http://www.romancatholicism.org
|
|
Transcribed by Peter Owen, 2006 CONTENTS. Introduction:
A Sketch of the Rise and progress of So-Called Jansenism in France. 1. The
Church of Holland before the Reformation. 2. The
Brothers of the Common Life. 3. The
Church of Holland in the Reformation. 4. From the
death of Frederick Schenk, Archbishop of Utrecht, to the death of Sasbold
Vosmeer, second [1] Archbishop of Utrecht under the title of Archbishop of
Philippi, 1580 — 1614. 5. The See
vacant, 1614 — 1620. Philip Bovenius, third Archbishop of Utrecht, under the
title of Archbishop of Philippi, 1620 — 1651. 6. James de
la Torre, fourth Archbishop of Utrecht, under the title of Archbishop of
Ephesus, 1651 — 1661. 7. Baldwin
Catz, Vicar-Apostolic, 1661 — 1663. John Van Neercassel, fifth Archbishop of
Utrecht, under the title of Bishop of Castoria, 1663 — 1686. 8. The See
vacant, 1686 — 1689. Peter Codde, sixth Archbishop of Utrecht, under the
title of Archbishop of Sebaste, 1689 — 1710. 9. The
Schism commences. The National Clergy appeal to the Future General Council.
Proceedings of the Bishop of Babylon, 1710 — 1723. 10.
Cornelius Steenoven, seventh Archbishop of Utrecht, 1723 — 1725. 11.
Cornelius John Barchman Wuytiers, eighth Archbishop of Utrecht, 1725 — 1733. 12.
Theodore van der Croon, ninth Archbishop of Utrecht, 1733 — 1739. 13.
Episcopate of Peter John Meindaerts, tenth Archbishop of Utrecht, till the
Second Council of Utrecht, 1739 — 1763. 14. Second
Council of Utrecht, till the death of Archbishop Meindaerts, 1763 — 1767. 15. Walter
Michael van Nieuwenhuisen, eleventh Archbishop of Utrecht, 1767 — 1797. 16. John
Jacob Van Rhijn, twelfth Archbishop of Utrecht, 1797 — 1808. 17. The See
vacant, 1806 — 1814. Willibrord van Os, thirteenth Archbishop of Utrecht,
1814 — 1825. 18. John
van Santen, fourteenth Archbishop of Utrecht, 1825. APPENDICES. 1. List of
Historical Works on the Church of Utrecht. 2. That
Sasbold Vosmeer and his Successors were Diocesan Archbishops, and not simply
Vicars-Apostolic. 3. That the
Vicariate of Utrecht was and is the True Chapter. 4. Statistical
Tables: — a. List of Archbishops
and Bishops since the Schism. b. List of
Cures in 1736 and 1853. c. List of
Baptisms in the Archdiocese. d. List of
Deans: and the present Chapter. Errata and
Corrigenda [These have been
incorporated into the text.] [1] These
numbers would more properly have been reckoned, as they usually are by Dutch
writers, one higher; S. Willebrord being counted as the first Archbishop. “And I see the
good ship riding, all on a perilous road; The Forging of
the Anchor. TO THE
LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY, THIS
HISTORY OF A CHURCH WHICH,
CUT OFF FROM THE COMMUNION OF ROME, HAS
CLUNG FAST TO THE CATHOLIC FAITH, AND
SUFFERED FOR
THE MAINTENANCE OF PRIMITIVE DOCTRINE, IS,
BY HIS LORDSHIP’S PERMISSION, DEDICATED. It was in the
spring of the year 1851 that, during the course of a visit at Utrecht, I
became acquainted with the venerable Archbishop of that See, and interested
in the history of the Church over which he presides. At that time there was,
I believe, not a single work in English which treated of the subject; nor was
there any book, not out of print, whether French or Dutch, which gave any
detailed account of the fortunes of the so-called Jansenists of Holland. The
information generally possessed by English Churchmen, with respect to the
