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 VIII. The See Vacant. 1686-1689. Peter
Codde, Sixth Archbishop Of Utrecht, Under The Title Of Archbishop Of Sebaste.
1689 — 1710. 1. As soon as ever the news of the
prelate’s decease reached Utrecht, great anxiety was felt as to his
successor. Van Neercassel’s own wish had been for Van Heussen: — “Others,” says Arnauld, writing on
the 13th of June to De Vaucel, “think that among those who might be nominated
to the Pope, he would not find any more able than M. Van der Mey, priest of
the Béguinage of Amsterdam, and M. Mouland, priest of La Haye, who is his
confessor. The latter is a very good man, whose principles are excellent, and
who has much firmness, but who is more persuaded than anyone that he must
abide by the choice of the late Bishop of Castoria: so that it is from him,
who has given intelligence of what he had known, that the prelate’s intention
has been learnt; he himself is very far from consenting to be elected. But as
to the former, he might have so good opinion of himself as not to be sorry
that he had been thought of; but he is quite unfit for this charge: he would
never be accepted by the two Chapters of Utrecht and Haarlem, which will
assemble next Tuesday to decide upon the person to be proposed; and as it is
certain that all the Chapter of Utrecht will continue to demand M. Van
Heussen, it is hoped that that of Haarlem will do the same. “A letter was received this morning
from M. Van Heussen, from Zwolle, by which he informs us that all differences
about the interment of the holy prelate are at an end, and that he intends to
set off on Tuesday, at 3 o’clock in the morning, to carry the body to the monastery
of the religious [198] of the diocese of Munster, of which I have already
spoken to you[1].” 2. The Chapters met at Gouda on the
18th of June, 1689, and unanimously elected Hugh Francis Van Heussen, canon
of Utrecht, and the inseparable companion of the late prelate, to the vacant
see. A native of Leyden, he was then in the 34th year of his age; he enjoyed
considerable reputation as a preacher, was usually spoken of by Van
Neercassel as his “Timothy,” and had two sisters who were well known, and had
laboured usefully, as Klopjes. To the universal Church he was afterwards to
become famous by his Batavia Sacra, and his Historia Episcopatuum
Foederati Belgii, both works which place him in the very first rank of
ecclesiastical antiquaries: — “You will learn,” says Arnauld to De
Vaucel on the 21st, “by my letter of yesterday, what God has the goodness to
do for the welfare of the mission, by the wonderful union which exists
between the members of the two Chapters of Utrecht and Haarlem, to demand of
his Holiness for his successor the person whom the late Bishop had chosen,
and who certainly, all things considered, is the most fit. It is quite true,
and it is not affectation, that he shrinks from it very much, as he said to
his illustrious friend in the letter which he wrote to him, and which he has
just shewn me. But you know well, that far from paying regard to his
repugnance, this ought the rather to induce his Holiness to further the
desires of a clergy who do so much honour to the Catholic religion, and who,
next to the grace of God, owe a part of their great regularity to the care
that the illustrious deceased has had for them.” As early as 1682 he had been chosen
by the Chapters, coadjutor and future successor of Van Neercassel; and the
Court of Rome had made some little demur as to the right of the canons to the
election of their [199] own prelate. These objections having been removed,
the affair of the Amor Poenitens succeeded; and that also having been
composed, Innocent XI. was about to confirm the nomination, when the Jesuits
denounced certain theses of Van Heussen’s, on Grace, on the Love of God, on
Canonization, maintained at Louvain in 1677, as heretical. This work passed
the ordeal, and then the author’s enemies accused a Treatise of Indulgences,
published by him in 1681, of heresy. While the book was under consultation,
Van Neercassel was called from the world; and on the election of Van Heussen,
the Congregation of Cardinals for the affairs of Holland decided on
re-examining not only the treatise, but also the theses. In the meantime
(July 10, 1686), the Chapters elected Peter Codde and John Lindeborn as
Grand-Vicars, — the see vacant. Of Codde we shall have to speak in the
sequel; Lindeborn is now best known as the author of an able and accurate Historia
Episcopates Davenriensis. 3. The examination of Van Heussen’s
works resulted in their condemnation by a decree of the Congregation, May 15,
1687. The document was so hurriedly put forth, that more than one grammatical
error was detected in it; and the indignation with which it was received in
Holland was excessive. Van Heussen himself addressed to the Pope an
apologetic letter[2], which may be regarded as a model of such
compositions; and besought him, in the words of Holy Scripture, “not to
quench my coal which is left, and not leave to me either name or inheritance
upon earth.” The decree was recalled, but the mischief had been done. One
breath of suspicion in the matter of Jansenism, or Richerism, was enough to
ruin the best [200] prospects of a vicar apostolic; and the clergy saw and
felt the full danger of their position. They met at the house of Catz, at
Gouda, on the 27th of July, and debated on the course to be pursued. It was
finally resolved, without withdrawing their postulation of Van Heussen, to
name three other of the clergy to the Pope’s choice. Those thus selected were
Peter Codde, Pro-vicar of Utrecht; Joseph Cousebant, Pro-vicar of Haarlem;
and William Schep, who had formerly filled that office. 4. Cousebant was best known as an
eloquent French preacher; he had been an able assistant to Van Neercassel, in
his arrangement of the question of mixed marriages. He was now Rector of the
Béguinage at Haarlem, and much beloved there; but his age, his broken health,
and violent attacks of the gout, rendered him less qualified for the charge[3].
Schep was a hard-working parish priest at Amsterdam; at a later period he
wrote, in Dutch, a little “Explanation of the Catholic Faith,” which had a
good sale. The enemies of the Church of Holland accused all four of
Jansenism, and of adherence to the four celebrated Gallican Articles of 1682,
than which nothing could be more offensive to Papal ears. The Congregation of
Cardinals — Azolini, the great protector of the clergy, being accidentally
absent — excluded Van Heussen definitively on Sept. 29, 1687, and further
determined that the provinces of Utrecht, Guelderland, Holland, and Zealand
should be attached to the vicariate apostolic of Bois-le-duc, the rest of the
United Provinces being put under the government of an ecclesiastic to be
recommended by the nuncios at Cologne and Brussels. Had this scheme taken
effect, the Church of Holland would have come to an end. But [201] the
Cardinal of Norfolk waited on the Pope, and used the influence which the
proceedings of James II. gave him at Rome, in defence of the secular clergy.
Innocent XI. annulled the arrangement, and the cardinals made a second
choice. This time it fell on Van der Mey, rector of the Béguinage at
Amsterdam, a well-meaning but weak man, and infirm through age and sickness.
