Project Canterbury

A History of the So-Called Jansenist Church of Holland;
with a Sketch of Its Earlier Annals,
And some Account of the Brothers of the Common Life.

By the Rev. J.M. Neale, M.A.

Oxford: John Henry and James Parker, 1858.


THE SEE VACANT. 1686-1689.



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, —


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.


Project Canterbury