Bishop of a certain diocese, forms one body, they said, with his diocesan
Chapter; whether the Metropolitan qua Metropolitan does the same, was
a more difficult point[1]. They had, however, at length decided in the
affirmative; and the Chapter of Utrecht, now acting on that resolution,
nominated Barchman Wuytiers to the Vicariate of Haarlem. The Chapter of that
Church was stimulated into action, and by a capitular act denied that the
choice of a Grand Vicar had fallen to the Metropolitical Chapter by right of
devolution. While this bye-controversy was proceeding, the Chapter assembled
for the election of an Archbishop on the 15th of May[2]. The same
formalities were observed by which the former election had been
distinguished, but on this occasion the votes were unanimous, and the choice
fell on Barchman Wuytiers. While application was made to Rome for the Papal
Bulls, and — with the same strange foresight as before — for a dispensation
that the consecration might be performed by one Bishop only, we must turn our
attention to other matters. 3. Among the crowd of works which
deluged Holland on the election of Steenoven, the “History of [263] the
Church of Utrecht,” by Hoynck[3] van Papendrecht, a canon of Mechlin,
made the greatest sensation among those that favoured the Papal side. It
appeared at Brussels and Cologne, in the shape of a small thin folio,
containing, in the first place, a brief but most inaccurate sketch of the
history of the Church of Utrecht, from its erection to a metropolis till the
futile vicariate of Byevelt, then an appendix of letters, and then six
dissertations against the rights of the Chapter, the last entitled “On the
Illicit Consecration of Steenoven,” — in whose lifetime it appeared. It must
be confessed that the good Canon is not very complimentary to his
Ultramontane friends; for Govaerts, the impostor Desirant, and De Cock had
all attacked the national party; yet in his dedication he complains that the
cause of truth had found “no defenders.” No doubt the favourite theory of the
partizans of Rome had, up to this period, been that Vosmeer and Rovenius had
been true Archbishops of Utrecht, because in their days a Catholic prince was
de jure sovereign of the United Provinces; but that the Peace of
Münster had converted those prelates into Vicars-Apostolic, because there
could be no national episcopate where there was not a Catholic monarch.
Hoynck, however, saw the absurdity of such arguments, and such a conclusion,
and he therefore boldly affirmed that, from the change of religion, Church
and Chapter had collapsed, and that even Vosmeer was a mere Vicar-Apostolic.
And this is the theory of modern Ultramontanes. A second, and much enlarged,
edition of Hoynck’s, carried his assertions to an amusing pitch of daring. He
there affirms that the see of Utrecht is not vacant; it is so [264] utterly
destroyed, that the Pope, even if he wished, could not revive it: a maxim on
which Pius IX. has not acted. Hoynck, however, did good service to the
afflicted Church by the answers which he elicited. Broedersen’s first Tractatus
Historicus, which I have so often quoted, though tedious and long-winded,
is perfectly crushing. Van Erkel’s Defensio Ecclesiae Ultrajectinae
demolishes the unfortunate Canon, if not more thoroughly, at least more
smartly. The Bishop of Babylon’s “Second Apology” remained without an answer;
and Van Espen employed his matchless pen in a “Vindication of the Resolution
of the Doctors of Louvain.” 4. But this great doctor was now
himself in trouble, a trouble occasioned by his generous defence of Utrecht.
One Damen, a doctor of Louvain, in attacking the consecration of Steenoven,
declared it not only — in the words of the Papal Bull — execrable and
illicit, but absolutely null and void; for, said he, three consecrating
bishops, except by dispensation from Rome, are of the essence of ordination.
Van Espen, consulted on the question by the indefatigable Van Erkel,
completely demolished the Ultramontane partizan. He quoted the example of
Pelagius, consecrated by two bishops only; of Evagrius, by Paulinus alone; of
Siderius of Palaebisca, by Philo of Cyrene; and the first English
consecrations, by S. Augustine. In later years, a Bishop of Nyssa in
partibus, Vicar-Apostolic in China, had consecrated (1721) two bishops,
without even any assistant priest. The Prince-Bishop of Liége had, Dec. 31,
1724, been elevated to the episcopate by a single bishop in partibus.