Cardinal Howard again interfered, and the cardinals were again obliged to
yield. 5. There was one Adrian Van Wijck,
pastor of the village of Ketel, near Delft, a man of quarrelsome disposition,
and scarcely respectable character, but a creature of the Jesuits. They now
recommended him for the vicariate, and accompanied his name with an eulogy,
“which,” said Cardinal Colonna, “I should scarcely have felt myself justified
in attaching to S. Ambrose or S. Augustine.” At a later period he published
seven small treatises on “Grace,” filled with such rank Molinisrn, that, notwithstanding
the efforts of the party to defend them, they were placed in the Index. When
this attempt was known in Holland, the Chapter of Utrecht determined on
sending a procurator to Rome to defend their rights; that of Haarlem was more
lukewarm in the matter; and here for the first time we find that disposition
to yield to the overbearing influence of Ultramontanism, which at a later
period separated the Cathedral from the Metropolitical Chapter. Nothing
daunted, however, the Canons assembled in Van Heussen’s house at Leyden, —
Lindeborn only was absent from illness, — and discussed the question, who
should be their messenger? Van Heussen himself was proposed; but he observed
that[4], though he shrank from no trouble in the service of the
Church, and though his ample [202] means made the expense of such a legation
a matter of no importance, still, under the circumstances, such a journey
would expose him to a charge of ambition which it would not be easy to rebut.
He then mentioned, and subsequently introduced, one who afterwards exercised
a most important influence on the history of the Church of Holland, —
Theodore de Cock, second pastor at Leyden. A pupil of the Propaganda, he
would on that account be the more acceptable at Rome; and his perfect acquaintance
with Italian was an advantage not to be undervalued. At this time he was
supposed to be, and probably was, entirely in the interests of the clergy;
and on the mission being proposed to him, he declared his readiness to accept
it. Van Heussen entertained the canons and others interested in the cause of
the clergy at a farewell banquet; and De Cock (May 11, 1688) set forth on his
journey. 6. After waiting on his Holiness[5],
and on the principal cardinals, De Cock set himself to work to expose the
character of Van Wijck; and this he did so effectually, that the Jesuits
ceased to press his appointment. One effort more, however, they made. They
proposed John Staer, Provost of Maestricht, a man who had no other merit than
that of being a boon companion of the Prince of Orange, and having solicited
his influence for the dignity. “Who in their senses,” wrote De Via,
Internuncio at Brussels, “could have thought of such a bibacious fellow for
the episcopal dignity?” This scheme having failed, De Cock, assisted by Godfrey
Luffy, attached to the hospital de animâ at Rome, to whom by this time
the Chapter [203] of Haarlem had sent its procuration, drew up a memorial on
the mischief that was arising from the long widowhood of his Church. He
found, however, that the cardinals were utterly unacquainted with the details
of the affair; and it at length struck him that some documents must have
failed to reach them, or must have been suppressed. The secretary of that
congregation was Cibo, who, as we have seen, was a creature of the Jesuits.
This man was always ill when De Cock demanded to see the communications that
had been sent on both sides from Holland. At length, by the intervention of
Cardinal Colonna, they were produced; and it then appeared that all the
missives from the clergy had been systematically suppressed by the secretary.
Indignant at having been thus duped, the cardinals resolved to hold a
congregation without further delay; and it was accordingly convened for the
20th of September. 7. Cardinal Azolini spoke first[6],
and gave his vote for Van Heussen, on whom he pronounced a very flattering
eulogy, and expressed his opinion that the condemnation of the Treatise of
Indulgences was no bar to the episcopate of the author. “Nor do I think it
one,” said Altieri; “and were Van Heussen the only ecclesiastic proposed, I
also would vote for his nomination. But we have a list of four, and it seems
to me that our business is to choose, not merely a good, but the best
subject.” “I am of that opinion,” subjoined Ottoboni. “This being the case,
then,” said Colonna, “let us examine the respective claims of those submitted
to our choice.” He went through the list, and, after assigning his reasons
for excluding three, — the Treatise of Van Heussen, the infirmities of
Cousebant, and the age of Schep, — he ended by [204] giving his vote for
Codde. Casanati first, and then Howard, followed his example. “If Van Heussen
is to be excluded,” said Azolini, “ I also record my vote for Codde;” and
Altieri and Ottoboni gave in their adherence to the judgment of the rest. 8. Letters from Rome reached Van
Heussen on the 14th of October. He tore them open in great agitation,
terrified lest the choice should have fallen on himself; and when the first
few lines announced the election of Codde, he exclaimed joyfully, “Thou hast
broken my bonds asunder: I will offer to Thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving.”
Then, calling his family together, he led them into his oratory, and gave
thanks to God for his deliverance from so great a burden. “I would have hastened
at once to Utrecht” — so he wrote the same afternoon to Codde — “ to see you
and to congratulate you, had I not been engaged to the Discalceate Carmelites
to preach for them tomorrow (S. Theresa’s Day).” It was his freedom from the
load so nearly imposed on him which enabled Van Heussen to erect those
imperishable monuments to the Church of his country, the Batavia Sacra,
and the Historia Episcopatuum Foederati Belgii. 9. Peter Codde was born at Amsterdam
on the 27th of November, 1648. He entered the congregation of the Oratory at
an early age, and pursued his studies with success both at Louvain, at Paris,
and at Orleans. His tenets on the Augustinian controversy then raging may be
sufficiently gathered from the schools in which he had been brought up; and a
casual acquaintance with Van Neercassel soon ripened into a warm friendship
both with that prelate and with Van Heussen. With the former he resided
during the period of his voluntary exile at Huissen, and afterwards had a
cure at Utrecht, Here he published [205] a vernacular translation of
Bossuet’s Exposition de la Foi Catholique, and was one of the most
popular preachers whom Holland had for many years produced. On repairing to
Brussels for his consecration, he was exposed to the first of the many
vexations that were to exercise his troublous life; the faint forerunner of
that terrible storm which so soon burst on him and on the Church which he
guided. He was requested by the Internuncio De Via to sign a document
condemnatory of the tenets of Jansenius. This was the celebrated Formulary,
though not known to Codde as such, albeit, as he partly confesses, he
suspected as much. “The Jansenian controversy,” said the prelate-elect, “is
one which I have not considered; the terms of this document seem to me
peculiar; and I should wish to consult with my friends before I set my name
to the paper.” On this De Via said that the matter was of no importance, took
the paper from Codde, and turned the conversation. The danger seemed to be
