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 XVI. John Jacob Van Rhijn, Twelfth
Archbishop Of Utrecht. 1797 — 1808. 1. The new republic did not interfere
with ecclesiastical matters; nor did the oppression under which the people
groaned affect the National Church. The Chapter assembled quietly, and
elected as their Archbishop John Jacob van Rhijn, then pastor at Utrecht, and
of a family which, through all its vicissitudes, had remained true to the
National Church. His consecration took place on the 5th of July, and was
performed by Broekman, Bishop of Haarlem, and Nellemans, Bishop of Deventer.
The usual notice was given to Pius VI., and it was hoped that if the
captivity of the Pope would hardly allow him to enter into friendly
negotiations with the Church of Utrecht, it would at least prevent his
replying in the ordinary strain of excommunication. That hope was
disappointed. The usual excommunication was issued, and dispersed over
Holland by way of Brussels. 2. Scarcely had Van Rhijn assumed the
helm of the Church of Holland, when the constitutional Bishops of the Church
of France met in council in Notre-Dame at Paris. It is no part of my task to
pronounce any opinion on the principles and the conduct of these men. Placed
in times of extraordinary difficulty, in the chaotic conflict of the old and
new systems, when every ordinary principle of guidance seemed to fail, at a
period when the old Church of France (the fact must [341] never be forgotten)
was about to perish[1], they cannot be judged by ordinary
rules: perhaps it must be left to posterity to pronounce an impartial
sentence upon them. I know that they are not only execrated by Ultramontane
Europe, but are mercilessly condemned by writers of the English Church. To
their own master they have stood or have fallen: if He saw their errors, He
knew their difficulties; if some apostatized from the faith, some died
martyrs for Christ’s Name[2]. “Whatever opinion,” says Guettée,
(and I heartily re-echo his words,) “may be formed regarding the
constitutional bishops, all must agree that they accepted with courage the
situation to which events had reduced the Church of France, and that without
delay they put their hand to the work of raising it from its ruins, without
seeking any other support (save God) than the good-will of the faithful. Many
writers have felt bound to speak of their National Council with a ridicule
which it does not deserve. We consider the duty of an historian who
respects himself to be this: always to speak seriously of an event
exceedingly important in itself, and especially so in the circumstances under
which it occurred.” Le Coz, Archbishop of Rennes,
(afterwards, under the Concordat, Archbishop of Besançon,) presided: the
Pope, who gave no single word, in answer, of advice, or help, was assured of
the inviolable attachment of the Council to the Catholic faith, and besought
to acknowledge it; and a touching letter was addressed to the insermentés
on the duty of union: — “We will adapt ourselves to all
dispositions, we will support all evils, we will manifest all lawful
condescension, rather [342] than allow such a scandal to subsist. If our
love, if our care for you lead us to open our hearts to you with the
frankness due to brothers, it is not that we also have not our own
prepossessions; it is that we have less confidence in the righteousness of
our cause than you have in the goodness of yours. We pour out our souls in
the bosom of our brethren: they may endeavour to escape from our embraces — they
can never rid themselves of our affection.” 3. With these prelates, and
especially with Grégoire, Bishop of Loire-et-Cher, the Church of Utrecht
deeply sympathized. She could not but feel for the men who afterwards, in
their negotiations with Bonaparte, thus expressed themselves: — “If the Roman Pontiff declares our
sees vacant, we will tell him that he has not the right, and that they are
more canonically filled than the chair of S. Peter. If he requires our
resignations, we shall reply that he has not the power. If, in his Bull, he
insinuates the least doubt as to the legitimacy of our episcopate, the Bull
will be declared criminal; if he evades this point, it will be returned as
insufficient.” In like manner they denounced the
Concordat between Leo X. and Francis I. as destructive of the liberties of
the Church, and in consequence they excited the opposition of both Napoleon
and Pius VII. The connection, however, between the constitutional Church of
France and that of Utrecht requires access to documents yet inaccessible, and
perhaps the lapse of a longer period of time, before it can be fairly and
satisfactorily related. 4. Archbishop Van Rhijn had held his
see only for a few months when the treaty of Campo Formio divided the
Austrian Netherlands and the province of Liége into nine departments, and
made them an integral part of the French republic. Pichegru had previously
carried his victorious arms into Holland; the Prince [343] of Orange had
resigned the possession of the supreme power, and had retired to England; and
the “Batavian republic,” modelled after the French pattern, was, in fact,
under the arbitrary power of the French ambassador at the Hague. Though Dutch
Flanders and Maestricht were ceded to France, the new distribution of
bishoprics effected by the Concordat of 1801 did not infringe, or scarcely
infringed on, the old jurisdiction of Utrecht and her suffragans. The
Archbishopric of Mechlin now contained the sees of Namur, Tournay,
Aix-la-Chapelle, Trèves, Ghent, Liège, and Mayence. Amidst all these dangers
and chances, the despised National Church held its own, and suffered no
serious loss. The first event within her pale was the death of Bishop
Broekman, which occurred on the 28th of November, 1800: his place was filled
by John Nieuwenhuis, pastor at Amsterdam, consecrated on the Feast of S.
Simon and S. Jude, 1801. Next Bishop Nellemans, of Deventer, was taken to his
rest on May 5, 1805: his successor was Gisbertus de Jong, pastor at
Rotterdam, consecrated on the 7th of November in the same year. 5. The Batavian Republic ceased in
1806: Louis, the brother of the first and father of the third Napoleon, was
raised to the throne of Holland. The administration of this prince, crippled
as he was by the gigantic and overbearing power of France, deserves all
praise; and the most pleasing chapter in Dom Pitra’s work is that in which he
relates the courage displayed by the king in the terrible inundation of 1809,
as well as in the great fire of Leyden in 1807. To Protestants, and to
members of the Roman communion, he was alike generous and just; to the
National Church alone he entertained an invincible repugnance — a repugnance
which had almost occasioned its ruin. For some years [344] it was in
agitation to introduce a Roman episcopate into Holland, but while the Church
of Utrecht subsisted, an invincible obstacle seemed to oppose the design. Who
it is that has to answer for the foul means employed to remove that obstacle
will probably never be known till the day of judgment. 6. On the 24th of June, 1808, the
Archbishop had, as was his wont, been walking in his garden, when, on
returning to his house, a letter was put into his hands as requiring an
immediate answer. He took it and opened it, was shortly afterwards seized
with violent convulsions and spasms, and died in a few hours, with every
appearance of poison. The sensation which must, under any circumstances, have
been occasioned by his death, was increased by the means employed to prevent
the election of any successor. It is almost needless repetition to
relate that the election and consecration of the Bishops of Deventer and
Haarlem were received with the usual briefs by the Papal Court. Pius VII.
trod only too faithfully in the footsteps of his predecessors. [1] It must always be remembered that the Bull Qui
Christi Domini, Nov. 29, 1801, absolutely suppressed and annulled the
then existing French Church, — 23 archbishoprics and 133 suffragans, — to
erect on its ruins the new Church of 10 archbishoprics and 50 suffragans. Was
ever such devastation wrought in a National Church? [2] Thus, if nine constitutional bishops
had married, eight had perished as martyrs on the scaffold. |
John Mason Neale, 1818-1866 |