In the same year, the Bishop of Antwerp had consecrated, unassisted, the
Bishop of Rhodes. More remarkably still, a Bishop of Paraguay had, in 1657,
distinctly [265] without dispensation, been consecrated by less than three
bishops, and the Congregation of Rites allowed that the act was valid. At a
later period, Herbert[4], a Canon of the Roman Catholic Chapter of
London, reinforced this array, by mentioning that Stoner of Thespia in
partibus was consecrated by Lucan alone; Petre, his vicar, by Giffard
alone. Van Espen’s treatise is known as the Responsio Epistolaris[5];
and though the writer was in his eightieth year, it exhibits no decline of
vigour or learning, if compared with his earlier performances. It was
published in Holland, and the editor unfortunately prefixed a short preface,
in which he urged that the consecration was not only valid, but licit. Damen
made a feeble reply, and was encountered by an adversary really as formidable
as Van Espen, in the person of Philip Lawrence Verhulst, one of the ablest
writers that Holland ever produced, and of whom we shall soon hear more.
Damen, worsted in argument, betook himself to force. He appealed to the
Council of Brabant, and after two years of negotiations[6] and
chicanery, by a packed University tribunal, the book was condemned, and the
author threatened with pains and penalties for a scandalous and pernicious
work. No alternative but submission or flight remained to the great canonist.
A niece, who had resided with him for a quarter of a century, and who, with
true womanly feeling, cared infinitely less for the validity of consecrations
by one bishop[7] or for the Church of Utrecht, than for a beloved and
revered uncle, besought him, if he possibly could, to make some retractation
that would satisfy his adversaries without compromising his own character: — [266] “No, he replied; “I have for
years studied the cause of the clergy of Utrecht, for which I suffer: and
after diligent prayer for the assistance of the Holy Ghost, and careful
consideration of the objections of the Papal party, I am more and more
convinced of the justice of my first impressions, and am so certain of the equity
and importance of this cause, that, if I hesitated to defend it, I should
have occasion to fear lest Jesus Christ should be ashamed to own me as His
disciple before the tribunal of the Supreme Judge.” He withdrew, not without some risk,
to Maestricht, where he took up his abode in the February of 1728. 5. We have anticipated the course of
events. Even before the death of Steenoven, the terror, as well as
indignation, felt by the Papal Court may be judged by the extraordinary means
taken to crush the Church of Utrecht. All Catholic princes were requested to
use their influence at the Hague, for the banishment of those who supported
it. Even the Republic of Venice wrote on the subject; and the States, in
civil terms, bade it mind its own business. Rome now offered their High
Mightinesses to allow a Bishop of Haarlem, if they would forbid the
consecration of Barchman: but this mean and pitiful concession was made in
vain. Other methods were therefore to be tried. The Bishop of Babylon was now
on a visit at the Helder. In this dreary desert of sand, shared almost
equally by men and sea-gulls, where that tremendous dyke of Norwegian granite
protects the flat waste from the race of the German Ocean through the Hell’s
Door, (whence the name,) into the Zuyder Zee, — a spot the inconceivable
monotony and barrenness of which can be realised only by him that has visited
it, — there existed then, and there exists still, a faithful remnant of the
National Church. A lady warmly attached to the Ultramontane party was heard
to boast that the Bishop of Babylon would not long trouble the country. [267]
A few days subsequently, that prelate received a pressing invitation from the
captain of a strange vessel, perfectly unknown to him, to honour him by
dining on board. He politely refused, and the ship instantly left the
harbour. Had he accepted the invitation, there can be no doubt that he would
have been carried off. 6. An offer of reconciliation to Rome
was now made. The Papal Court, it was said, was beginning to open its eyes to
the true state of the case. The Bishop of Babylon had warm friends among the
Cardinals. If he would but consent to defer the consecration, things might
yet go well. There could be no hurry. Premature action might defeat its own
end, and put a stop to all hope of reconciliation. The honesty of these
offers was soon manifested by the Brief of Benedict XIII. (Aug. 23, 1725)
against the election of Barchman Wuytiers, in which terms more outrageous
than those employed against Steenoven were unsparingly used. On this occasion
the Pontiff gave a curious proof of his infallibility as to facts. Allusion
was made to the death of Archbishop Steenoven, as a visible mark of the
Divine vengeance. “So also was that of the layman Doncker,” proceeded the
Brief, “a great supporter of that party, who died in impenitence and damnable
disobedience.” On the Sunday after receiving this instrument, M. Doncker, who
was a highly respectable parish priest in Amsterdam, and in perfect health,
publicly read this Brief from his pulpit; and we may conceive him then to
have addressed his audience on the reasonableness of the Formula, and of the Vineam
Domini Sabaoth. Those, we may remark, who drew up the next Brief against
Archbishop Barchman’s consecration learnt caution, and named no one but the
prelate, — whose [268] name, however, they were still so unlucky as to spell
wrong. 7. The steps taken by the Chapter on
this were the same as on the previous occasion. The neighbouring Bishops were
requested to attend the consecration; they were those of Antwerp, Roermonde,
S. Omer, and Rhodiopolis in partibus, coadjutor of Cologne. No answer
having been received from them, application was made to the Bishop of
Babylon, both by the Chapter and by fifteen of the clergy of Haarlem, the
first being that Doncker who had been slain by the Papal Brief[8].