passed, but it was only in appearance. Codde was consecrated, under the title
of Archbishop of Sebaste, on Septuagesima Sunday[7], Feb. 6, 1689. In
his first pastoral[8] he earnestly entreats the prayers of his clergy:
— “I could wish you,” he writes, “to
consider that the supplications which you offer for me will redound to your
own salvation. If God, in answer to your intercessions, give me the power of
rightly holding the rudder of this bark, so much the more will be gained for
your well-being, who are fellow-voyagers with me in the same ship. If you
obtain from the mercy of the Almighty, that I am sanctified with the copious
dew of His divine anointing, it cannot be but that the same will flow down
upon you; and the more that, [206] through your intercession, constancy of faith,
purity of love, sincerity of peace, shall abound in me, the more faithful and
prudent a servant shall I be in this great family, of which you are the
first-begotten sons, and the prosperity of which ought to be your glory and
your joy.” 10. It was thus that Codde commenced
his episcopate; and it will now be convenient, before the great disruption of
the Church, to see what was her condition as to numbers, and her arrangement
as to local jurisdiction. The relation furnished by Codde himself to the Propaganda
in 1701 will be a safe guide. He reckons the inhabitants of the
United Provinces at 2,000,000. Of these, 1,500,000 were of the established
religion, Calvinism as developed by the Synod of Dort; 330,000 Catholics;
160,000 Mennonites, (Anabaptists); 80,000 Lutherans; 70,000 Socinians, or
Deists; 60,000 Remonstrants; 25,000 Jews. All the sects, except Socinians,
were publicly tolerated; and the same liberty was, in point of fact, allowed
to the Catholics. The ancient placards were not abrogated, but it was
understood that a small sum contributed annually as hush-money to the
officials would prevent any enquiry after the pastors and their places of
religious worship. In Amsterdam, where liberality went further than
elsewhere, this money was no longer paid. Permission was there sometimes
accorded to erect a new church, and, both in the provinces of Holland and
Utrecht, Catholic worship was performed with some degree of pomp. The six
dioceses were divided into seventeen arch-presbyteries: six in that of Utrecht,
five in Haarlem, three in Deventer, one in each of the three others. The
archdiocese contained nearly as many Catholics as all the others put
together; their number was reckoned at 159,000, the parishes at 160, and the
secular clergy at 117. The [207] conversions were, on an average, about 250
per annum, but the apostacies amounted to 150; and this was one of the
consequences of the ill-feeling engendered by the greater part of the
Regulars in their intruded missions. 11. Continual complaints were forwarded
to Rome of the Jansenism of the new Archbishop, and — even a more formidable
accusation at the Papal Court — of his attachment to the four Gallican
Articles of 1682. As early as 1691 these charges had assumed a serious shape,
and in the autumn of that year the constant vexations to which he was thus
exposed, and his indefatigable labours for the Church, threw Codde into a
dangerous illness. He was given over by the physicians, received extreme
unction, and the same day dictated and signed a memorial or protest[9],
dated “3 p.m. Sept. 29,” in which he affirmed, on the word of a dying man,
that the accusations of heresy so liberally dealt out against himself and his
clergy were utterly groundless: — “I pray God,” says this remarkable
document[10], in broken Latin, “that this my dying testimony may make
me to find credit before our holy Father and the cardinals: the one thing I
would ask from them is this — that they would condescend to appoint for my
successor a native of these provinces, and one to whom the clergy are
attached, because I know the detriment to the Church, and the loss of souls,
which any other arrangement will involve.” He recovered, and the death of
Alexander VIII., after a pontificate of sixteen months, deferred the attack.
But Mollo, a creature of the Jesuits, then resident at the Hague, and
Cardinal Albani, insisted so pertinaciously on the charges made against the
Archbishop, that Innocent XII. appointed a Congregation [208] of Cardinals
for their examination, and himself undertook its presidency. The result was
the absolute and unconditional acquittal of the Vicar-Apostolic. 12. This defeat seemed to stimulate
the ardour of his enemies, and the negotiations for the peace of Ryswyk gave
them an opportunity of a second attack. Doucin, one of the most influential
personages at the congress, and the intimate friend of the notorious Tellier,
was attached to the French embassy, and threw himself warmly into the
struggle. He composed and circulated a “Memoir on the State and Progress of
Jansenism in Holland,” which was widely distributed, and copies of which were
despatched to Rome. Codde and his agent, De Vaucel, wrote letter after
letter, and composed memoir after memoir, in defence of the Church of
Holland, but in vain. It was afterwards known that, in the Congregation of
Sept. 25, 1699, the cardinals, under the presidency of Albani, (declining
health rendering the Pope incapable of taking a part in the investigation,)
came to a secret resolution of suspending Codde, and substituting Theodore de
Cock in his place. This man soon found that zeal in the cause of the Church
of Holland was not the way to promotion at Rome. Little by little he had
given in to its adversaries: there had been an intrigue, as early as 1688, to
raise him to the vicariate apostolic of Haarlem, and now he had rendered
himself worthy to supplant his early friend and benefactor. One difficulty
alone remained: it was so monstrous a thing to suspend an archbishop, the
head of a great national Church, for an accusation twice heard and rejected
at Rome, — that some other form of examination and trial seemed necessary.
But then the express privilege accorded to the Church of Utrecht by Leo X.,
and on which I have already dwelt at length, [209] seemed to render such an
evocation to Rome impossible; from local judges there was no hope of
obtaining a condemnation. 13. The jubilee of 1700 was drawing
on, and it was determined to invite Codde to attend it. Nothing more
flattering, nothing more gracious, than the invitations of the Propaganda and
the Internuncio at Brussels. If the Archbishop did not mind the fatigues of
so long a journey, the pleasure to his Holiness would be so great, — the
testimony of his own devotion to the Holy See so complete and so touching, —
the advantage to the Church of Holland so enormous. Not — God forbid! — that
the slightest imputation rested on M. Codde’s character but still, something
had been whispered, the Regulars had made a few unpleasant remarks, a visit
to the threshold of the apostles would set everything to rights, and the
cardinals would rejoice to embrace so eminent a prelate. The poor Archbishop
understood well enough what all this meant. The only question was, whether it
were more dangerous to go or to stay, to accept or to decline the proffered
honour. In an evil hour for himself and his Church, he determined on the
journey. Foreseeing, however, the consequences which might be its result, he
resolved on appointing four vicars-general, or, as he called them,
Pro-Vicars: I presume to avoid the constant use of the same word in two
different senses, — i. e. vicar, as applied to himself and to them.