Church of Utrecht, was about as full and as accurate as that contained in Murray’s
“Handbook of Holland:” — “Utrecht is the head-quarters of the Jansenists, a
sect of dissenters from the Roman Catholic Church, who object to the Bull of
Pope Alexander VII. condemning as heretical certain doctrines of Jansenius,
Bishop of Ypres. They scarcely exist in any number, except in Holland, where
they are now reduced to five thousand.” From the time
that I first became acquainted with the story of its afflictions and its
endurance, it has always been my wish to give English Churchmen the opportunity
of becoming better acquainted with the history of the Church of Holland; and
having, through the kindness of the Archbishop himself, and several of his
ecclesiastics, amassed a considerable number of the most important and rarest
books on the subject, I have kept my plan in view from that time to this, and
the result is now presented to the reader. Shortly after my
first visit to Utrecht, Dr. Tregelles, so well known for his works on
Biblical criticism, published a short general history of the “Jansenists,”
some pages of which were devoted to their proceedings in Holland. In a review
of that work for the “Christian Remembrancer” of January, 1852, I endeavoured
to give a more detailed account of that body than had before appeared in
English; and some passages in the following pages are quoted from that and
from another article contributed by me to the same Review, on the “Mystic
Theology of Holland.” In the October
of 1854, I spent a week at Utrecht, for the purpose of examining the
Archives, which were most unreservedly placed at my disposal by the kindness
of the Archbishop. Of the great value and importance of those Archives I
shall have occasion to speak more at length hereafter. I have in the
Appendix given so very full a list of the works which treat of the history of
the Church of Utrecht since the great schism, that I need here only mention a
few of the subsidiary helps which I have employed in my task. The Introduction
contains a sketch — for it professes to be nothing more — of the annals of
French “Jansenism,” some acquaintance with which is absolutely necessary to
the right understanding of the more immediate subject of my work. In this I
have been under greater obligations to the Abbé Guettée’s noble Histoire
de l’Église de France than to any other book, — not forgetting, however,
the works of S. Cyran, Nicole, and Arnauld, and the Nouvelles
Ecclésiastiques. Mr. Dalgairns
has published a work entitled “The Devotion to the Heart of Jesus,” with —
what he calls — an Introduction on the History of Jansenism. I only mention
the book because it would be difficult to find a single page in the
Introduction which does not contain the grossest, and sometimes positively
ludicrous, errors. To take an example or two. It is said that — ” the
principal evidence on which S. Cyran was sent to Vincennes was that of S.
Vincent de Paul.” S. Vincent was never even interrogated regarding S. Cyran
till after the imprisonment of the latter, and remained, as we shall see at
p. 6, his friend till his death. A little further on, Mr. Dalgairns says, “In
one of S. Vincent’s letters the following passage occurs;” and he then quotes
an extract not to be found in S. Vincent’s letters anywhere, but taken from
his biography by Abelly, and which the biographer himself had to retract.