That prelate consented to grant their request, and on the 30th of September,
1725, being the eighteenth Sunday after Trinity, and in the church of S.
James at the Hague, he consecrated Barchman Wuytiers Archbishop of Utrecht.
The letter in which the new prelate announced his consecration to the Pope
was met by the usual reply: a Brief of Dec. 6 declared him and his clergy
excommunicated and schismatic, as well as all those who should in any way
assist or encourage him. The Archbishop rejoined by another appeal to the
Future Council, to which his clergy gave in their adherence, and which he
explained to his people by a Mandement, which was much admired. In his
letter to the Pope, Archbishop Barchman had offered to resign his see if
tranquillity could thus be restored to his Church. Thierry de Viaixnes
manifested some uneasiness on the point. “It is perfectly unnecessary,” was
the reply: “if I resign, it will only be on these three conditions: — 1. No
Formulary; 2. no Unigenitus; and the rights of the Chapters
recognised.’’ 8. The letters of communion which
were received [269] at Utrecht amounted to more than a hundred, and were
signed by at least two thousand ecclesiastics, principally French. Besides
the bishops who had congratulated Archbishop Steenoven on his election, it is
said on good authority that there were at least thirty French prelates who
secretly acknowledged the rights, and gladly received communications from,
the Church of Utrecht. The National Church was still further strengthened by
the arrival of thirty-one Carthusians, compelled to leave France on account
of the imposition of the Unigenitus in their order as a rule of faith;
and fourteen Cistercians from the Abbey of Orval, in the duchy of Luxembourg.
These were settled by the Archbishop in various localities of his diocese,
and, on their settlement, they formally appealed to the future OEcumenical
Council[9]. 9. One of the most remarkable events
which distinguished the episcopate of Barchman Wuytiers was the attempt made
by him to bring about the union of the Eastern and Western Churches. The
first idea appears to have arisen among some of the doctors of the Sorbonne,
and more especially to have interested Monsieur Boursier, whose reputation
for learning and piety gave him considerable influence at Paris. When Peter
the Great was residing in that metropolis, among its other remarkable
institutions, he visited the house of the Sorbonne; and some of the doctors
took occasion to lament in his presence the divisions which separated Eastern
from Western Christendom. He promised to submit any memorial which they might
address to him to the consideration of his bishops — at that time under the
influence of Theodosius, Archbishop of Novgorod, and Theophanes of Pskoff, by
no means indisposed to forward a union with Rome. [270] Those prelates took
the documents into their consideration, and returned two replies to the
proposals which they had received. Their answers were unfortunately addressed
to the infamous Cardinal Dubois, the same who traversed the negotiations
between our own Archbishop Wake and Dupin for the reconciliation of the
Anglican and Gallican Churches, — and he at once quashed the whole
proceedings. They were renewed on occasion of the reception of the Princess
Galitsin, the wife of Prince Dolgorouki, at that time in Holland, into the
Roman Church. She made her profession of the Latin faith to Archbishop
Barchman, on the Feast of S. Barnabas, 1727, and requested from him a priest
of the Roman communion who might take charge of her family in Russia. He made
choice of Mons. Jubé, ex-incumbent of Asnières, in the diocese of Paris, who
had found it necessary to retire into Holland on account of his refusal to
accept the Bull Unigenitus. The affair was discussed both at Utrecht
and at the Sorbonne, and it was at one time proposed to invest him with the
episcopal character; and it was understood that Javoski, Archbishop of
Riazan, Lapatinski, of Tver, and the Metropolitan of Kieff, were by no means
unwilling that the consecration should take place. Archbishop Barchman,
however, contented himself with giving Mons. Jubé all the powers that could
be entrusted to a priest, and that ecclesiastic, after visiting Paris, and
receiving the blessing of the Archbishop, Cardinal de Noailles, took his
departure for Moscow. He was received in the most favourable manner, and the
negotiations seemed to be happily proceeding, till the death of Peter put an
end to them, as it did to those which at the same time were pending between
the Russian and the Scotch bishops. His successor, the Empress Anne, had
conceived a mortal [271] hatred to the whole family of the Dolgoroukis:
anything in which they had interested themselves was to be crushed; and M.