Catz, Dean of the Chapter of Utrecht, and Van Heussen, were constituted
Pro-Vicars for the archdiocese, and the dioceses of Deventer and Middelburg;
Van Groenhout, a canon, and De Swaen, Dean, of Haarlem, for that diocese and
those of Leeuwarden and Groningen. This appointment must be especially borne
in mind, as the key to the [210] scheme of which we shall almost immediately
have to speak. 14. The Archbishop kept a diary of
his journey to Rome, and residence there[11]. It is preserved in the
archives, where I have perused it; and if ever there were an example of a
heart made sick by deferred hope, certainly these pages exhibit it. He left
Amsterdam on the 21st of September, 1700; paid a visit at Leyden to the
celebrated Heinsius; proceeded by way of Maestricht to Aix and Cologne; and
reached, by way of Frankfort, Augsburg, where he spent the festival of All
Saints. He arrived at Venice on the 17th of November, and having “seen what
was to be seen[12]” there, he again proceeded by Florence to Rome,
reaching the Eternal City on the 11th of December. Here the whole aspect of
affairs was changed. Innocent XII. had died at the end of September, and
Cardinal Albani, the creature of the Jesuits, had been elevated to the papal
throne under the title of Clement XI. However, his reception of the
Archbishop (Dec. 20) was extremely gracious[13], and on the 31st of
the following month[14] he had a second interview, which was equally
satisfactory. A special Congregation of three cardinals, Marescotti, Tanara,
and Ferrari, was instituted by Clement for the examination of the question at
issue; and we find in the Archbishop’s journal occasional notices[15]
of their proceedings in the palace of the first-named dignitary. [211] 15. Time passed on. Fresh
annoyances met Codde at every step: the metropolitan of a great national
Church was exposed to vexatious interrogatives, harassed with continual
memorials, and so grossly insulted by Fabroni, secretary to the Congregation,
that the Pope interfered. The weather was intensely and unnaturally hot[16];
the Archbishop, in that sultry summer, occupied himself in replying to
accusers whose names were never communicated to him, and to accusations at
which he could only guess. There had arrived in May a series of charges,
signed by twenty-five missionaries, against Codde and the secular clergy.
These were never laid before that prelate, but shortly afterwards he had the
satisfaction of communicating to the Congregation a remarkable document,
which bore the signatures of 300 of his priests. It sets forth, that no
novelties were taught or endured in the Church of Holland; that the faith of
Peter, as there preached by S. Willibrord and S. Boniface, was professed and
maintained: — “Unless,” the memorial indignantly
continues, “some of our adversaries call this a novelty, — to uphold, intact
and entire, the doctrine of S. Augustine and S. Thomas; and that not for the
sake of party, but of edification; and to endeavour to carry out the
discipline of S. Charles Borromeo, which has been received with such applause
by the whole Church, and, as we are informed, in Rome itself.” It concludes with a bitter complaint,
though without specifying the persons, against the authors of these troubles.
The document is first signed by the four pro-vicars: Catz, Van Heussen, Van
Groenhout, and De Swaen. Of the rest of the subscribers, the best known are —
Van Erkel, afterwards the admirable defender [212] of the Church of Utrecht;
Potcamp, subsequently vicar-apostolic; Steenoven and Van der Croon, in due
time themselves archbishops; Kemp, the vernacular historian of these
troubles; and Krys, to whom the Church was eventually indebted for the
continuation of its succession[17]. 16. The memorial, however, was
without effect. A Congregation of ten cardinals was now instituted to
consider the Archbishop’s reply, and the consulting theologians were selected
from the creatures of the Jesuits. Notwithstanding this, in December, 1701,
the question of Codde’s innocence being put to the vote, the Congregation
divided five and five[18], and Clement is said to have determined on
his acquittal, and to have been on the point of authentically publishing that
determination. But the machinations of his adversaries procrastinated the
publication; and so well did they employ the time thus gained, that on the
13th of May a brief was despatched to Theodore de Cock, by which he was
appointed to the office of Pro-Vicar Apostolic of the United Provinces, in
the place of Peter Codde, deposed from all exercise and administration of the
said vicariate apostolic. It is said that the members of the Congregation
were amazed at the issue of this brief, and asserted that they were in no way
responsible for its appearance. Silence as to their proceedings was
immediately imposed on them by apostolic authority, and under pain of
excommunication; so that the truth of this point will never, probably, be
learnt. It appears, however, that the brief was kept a secret at Rome: no
notice of it occurs in the journal till the entry of the 6th of July: “We
[213] heard to-day from Holland, and were astonished at the intelligence we
received respecting De Cock.” When the news was made public, indignation,
even on the part of Ultramontanes, was unbounded. Here, they said, was the
head of a great national Church suspended by the mere will of the Pope, his
accusers never named, their charges never communicated, his faults not even
specified in the instrument of his disgrace. It was a stet pro ratione
voluntas which appears to have staggered the most thorough-paced
advocates of Papal supremacy. It was further observed that, crying as would
have been the injustice of such a summary dismissal from the vicariate
apostolic, the outrage was intensely aggravated by the fact that the brief
evidently contemplated the prelate’s archiepiscopal as well as vicarial
functions, as involved in the same sentence. Hyacinth de Archangelis, a
famous Roman canonist, even published a “consultation,” in which he
designated the whole proceeding as null and void. 17. The course of events must now
carry us into Holland. War was raging over Europe, and the messengers between
Rome and Utrecht found but a precarious and tedious journey between the forces
of Boufflers and Villars, of Marlborough and Prince Eugene. The brief of
suspension did not reach Bussi, Internuncio at Brussels, till the 8th of
June; and he then, in the curtest of notes, announced to the Chapters of
Utrecht and Haarlem the appointment of De Cock[19]. They conjointly
replied on the 16th[20]. The news, they said, had struck them with
consternation. Their excellent Archbishop was said to have been suspended on
the 13th of May; but they had letters from him, dated on the 27th of that
month, in which no [214] allusion was made to the circumstance: there must be
some mistake. They were ready to exhibit all possible submission to the Holy
See, but it might be allowed them to despatch an express to Rome, to learn
the truth of the matter. The Internuncio was polite but firm. So convinced
was he, he wrote on the 21st, of the piety of the Archbishop of Sebaste, that
nothing, he was sure, could be more painful to that prelate than any
appearance of contumacy on the part of the Chapter. They had only to obey,
and that at once[21]. The Chapters were not intimidated. After quoting
ancient precedents to shew that such a reasonable hesitation could never be
accounted contumacy, they add, “To confess the truth, we hold ourselves bound
and obliged by the divine law, and by the precepts of our Saviour Christ, to
defend, by every honest and lawful means, the innocence of our good
Archbishop.” They add, that De Cock himself had acquiesced in the justice of
the delay for which they petitioned. The letter is of the 4th of July; but it
was in vain that they quoted Alexander III. to the Archbishop of Ravenna, and
cap. Veniam, q. 9, c. 35. They had only the right, and their adversary
had the power. At first more gently, and then, on the 26th of July, more
vehemently, De Cock insists on his acknowledgment as Pro-Vicar. It must be
confessed that, in the conclusion of his last communication, he speaks in the
most straightforward manner[22]: — “Do you hear, Reverend Sirs? All your
pro-vicarial authority is at an end; and I declare, by these presents, that
it ceases and has ceased. It is therefore in vain that you style [215]
yourselves in your letter of the 16th, Pro-Vicars of Utrecht, Middelburg,
Haarlem, &c.: and I subscribe myself, your very obedient servant, “T.
