The Modern Devotion

Confrontation with Reformation and Humanism

[p. 121]

M. Action against the Heretics

At about this same time, the spring of 1382, Groote warns his friends in Kampen against the false prophets and the teachers of heresy who preached not the word of God, but all manner of fables and led the people astray. They must be opposed by the truth which must be defended by the true testimony of God as found in the Holy Scriptures.¹ One of these false prophets was Bartholemew, an Augustinian from the monastery in Dordrecht, a new friar limitor in Kampen.² He had given three or four sermons there which, as Groote had been informed, showed great similarity to Gerbrand's manner of preaching and that of the heretical furrier and the supporters of the ‘Free Spirits.’ Peter Horn identifies the first (Gerbrand) with a Kampen surgeon³ of whom nothing else was known. We know just as little about the furrier. Rather more is known about the members of the Free Spirits, and Father Bartholemew repeatedly mentioned them by name and praised them. Groote gives a brief account of Bartholemew's doctrine and this does indeed coincide with what we know of the heresy of the Free Spirits. Bartholemew's ideas exceeded all that was understandable and imaginable. It is said (notes Groote) that he employs many profane words and propagates errors. Bartholemew himself denied this, but he frequented inns, sought the favour of the rich and found fault with no one. Nothing is more dangerous than to preach about lofty things without pointing out the way which leads to them, for holy Dionysius says in his Mystica Theologia that he who preaches such things must refrain from impurity. To wish to contemplate the inmost depths of God without preparing for this by purification, is to open the door to heresy. According to Bartholemew the good and perfect man need not live in isolation, and the life of the hermit is not a perfect state, for Christ did not live a solitary life. All that God is by nature, we become through grace. There is only slight need for penitence. The life of the perfect man must be based on pure nothingness. I fear, says Groote, that he is a wolf. Be on your guard if you see him coming.⁴ Groote wishes to hear him. He writes to the parish priest of Zwolle (Reinerus of Drijnen): ‘Bartholemew has no right to preach, but you may permit him to continue. See to it, however, that he preaches Christ and the Gospel and abandons those incomprehensible and profane matters. The

1 Ger. M. Ep. n. 30, p. 132.

2 Ibid., n. 31, p. 133.

3 See notes by Mulder 134, 135.

4 Ger. M. Ep. p. 135-136.

[p. 122]

Augustinians of Dordrecht are reputed to harbour heretics. For years I have known that this was so in Utrecht and Holland. Invite him, though, and tell me when he comes. Then I will listen to him in secret with a notary public (clerk, shorthand writer). Thus we will catch him by stealth in his heretical words, and we will not prevent him from preaching, so that the devil will not be glorified in him.’¹ This rather unpleasant plan does indeed seem to have been carried out! A complaint was entered against Bartholemew in Utrecht and he was interrogated by the episcopal inquisition, under the direction of the vicar general, assisted by a number of mendicant monks. The Augustinian, however, denied everything, including what was sufficiently attested in Kampen, Zwolle and Woudrichem, probably because his sermons were taken down by Groote's shorthand writers. Groote had certainly done his best to gather testimony against Bartholemew. For this purpose he had probably urgently recalled John Cele, who had shortly before retired to Monnikhuizen. In this he was supported by the parish priest of Zwolle, Reinerus Drijnen.² We can leave out of consideration here whether or not Groote actually took part in the trial in Utrecht, as John Busch relates. It would indeed be very characteristic of Groote's zeal, but Busch's account is dubious in that he concludes by saying that Bartholemew was humiliated, which conflicts with Groote's letters.³ He was not condemned, but was made to proclaim personally in Kampen and Zwolle that he recognized the errors of which he was accused and had not preached them. Groote, however, was not satisfied with this decision. He wrote a letter to the bishop himself, Floris of Wefelinkhoven, who had reserved the right of examination for himself, should this still prove necessary. Groote besought him not to neglect the further examination but to ensure that such an ignorant fox, this liar, this brute, deformed by all manner of shameful deeds, and rightly suspected of heresy, should not henceforth be admitted to the office of preacher.⁴

Groote's letter was probably entirely unsuccessful. A short time later thus (in the middle of 1382 according to Mulder) he wrote again to bishop Floris: ‘You must know that already many and very secret heresies are creeping about. It is thus necessary for the Church and

1 Ger. M. Ep., p. 137.

2 Ibid. n. 48, pp. 190 and 191.

3 Busch, Chronicon 262. For the doctrine of the supporters of the Free Spirit, cf. the notes to the edition of Groote's letters: J.J.R. Acquoy, Gerardi Magni Epistolae XIV Amsterdam 1857 and Mulder, 133 sq.

4 Ger. M. Ep. n. 36, p. 149-151.

[p. 123]

the faith that a more stringent inquisition should be held. And if Bartholemew (here called Bertholdus) is let go free, the heretics will prick up their ears. So many evil results will follow that they will not be able to remain hidden from the Pope’. Having thus instilled a little fear into the bishop, he repeats the proposal that Bartholemew should be forbidden to preach. He adds a request that the bishop should commission someone in Overijsel to investigate this false prophet¹ suggesting thus, in my opinion, that this task should be confided to him.

This did not happen, or at least the sources make no mention of it. Groote had no other recourse than to ensure that the recantation was made as effectively as possible in Kampen and Zwolle and was made known to the greatest possible number of people so that they too, who had heard Bartholemew, should forsake any errors they might have embraced. He wrote therefore to his friends in Kampen to see to it that the bishop's letter Literarum presentacionis... fratris Bartholomaei should be read aloud several times, clearly and understandably, in both churches of the city. They must also tell this to Werner Keynkamp, rector or teacher at the school in Kampen, who had probably (see further) been exiled.² We do not know what the situation was in Zwolle, but in Kampen Bartholemew had found support from the magistrate. Groote writes that the magistrates belonged to the party of the monk Bartholemew. They have granted him compensation (emenda) as some women have said. When these were questioned about it, however, they retracted their statement and were thus shown to be liars, which again helped Bartholemew's case. Groote thought that these women would also have to make a clean breast of it in Utrecht. Hence his appeal to suffer everything for truth and not to fear the struggle. Werner had not feared the struggle and for this he had been exiled. Groote considered him as a confessor and martyr as in the early Church. He said as much in a letter to the parish priest of Lochum, Stephen Vuerden. Werner came originally from this parish.³ It does not appear whether he worked on Werner's behalf. Groote reveals himself here as the fighter on principle for the preservation of what he thought to be the truth. He gives vent to all manner of violent epithets against the heretic

1 Ger. M. Ep. n. 37, p. 152.

2 Ibid., n. 49, p. 192. This clearly shows that Groote opposed this error; on what grounds is another matter, see Spoelhof; and the introduction p. 29-33. Contrary to what Spoelhof thinks, Groote himself once says, in the struggle against the focarists, that he is concerned with the doctrine and not with correction. Ger. M. Ep. n. 77.

3 Ger. M. Ep. p. 200.

[p. 124]

and does not rest until he has finally put an end to his undermining activities. To this end he employs every means at his disposal, friendship, eavesdropping, complaints to the bishop's suggestions, his own services as inquisitor. It did not trouble him that he thereby made enemies for himself and got his friends into difficulties. If everything of which he accused Bartholemew is true, then it is understandable that Groote should have acted so strongly against him. The judges, however, were more moderate than he. I must leave unresolved the question of whether the magistrates of Kampen really took the heretic's part or whether they were chiefly concerned for the independence of the civic tribunals.