Jubé, after inventing all the pretexts for delay which his ingenuity could
furnish, was obliged to return to Holland. 10. During the progress of these
negotiations in Russia, the attention of Archbishop Barchman was directed to
another mission of great interest. It was proposed to endeavour to convert
the islands of Laos, on the Malabar coast, and to form those missionaries in
India who had refused to accept the Unigenitus, into a mission
independent of the Propaganda. The Bishop of Babylon and the Archbishop
exerted themselves strenuously in carrying out the project, and their efforts
were redoubled when they received the intelligence that, on the death of the
Bishop of Laranda in partibus, Vicar-Apostolic of Tonkin, the Court of
Rome refused to appoint any successor, because his clergy, almost to a man,
rejected the Bull. Great interest was also felt at Paris with respect to the
scheme, and Father Terrasson, of the Oratory, was to have been appointed head
of the mission. But before the ecclesiastics who composed it could sail,
Tessier, Bishop of Rosalia in partibus, and Vicar-Apostolic of Siam,
without whose co-operation success was hardly to be expected, drew back. He
could not, he said, risk the certain indignation of the Court of Rome for the
uncertain benefits derivable from such a mission: his brethren had better
overcome their scruples, and receive the obnoxious Bull as best they might.
The attempt, however, might in all probability have been notwithstanding
made, had not the death of Archbishop Barchman intervened. 11. The increasing years and
declining health of the [272] Bishop of Babylon naturally rendered the Archbishop
anxious to provide for the maintenance of the succession in the Church of
Utrecht. The episcopate, so wonderfully bestowed on that communion, must not,
he felt, be lost by its own negligence. On all accounts it seemed most proper
to fill the see of Haarlem, which had remained vacant since 1587. It was not
only the first of the suffragans of Utrecht, but the number of Catholics in
that diocese was greater than in any other, except Utrecht itself; the
Chapter had perpetuated itself under its ancient title without adopting, as
in the metropolitical see, the name of Vicariate; and till the year 1717, had
named Vicars-general during the vacancy of the see. The canons, however, had,
as we have seen, little by little deserted the cause of the National Church;
their Vicars-general had been raised to that phantom of an office on the
express condition that they should not exercise its rights; and, as I have
already related, the Metropolitical Chapter had nominated, by right of
devolution, another ecclesiastic to that dignity. After consulting various
theologians, and more especially Van Espen, Archbishop Barchman gave formal
notice to the Chapter of Haarlem that they were bound to proceed to the
election of a bishop, and that if they neglected within the space of three
months to do so, the nomination to the episcopate would devolve to himself,
as Metropolitan. They allowed the three months to pass, and the Archbishop,
after procuring another “consultation” from Van Espen, adopted by the French
canonist Le Gros, convened his Metropolitical Chapter for the 16th of June,
1727. The principal among the clergy of Haarlem were invited to attend, and
the Bishop of Babylon was present, as holding the place of a suffragan. After
the mass of [273] the Holy Ghost, and a discussion as to the respective
merits of various ecclesiastics proposed, the unanimous choice of the
assembly fell on Theodore Doncker, whom we have already mentioned. The
Archbishop had intended at once to proceed to his consecration, but various
writings of his own on the subject of usury had at this time raised a storm
which threatened the welfare, if not the existence, of the National Church;
and the elevation of Doncker to the episcopate was for the present deferred.