de Cock, Pro-Vicar Apostolic[23].” 18. The Chapters met, and it gave an
earnest of their future courage and firmness that, under circumstances so
threatening, and in dangers so imminent, all were present at their post. The
single exception was John Roos, of the Chapter of Utrecht. His heart was with
his brethren, but the age and infirmities of eighty-two detained him at
Delft. His own history was somewhat remarkable. He had been brought up as a
Remonstrant, but attending a sermon of the celebrated theologian of that
sect, Simon Episcopius, and hearing our Lord’s divinity stated as an open
question, he was led to examine the grounds on which that system was based,
and finally joined the Church. His “Pious Meditations on the Lord’s Prayer,”
written in Dutch, were long esteemed. The Chapters agreed on a memorial to
the See of Rome, in defence of their Archbishop[24]; they were
seconded, a month afterwards, in an address signed by thirty-five of the
leading laymen of the diocese of Utrecht[25]. A third party, however,
now entered the controversy. The Pro-vicars published a pastoral, in which
they explained the reasons which hindered them from acknowledging the
authority of De Cock; though, at the same time, they permitted the
publication of the Bull of Jubilee with which he was charged. This made a
strong impression against the vicar-apostolic: in some places, the adherents
of the two parties ceased from communicating [216] with each other, and there
were here and there popular outbreaks. The States of Holland, on hearing of
these disorders, summoned before them Van Erkel, as one of the most eminent
among the clergy, to explain the circumstances of the case. The result was a
placard, dated Aug. 17, 1702, by which De Cock was forbidden to exercise any
jurisdiction over the Roman Catholics of Holland. To this edict, however
monstrous an interference in spiritual affairs, De Cock, whose vocation was
not martyrdom, paid a most prudent submission, and contented himself with the
assertion that his opponents must have purchased its issue at considerable
expense. The Chapters communicated the placard to Rome, and a correspondence
ensued. On the 2nd of December, 1702, Cardinal Paulucci addressed a letter to
De Swaen, without any acknowledgment of his title as Dean of Haarlem, and to
his “fellow Presbyters,” instead of to The Chapter; an alteration which was,
at the time, thought accidental, but which was soon found to involve a
consideration of the greatest moment. For on the 25th of the following
January, Bussi, writing to De Swaen, begins his letter thus: — “Heavy will be his judgment, the
theologian or canonist, who shall venture to assert that you have any Chapter
at Haarlem; for such a declaration can emanate only from gross or affected
ignorance. … Considering these things,” this remarkable document proceeds, “I
charge you never to dare, in future, either under the name of the pretended
Chapter of Haarlem, or under any other colour or pretext, to act in a similar
manner; and furthermore, I desire that you will, without delay, retract what
you have already done. Otherwise you will not escape the hands of the Lord,
and the sins of the people will fall upon you, because when the little ones
cry to you for bread, you offer them a scorpion.” [217] And yet this was the same Bussi
who, writing only seven months before, had addressed the clergy of Utrecht
and Haarlem as “so illustrious Chapters[26].” Well might De Swaen
begin his reply, “I was never more amazed by any letter than by yours of the
25th.” 19. In the meantime, the Archbishop’s
situation at Rome became very critical. He was indeed under no kind of
restraint, and had even permission to celebrate, but the most menacing
rumours were afloat as to his intended fate. The Jesuits gave out in Holland
that he was in the hands of the Inquisition; that he would be imprisoned for
life; that he would be beheaded; that he would be burnt: and though he
himself could entertain no similar fear, yet he certainly was little else
than a prisoner at large. Yet as late as Nov. 28, 1702, Massoulié, Secretary
to the General of the Dominicans, thus writes: — “The Archbishop of Sebaste
is daily expecting the termination of his cause. Whatever has been objected
to him on the score of doctrine, he has entirely explained. He has published
a reply to all the accusations brought forward against him, in which there is
nothing that can be blamed[27].” It so happened that three among the
burgomasters of Amsterdam were his nephews, and by a resolution of Feb. 24[28],
the States commanded Codde’s return within three months: if any opposition
were made by the Court of Rome, the Jesuits would be banished from the
country, and De Cock would be detained a prisoner in his own house. This
prospect alarmed the soi-disant [218] Pro-Vicar. He wrote to the Holy
See, entreating the Archbishop’s return; and permission was accordingly given
by Clement. He was most honourably received by those of the cardinals on whom
he waited; the General of the Dominicans gave him a circular, filled with the
highest eulogies, to every house of his order; and the ambassadors of the
Emperor, and of the republic of Venice, especially recommended him in their
passports. At length, on the Thursday in Easter-week, April 12, 1703, he left
Rome for Venice[29]. His companions were, as they had been during the
latter part of his stay, Cornelius Steenoven, (his future successor,)
Theodore Donker, and Jacob Krys, of whom we shall hear again; William van
Campen, and the prelate’s faithful servant, Michel le Raisier. Partly by way
of change after his long confinement, partly to avoid the French armies, then
ravaging Belgium and the Rhine, they went by Loretto and Venice to Vienna,
then through Moravia and Bohemia to Dresden, and so by Osnaburg to ’s
Graveland, where they arrived on the 27th of June. 20. On Codde’s return, he found
everything in the wildest confusion. The two parties virtually abstained from
each other’s communion. De Cock still pretended to exercise his authority,
but within a few weeks was in exile. He had had the imprudence, in his communications
with the Court of Rome, to affirm that the secular clergy had procured the
placard against himself by a bribe offered to the States, and actually paid
to Herr Van Duivenvoorde, their President. Naturally indignant, the States
offered a reward [219] of three thousand florins for his capture; and
afterwards sentenced him to exile. He retired to Emmerick, and thence, after
some time, to Rome; where he was rewarded for his exertions in the
Ultramontane cause by a canonry in S. Laurence. While he still maintained his
claim, the Chapter of Haarlem consulted Van Espen as to its own duties and
rights. These stood on a different footing from those of Utrecht. Haarlem had
no bishop; and the Pro-Vicar Apostolic might therefore claim a jurisdiction
here which he could not in the metropolitical diocese. 21. The result was the celebrated Motivum
Juris pro Capitulo Cathedrali Haarlemensi; the first of the works in
which the great canonist openly supported the rights of the oppressed Church
of Holland. He here lays down the principle that, (even granting, which he
does not grant, that the simple pro-vicariate apostolic could override the
rights of a chapter, the see vacant,) at the captivity or exile of a bishop,
his jurisdiction reverts to the Chapter, as much as if the see were vacant;
so De Cock’s authority, if he ever had any, had now returned to the Chapter;
and that they not only might, but were bound to, defend their rights. A reply
having been attempted to this work, Van Espen rejoined at great length in a masterly
and crushing manner, with the appropriate motto, “We vindicate the
inheritance of our fathers.” Both these “Resolutions[30]” were adopted
by De Swaen in the name of the capitular body. 22. Three methods of proceeding were
now open to Codde. The first, entire submission to the Court of Rome; a free
acknowledgment of De Cock’s jurisdiction, and retirement into private life.