Again, he says, p. 27, “One of the chiefs of the Jansenist party wrote a book
against frequent Communion.” It is only to be hoped that Mr. Dalgairns has
never opened the work of Arnauld’s to which he alludes, or such a statement
would be worse than an error. Once more: “It was one of their opinions that
absolution was invalid if it were given before the penance imposed were
performed.” Compare this with the formal statement of the Articles of
Louvain, and the second Council of Utrecht: “The procrastination of
absolution is sometimes necessary, sometimes useful, sometimes pernicious.” I
have said enough to give an idea of the general amount of truthfulness which
characterizes the “Introduction.” In the history
of Utrecht itself I have principally followed the thread of De Bellegarde’s
narrative, (Histoire Abregée de l’Église Metropolitaine d’Utrecht,)
the third edition of which having been commenced by the Abbé Van der Hoeven,
now with GOD, was published in 1852, by my friend the Abbé Karsten, rector of
the Seminary at Amersfoort. But it is the thread of narration only which I
have followed, — having dwelt on some subjects at much greater length, and on
others with far more brevity, than De Bellegarde. Thus, the acts of the
Second Council of Utrecht, which I have related with considerable fulness,
are dismissed by him in a few lines: thus, also, I have compressed into a few
pages the events which occurred previous to the disestablishment of the
National Church, and the elevation of Sasbold Vosmeer to the Vicariate
Apostolic. The Batavia Sacra, the Historia Episcopatuum foederati
Belgii, and its enlarged translation, the Kerkelijke Historie en
Outheden der zeven vereenigde Provincien, have always been at my side;
and the works mentioned in the Appendix have, with scarcely an exception,
been consulted either in England or in Holland. Of books not
mentioned there I may specify: — For the History of the Brothers of the
Common Life, the very interesting Verhandeling over de Broederschap van
Geert Groote, by G. H. M. Delprat (Second Edition, Arnheim, 1856). The
author, though a Protestant, enters well into his subject, and has produced a
very instructive book. Several papers in the Nederlandsch Archief voor
Kerkelijke Geschiedenis, published by Professors Kist and Royaards. The
works of Thomas à Kempis, Henry Herph, and Gerlach Petersen. The Athenae
Belgicae of Francis Sweertius, (Antwerp, 1628). For the main body of the
history, the superb edition of the works of Arnauld, edited by De Bellegarde,
in 49 volumes, (1775 to 1781). The edition of Van Espen, in three folio
volumes (Louvain, 1767). The Mémoires Historiques sur l’affaire de la
Bulle “Unigenitus” dans les Pays-Bas Autrichiens, &c.
(1755). The Dictionnaire des Livres Jansénistes, (4 volumes, Antwerp,
1752,) one of the most furiously Molinist books ever printed, but valuable
from its references to the contents of scarce and forgotten pamphlets. I may
add the Leven van Martinus Steyaert, bestryder van het
Jansenistendom, by E. A. Dobbelaere, Ghent. Bellegarde’s History ends in
1784. The works on which I thenceforth depend are given in the Appendix. To
these I must add the Handelingen van de Regering en de Staten-Generaal
over de Grondwets-Bepalingen nopens de Godsdienst, (Schiedam, Roelants,
1854,) which gives an excellent account of the troubles occasioned by the
intrusion of the new Roman hierarchy in that year. I have now to
express my thanks, in the first place, to the venerable Archbishop of
Utrecht, Monseigneur Van Santen, for his kindness in supplying me with books,
directing me by letter to sources of information which I could not have
discovered for myself, and assisting me in every way during my visits to
Utrecht. For similar kindness I should have had to thank the late Canon Van
Werckhoven, had he lived to read a book which I think he would have perused
with interest; as I now have to thank the Abbé Karsten, of Amersfoort, and
the Canon Mulder, pastor of the Church of S. Gertrude in den Hoek at Utrecht.
Nor must I forget the kindness of the Ven. Archdeacon Otter, and of F. H.
Dickinson, Esq., in supplying me with “Jansenist” works from their libraries.
Whatever importance the Annals of the Church of Utrecht must always have
possessed, they undoubtedly have acquired increased interest now, when the
Ultramontanism of such works as the Univers, and the new school of
French theologians, and also the promulgation of the Bull Ineffabilis,
has revived the ardour and the devotion of the old Gallican party, the party
of Gerson, Pierre d’Ailly, and Bossuet. The sympathy felt by this school with
the oppressed Church of Holland is not obscurely expressed in its historical
masterpiece, the Abbé Guettée’s History; in the respect and veneration with
which he speaks of the present head of that communion, Archbishop Van Santen. One more remark
may not be out of place. The part which the Jesuits have played in the
oppression of the Church of Utrecht obliges an historian of that communion to
dwell on the dark, with scarcely any reference to the bright, side of that
wonderful Society. The Ubi male, nemo pejus is certainly
demonstrated in the following pages; but GOD forbid that we should forget the
other part of the same proverb, when we remember the exertions of the Company
in Japan, in Cochin-China, in Paraguay, in North America, — Ubi bene, nemo
melius. Nov. 20, 1857. |
John Mason Neale, 1818-1866 |