On his death, which occurred in 1731, the clergy of Haarlem made new efforts
to obtain a prelate, — efforts, however, which were not crowned with success
till some years later. 12. An event which occurred at
Amsterdam at the commencement of 1727, occasioned as much sensation in that
city as the miracles, real or imaginary, of the deacon Paris had done in
France. A girl, by name Agatha Leenderts Stouthandel, who had been for some
years suffering from dropsy, with a complication of other disorders,
pronounced incurable by the physicians, had a strong impression produced on
her mind that if she could communicate from the hand of the Archbishop, she
should be cured. She did so on the Feast of the Epiphany, and, it is said,
instantly recovered perfect health. Barchman appointed a commission, consisting
of three of his clergy, to enquire into the authenticity of the alleged
miracle. Their report is given by Kemp[10]. In the three months which
their enquiries occupied, they received the depositions of three medical men,
a hundred and thirty Catholics, and more than thirty Protestants, all of whom
attested the reality of the disease, and the [274] suddenness of the cure. It
seems hard to resist such a weight of evidence, which it was never even
attempted by the Roman party to break down. The only circumstance which would
seem in any degree to derogate from the authenticity of the miracle, was the
fact that the avowed and principal wish of Agatha Stouthandel, in
communicating, was not so much her own restoration to health, as the
procuring an irrefragable testimony to the righteousness of the cause which
the National Church supported. The Jesuit writers of the time ridiculed the
occurrence, but made no attempt to discredit the witnesses. 13. During the course of these
events, Archbishop Barchman was engaged in drawing up the constitution of the
Seminary at Amersfoort: the excellence of his rules is proved by their
remaining still in force. Nor was he behindhand in asserting from time to
time the rights of his Church by his pen. He had the melancholy satisfaction
of attending the death-bed of the exiled Van Espen, and of assisting at his
funeral. I have visited, in the once magnificent church of S. George at
Amersfoort, the tomb of this great canonist. He preferred, says his epitaph,
exile from his country in extreme old age to the desertion of justice and
truth, by giving up the cause of the Archbishop and clergy of Utrecht, and
acquiescence in the too-famous Unigenitus. His tomb is in the family
vault of the Foeyts, and at the entrance to the choir. Archbishop Barchman’s
pastoral letters of Dec. 30, 1725, on the duties and responsibilities of a
bishop; that of April 10, 1730, on the death of Benedict XIII.; and the
letter which he addressed to Bishop Soanen, of Senez, on the result of the
Council of Embrun, received the highest commendations at the time, and are
still much valued. [It ought to have been mentioned that
Van Espen, believing his residence at Maestricht unsafe, had taken up his
abode at Amersfoort. - Author’s Corrigenda] [275] The Archbishop’s death occurred
suddenly at his house at Rhijnwijck, near Utrecht, on the 13th of May, 1733.
The Bishops Soanen, of Senez, Caylus, of Auxerre, and Colbert, of
Montpellier, lament it as one of the greatest blows that the Church could
have suffered[11]. [1] The correspondence on this subject, which is
interesting, may be seen in Van Espen’s Works, vol. v. pp. 313, 314. [2] The Chapter then consisted of Van Erkel, dean;
Daellenoort, Oosterling, Van Dyck, Van der Croon, Kemp, Broedersen, and
Barchman Wuytiers. [3] This name is spelt very variously: I follow
Hoynck’s own orthography, as given in a book in my possession, once belonging
to him. [4] The letter dated Feb. 16, 1728, is in the Recueil,
p. 277. [5] Van Espen, Opp. tom. v. p. 484. [6] All these negotiations are related at great length,
and not very clearly, in De Bellegarde’s Vie de Van Espen, pp. 167, sqq. [7] Vie de V. E., p. 99. [8] Both letters are given in the “Second Apology” of
the Bishop of Babylon, pp. 487, sqq. That of Utrecht, by Kemp, vol. v. p. 95. [9] Kemp, part vi. p. 80. [10] vol. ix. pp. 53 — 68. [11] Dom Pitra, in his Hollande Catholique,
represents the episcopate of Barchman as one scene of confusion and internal
disputes. The difficulties which really occurred on the subject of usury, and
in which men equally earnest might fairly take different sides, are magnified
by him into a perfect schism. The unanimity with which the election of his
successor was made is a sufficient proof that there was no real division in
the Church. |
John Mason Neale, 1818-1866 |