But this [220] would have been to betray the rights of his Church; to desert
those who, through evil and through good report, had faithfully clung to him;
and to afford to Ultramontane principles the most complete and perfect
triumph. The second was, distinguishing his archiepiscopal from his vicarial
authority, to continue quietly in the exercise of the former — appealing,
however, for greater caution against the sentence by which he had been
deprived of the latter. This was the advice of Van Espen; and the march of
events shewed its wisdom. But it was replied, that such a course would
inevitably produce a schism; that tender consciences would be wounded; and
that some, even among the most attached friends of Codde, might not be
willing to follow him into an open rupture with the Court of Rome. So argued
Quesnel; and as the advice suited the naturally modest character of the Archbishop,
he was probably the more willing to follow the third course open to him —
retirement from the actual exercise of his office, under protest against the
injustice of his suspension. We now, however, can see that the bolder would
also have been the safer counsel. A schism was almost inevitable; and the
Church of Holland would have entered the struggle with more numerous and more
spirited friends, had she been spared the long and weary suspense which
succeeded the determination of Codde. Having taken this resolution, the
Archbishop announced it to his diocese by a Pastoral Letter of March 19,
1704: it was followed by a decree of the Roman Inquisition, condemning the
declarations and replies of that prelate while at Rome, and written three
years before. Codde rejoined by a second Pastoral, which remained without
reply. 23. The question of jurisdiction was
also warmly debated. On Codde’s abstaining from exercising his [221]
functions, and virtually giving up the government of his diocese, the
authority of his four pro-vicars, derived from him, also came to an end. The
spiritual jurisdiction therefore reverted, according to all principles of
canon law, to the Chapters, and they re-appointed the Vicars as before. This
was highly offensive to the Court of Rome; and the Internuncio had orders to
communicate, without observing any form of law, a sentence of suspension to
Catz, the first of the four; and this sentence, in spite of a promise to the
contrary, was made public at Utrecht. Catz immediately protested against the
nullity of such a procedure, and continued tranquilly at his post. It may not
be amiss to say a few words of this eminent divine, as the first who came
into actual collision with the Court of Rome. Born at Gorcum in 1639, and the
intimate friend of Van Neercassel, he had been put in nomination as his
successor, and subsequently was appointed by Codde to the incumbency of the
largest church at Utrecht, and to the management of the Béguinage there. In
these offices he laboured indefatigably; and when to them was added that of
Pro-Vicar, the increased fatigue undermined an originally strong
constitution. He died, after three months of great suffering, in 1712. 24. The greatest fidelity and courage
were at this juncture more especially necessary. The Chapter of Haarlem,
weary of a contest which promised increasing fatigue and danger, came to a
resolution by a plurality of voices, while perpetuating its own existence, to
do no capitular act. Thus, after, at the outset, having displayed even more
courage and energy than that of Utrecht, this Church deserted her afflicted
sister, gave way to the fashionable principles, and submitted to Ultramontane
despotism. [222] The Chapter, however, has continued its succession to this
day, and still exists; connived at by Rome, as long so it remains a virtual
nonentity. Had Haarlem continued firm to the common cause of Holland, the
annals of that Church might have presented a far different story. Utrecht was
therefore left to carry on the unequal contest alone. 25. The States of Holland, finding
that peace was not restored, banished two of the arch-priests whom De Cock
had appointed, and threatened to exile the Jesuits, unless an accommodation
could be brought to pass. This menace, and the entreaties of some of the
Catholic ambassadors, brought Bussi to the Hague. “It was true,” he said,
“that no charges had been published against Codde; his Holiness was anxious
to spare the reputation of that prelate.” This infamous suggestion, however,
failed of its purpose. “As God liveth,” said the Archbishop in the bitterness
of his spirit, “Who hath taken away my judgment, and the Almighty Who hath
vexed my soul; all the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in
my nostrils, my righteousness I hold fast, and will not let it go till I die,
and will not remove my integrity from me.” He addressed a letter to Rome on
the subject; and Van Heussen[31], Van Erkel, and two others, were
deputed to wait on Bussi in the name of the Chapter, and to demand a fair
trial, or open conference, in order that the innocence or guilt of their
Archbishop might be made manifest. Both were refused. The Internuncio,
however, found that there was no hope of procuring the consent of the States
to the return of De Cock; and that the demand of the clergy for a
Vicar-Apostolic was too palpably reasonable [223] to be rejected.
Keisersveld, ambassador from the Elector of Treves at the Hague, lent his
assistance; and the choice fell on Gerard Potcamp, arch-priest at Lingen. 26. This excellent priest, now in the
63rd year of his age, was recommended not only by his learning and talents,
but, above all, by the peculiar sweetness and gentleness of his character.
His life had been one long-continued course of labours in Overyssel; and he
now resided at Lingen, in the midst of a family of primitive simplicity and
piety, his mother, sister, and servant being all Klopjes. He had, as we have
seen, signed the memorial in favour of Codde, but had otherwise taken but
little part in the troubles of the times; and he now steadily refused to
undertake so terrible a responsibility. The assistance of his confessor,
Herman Terhoente, whom we have already seen at the death-bed of Van
Neercassel, was called on; and very reluctantly the good man accepted the
burden. Bussi urged him in the strongest terms. Codde fully acquiesced; and
the joy in the Church of Holland was great. He was admitted to the vicariate
on the 14th of November, 1705; was received by the States with the greatest
honour; and recognised the Chapter of Utrecht by an express act. But the
fatigue of the journey and the excitement were too much for an already
enfeebled frame. At the beginning of December he was seriously ill at Leyden[32].
He occupied himself in drawing up a Pastoral, exhorting to love and concord:
— “What better opportunity,” he asks,
“than the approaching festival, in which we shall celebrate the Nativity of
Him Who at the moment of His birth willed that peace to men [224]
should be proclaimed by angels; by the Blood of Whose Cross it pleased the
Father to reconcile all things to Himself, and Who is therefore most fitly
called by the prophets the Prince of Peace? Wherefore, since we are servants
and disciples, yes, and the members and the body of this pacific King; we who
are all fed on one and the same bread, and made partakers of one and the same
spirit, — what is more fitting than that we should ‘all speak the same thing,
and that there be no schisms among’ us[33]?” 27. The pious writer was nearer to
the true vision of peace than he could have imagined. He signed the Pastoral
with a trembling hand on the night of the 15th of December, and at noon on
the 16th he resigned his soul to God. Van Deventer, his secretary, announced
the intelligence to Bussi. “I trust,” replied the Internuncio, “that M.
Potcamp will more efficaciously obtain that peace for which he laboured from
the Divine clemency in his country, where, as we may piously believe, he now
dwells, secure of his own welfare, anxious only for the prosperity of the
flock committed to his charge.” He was buried in the church of Warmond, near
Leyden, in the presence of a vast crowd; the funeral service was performed by
Van Heussen. 28. The Chapters forthwith appointed
Catz and Van Heussen Grand Vicars, the see vacant; and strenuously exerted
all their influence to procure a successor to Potcamp. Bussi having been
transferred to the [225] nunciature at Cologne, received powers, it was said,
to appoint a Vicar-General; and without reference either to the Chapters or to
the States, he conferred that dignity on Adam Daemen, a native of Amsterdam,
but at that time a canon of Cologne. A panegyrist had composed for him the
not inelegant anagram, — “DAEMEN
ES, EMENDA, GENIUS TIBI DIXIT AB ORTU.” But, in fact, his character was by no
means immaculate. He had received fifteen thousand ducats for his vote on the
last vacancy of the see of Cologne; and the banquet that he gave on the
occasion was a scene of disgraceful drunkenness. He was consecrated on
Christmas-day, 1707, by Bussi, under the title of Archbishop of Hadrianople;
but the Chapter of Utrecht stood upon its rights of election, and refused in
any way to recognise him. That of Haarlem was more complaisant: five of its
members, calling themselves a majority of the whole body, presented a
memorial to the States, requesting them to acquiesce in the new Vicar. The
States referred them to a former placard[34], in which they had
expressly forbidden nomination to that office without their consent; they
also informed Daemen that, unless he gave a written abdication of that
dignity, he would not be permitted to reside in Holland. The schism became
every day more terrible. The Roman Inquisition condemned thirty-one pamphlets
in a mass, which had been published in defence of Codde. Quesnel replied in
an able volume. The Nuncio cited all those who held for the Grand Vicars to
appear personally at Cologne. The States of Holland answered by a placard, in
which they forbade, under the severest penalties, that any of their subjects
should [226] obey that citation. Bussi rejoined by a pastoral, in which he
forbade all the faithful to communicate with the national party while living,
or to pray for them after death. A crowd of priests were poured in from
Cologne. Every attempt was made to wrest the pastoral charges from the
ancient clergy. A determined assault was made on the great Béguinages of
Amsterdam and Haarlem, the influence of the Sisters being of such vast
importance. The clergy drew up an able and well-timed protest; it denounced their
condemnation as without charges, without witnesses, without trial, against
canon law, against common right; and in the teeth of their appeal of April 1,
1702, which, according to all canonical principles, protected them, while
unheard, from all further proceedings. It was numerously signed; but the
defection of Haarlem had weakened the national cause, and many names among
the 300 who had signed for Codde are not to be found attached to this
memorial. Still, with great courage and energy, Catz and Van Heussen held
their posts, and kept their clergy together. 29. Daemen, finding at length that no
other hope of terminating his exile was left, resigned his vicariate by a
public act of the 11th of August, 1710. He is subsequently mentioned in
grateful terms for the generous use he made of his wealth, which was
considerable: among other things he founded, or re-founded, the monastery
which was afterwards transferred to Dusseldal. In the meantime, Codde was
leading a life of the strictest retirement in his country house at ’s
Graveland, near Utrecht. On the road to Amsterdam, this village is one of the
pleasantest in Holland, — the exact picture of what the French would call a pays
riant. His principal associates [227] were Van Heussen, Quesnel, Van
Erkel, Steenoven, and Krys; and his literary correspondence with the Gallican
party in France was very extensive. Towards the conclusion of October[35]
he was seized with an illness which, ere long, gave manifest appearances of
being mortal. On the 2nd or 3rd of the following month, a certain Abbé
Borgia, an employé of Bussi and Daemen, arrived from Cologne. He had pledged
himself to procure Codde’s signature to the Formulary of Alexander VII.; and
was admitted by the dying Archbishop to one or two interviews. In the midst
of the discussion, Van Erkel, who was present, quoted the example of the
Sixth Oecumenical Council, which had anathematized the deceased Pope
Honorius, as a Monothelite. “I do not recognise that synod,” said Borgia, “as
legitimate; it was not presided over by papal legates, and was never
confirmed by the Holy See.” “Allow me, M. l’Abbé,” replied Van Erkel, taking
up his breviary: “Will you do me the favour to look at this passage in the
Office of S. Leo II.?” Borgia took the book, and read, Probavit acta
sextae Synodi, quae Constantinopoli habita est, praesidentibus Legatis
Apostolicae Sedis. “Ah!” said he: “well, we cannot always be perfectly
accurate; and to confess the truth, I am better versed in canon law than in
ecclesiastical history[36].” The excitement of this interview had
almost proved too much for the Archbishop. He rallied, however, and on the
11th of November set his hand to his dying [228] declaration. Renewing that
which he had made in his former dangerous illness, he solemnly proceeds to
attest, as in the presence of that God before Whom he is so soon to appear,
that no innovations, either in faith, practice, or rites, had been sanctioned
by him, or by any of his brethren: — 30. “The famous Five Propositions,”
he continues, “which the Papal See has condemned, I also have ever condemned,
and now with all my heart condemn and reject; and that in the same sense in
which the see of Rome and the Catholic Church have condemned them, and that
without any explanation, distinction, or restriction, in whatever book they
may be found, — even in the Augustinus of Jansenius, if they are
really contained in that work. I never experienced any difficulty, except on
the mere question of fact; namely, whether those Propositions, which I
sincerely condemn, are indeed contained there, if the book be understood in
the genuine sense of its writer. The whole affair is involved in various
circumstances of great difficulty, and I have experienced the same grave
doubts which have occurred to other bishops and theologians on the question
of fact. And since I saw, on the one side, that such a question is not of the
faith, and cannot be brought under a charge of heresy, — and believed, on the
other hand, that it would be a horrible sacrilege to call God to witness that
I asserted what was in reality doubtful, I confess I considered that it would
be a sin to subscribe in such a disposition of mind, and to run the risk of
committing a profligate perjury.” 31. With such sentiments the
Archbishop prepared for death. His illness was long and painful, and its
fluctuations more than once kindled anew the hopes of his friends. At length,
on the 18th of December, 1710, in the sixty-second year of his age, and the
twenty-second of his episcopate, he resigned his soul to God, just as the
priest who was attending him — I imagine it to have been Van Heussen — was
commencing the Psalm, “My song shall be alway of the [229] loving-kindness of
the Lord.” He was buried, three days afterwards, by the side of Gerard
Potcamp, in the little church of Warmond. Borgia, meanwhile, had reported his
ill-success at head-quarters, and in consequence the Roman Inquisition,
before receiving intelligence of his death, again condemned Codde (Dec. 30,
1710); and afterwards, on being informed of that event, declared him unworthy
of the prayers of the faithful, and of ecclesiastical sepulture. 32. Thus ended the troubled and
tempestuous life of Peter Codde. It would be unjust to class him in the rank
of great men. A certain degree of vacillation and undecidedness is visible in
his very portrait: and his conduct during his stay in Rome, and unwillingness
to play a bold part on his return, are proofs that he had not the moral
courage and uncompromising firmness necessary for those difficult times. But
his fervent and sincere piety, the warmth of his heart, and his passive
endurance of injustice, are beyond all praise. The defences of his memory,
published by his sorrowing friends, speak their estimation of his character;
and, carrying his heavy cross bravely, we may well believe that he found an
abundant entrance into that place “where the wicked cease from troubling and
where the weary are at rest[37].”
[1] Arnauld, OEuvres; vol. ii. p. 678. [2] Van Heussen prints it himself: Bat, Sacr. ii, 508. [3] Bat. Sacr. ii. 333. He died at Haarlem, Ap. 12,
1695. [4] Bat. Sacr. ii. 511; De Bellegarde, 201. [5] The letters from the Chapters, and the choice made
of De Cock, are related in Bat. Sacr. ii. 509, 510; the proceedings at Rome
are most fully given in Tract. Hist. i. 337 — 355, and in the Relatio
ablegationis Rom. of Theodore de Cock. [6] Relatio, p. 180; and Bat. Sacr. ii. 511. [7] The consecrators were De Berghes of Mechlin, De
Beugem of Antwerp, and Van de Perre of Namur. Bat. Sacr. ii. 514. [8] It is given at length in Bat. Sacr. ii. 515. [9] Bat. Sacr. ii. 517. [10] Declaratio Apologetica, p. 22. [11] It is a small octavo, of (in all) 288 pages,
prettily written, but somewhat difficult to read. [12] “Nov. 18. Venetiis vidimus videnda.” [13] “Dec. 20. Post meridiem fui in Palatio Vaticano,
humanissime ad alloquium S. P. Clementis XI. admissus: et ab eo humanissime
acceptus fui.” [14] “Jan. 31. Mane admissus fui ad Papae colloquium,
quod valde fuit benevolum.” [15] e.g. “March 28. Post meridiem in palatio Card.
Marescotti super rebus nostris habita fuit congregatio, quae satis diu
duravit.” And again: “April. 11. Mane fui in palatio Card. Marescotti, et
longius de rebus nostris colloquium habui. Post meridiem fui apud Card.
Ferrari, de simili colloquium habens.” [16] “June 22. AEdibus egressus non fui. Calor hodie
fuit ad 78 gradus, neque unquam, ut dicunt, magis quam ad 80 gradus
ascendit.” [17] This memorial, and the signatures, are printed in
the Batav. Sacr., ii. p. 518. [18] This is stated in Codde’s diary, from the Pope’s
own information, Dec. 26, 1701. [19] Broedersen, Tract. Hist. i. p. 361. [20] Tract. Hist. i. 362. [21] Tract. Hist. i. 363. [22] De Cock himself calls this “a most urbane epistle:”
“Die 24,” (Broedersen dates it 21; the letter itself bears date 26,) “Julii
scripsi ad Pro-vicarios epistolam urbanissimam.” My ideas of urbanity differ
from De Cock’s. His letter to the Congregation (Nov. 10, 1702) is given in
Erkel’s Apolog. Arch. Seb. p.154. [23] Tract. Hist. i. 367. The first of De Cock’s letters
is dated June 24, but it must have been kept back, or the Chapters could not
have asserted, on the 8th of July, that he was in favour of the delay which
they asked. [24] Tract. Hist. i. 368. [25] Tract. Hist, i. 372. [26] Tract. Hist. i. 363. “Indelebilis nota vestris
tam praeclaris Capitulis inuretur.” The date is June 21, 1702. [27] Erkel’s Defensio Arch. Sebasteni, p. 57. [28] Bellegarde, p. 237. This date is not easy to be
reconciled with what Codde says himself, that on Feb. 6 he had permission to
return, on account of having been claimed by the States; yet, under March 23,
he refers to Feb. 24 as the day in which the resolution was passed. [29] The last entry in that volume of Codde’s journal is
“Ap. 12. Roma, postquam 2 annos et 4 menses ibi moras parum gratas nectere
coactus fueram, decessi circa horam matutinam. Socios itineris habui D.D. (as
given above). Mater Salvatoris et omnes Sancti et Sanctae votis per J. C.
iter prosperum a Deo impertiantur.” Another volume relates his journey, and
ends June 30. [30] The first is in the fifth volume of Van Espen’s
works, pp. 351 to 359. The second, pp. 359 to 381. [31] Kemp, Kort Historisch Verhaal, i. 105. From this
point, where Van Heussen leaves us, and down to the year 1727, Kemp, himself
an actor in the drama, becomes a most valuable authority. [32] I found in the Archives a letter of his, dated Dec.
3, 1705, to Bussi, in which he speaks of his recovery as extremely doubtful. [33] Bat. Sac. ii. 529; Kemp, i. 113. Potcamp has met
with harsh treatment from modern Ultramontanes. He is one of those concerning
whom Dom Pitra writes so fiercely: — “C’est la que dans le caveau d’une
famille perverte pourrissent, sous les pieds des Calvinistes, les restes
d’Arnauld, de Quesnel, de Van Heussen, de Codde, de Potcamp, les coryphées de
la secte; mais le moment n’est pas loin, ou, le bedeau prenant la fantaisie
de niveler le sol, tous ces os seront jetés au vent, en attendant que la
justice de Dieu les ramasse!” And this of a man who not only died in the communion
of the Roman Church, but whom Bussi had conjured to accept the vicariate,
and, after his death, had spoken of his more efficacious prayers before the
throne of God. I would fain hope that D. Pitra has long since wished that
sentence recalled. [34] Of Aug. 17,1702. [35] De Bellegarde says, “au mois de Decembre:” but it
is clearly a mistake. He was already so extremely ill (Bat. Sac. ii. 522,) as
to receive extreme unction on the 4th of November; on the 11th he had
rallied, and signed his declaration, which plainly refers to the visit of
Borgia, and his illness was protracted, with various fluctuations, till the
18th of December. [36] This story is related in Fleury’s Mémoires sur
les Libertés de l’Eglise Gallicane, p. 22, and is quoted in De Bellegarde,
p. 266. But it is related more fully in a letter preserved in the Archives,
and in the handwriting of Van Erkel. [37] With the episcopate of Codde Van
Heussen’s history ends. “Haec de dissidiis hisce,” says he, “parcius: ab
aliis fortasse prolixius danda.” We are in some degree compensated by the
greater fulness of Kemp’s history from this time forwards. Codde’s death
appears to have created a sensation throughout the Church. I found in the
Archives letters from the missionary Bishops of Amida and Basilaea in
partibus, lamenting in heartfelt language the loss which Christendom had
sustained. |
John Mason Neale, 1818-1866 |
