The Modern Devotion

Confrontation with Reformation and Humanism

[p. 168]

U. Summary

So far as can be deduced from Geert Groote's letters and treatises, he was not a speculative theologian, a profound dogmatist who made a place for himself in the history of late-medieval theology, a man who clearly adhered to one of the schools of his time. In the treatise De quattuor generibus meditationum he says that he formerly philosophized differently. In other words, he progressed from the via moderna to the via antiqua. He does not quote Ockham but repeatedly cites Thomas Aquinas, both the Sententiarium Liber and the Summa Theologica.¹ Groote recognizes the merit of human acts performed with God's grace. To a new monk, for example, he writes: Et cogitetis, quod sepe plus homo meretur, quando est in minore fervore, quam quando est in maiore; et tunc est tempus merendi, quando Deus relinquit hominem et retrahit manum suam, et homo manet vel confidens in Deo, etc.². Or: ‘But such a struggle is for the strong, and for these in consequence both the meritum and the reward are great.’³ Grace is here assumed. This is the medieval idea of the common believer, which has been exactly described by theologians like St. Thomas. With Groote one finds nothing of a fitting (de congruo) merit of the primary grace for him who does what he can, or of a claim to heaven on the grounds of the same endeavour after receiving the first grace. Predestination is little mentioned, but where it occurs it is not only a prior knowledge, but indeed a prior predestination. After the model of St. Bernard he writes: ‘And this God does entirely, who from our wickedness brings forth good to our advantage and improvement. And we must surely hope for and hold fast to this, that for those who love God, all works together for good, for those who according to the decree are called saints, that is, those who are predestined for eternal life.’⁴

There is no under-valuation of good works as might be deduced from Groote's Conclusa et proposita. At most the condition is made in the Moral Address that good deeds must be performed with the good intention, mast be linked with the inward life. Groote cannot be reproached in any way with the neo-Pelagianism of which some authors have accused various nominalists and later also Thomas Aquinas.

1 Ger. M. Ep., p. 343.

2 Ibid., 53.

3 Ibid., p. 302.

4 Ibid., p. 296

[p. 169]

It has also been quite evident that the Holy Scriptures constituted an important, but never the sole source of Groote's works and letters. He draws equally upon the Fathers and theologians, and particularly the Decreta and Decretalia with their commentaries. He is, moreover, not alone in his use of the Bible - other earlier theologians referred to it. One remarkable fact is that, like some before him and Erasmus and others after him, he calls the knowledge of God ‘philosophy’: ‘When shall the soul depart from this damp cave and fly up to the freedom of the celestials, to the peace of the devout (interni) to the enjoyment of the true philosophy, which is God.’¹

Although Geert Groote sometimes voiced his desire for a contemplative life, he led a very active one between the years 1379-1384. It was a life filled with preaching, the writing of treatises and letters which were sometimes elaborated into theses, and journeyings to and fro, so far as we can gather, between Deventer, Zwolle, Kampen, Utrecht, Amsterdam and Woudrichem with occasional trips to Paris, Groenendaal and Liège. He advises young men and women who wish to enter a monastery and uses his influence on their behalf. He busies himself with various matters, appointing school rectors, admitting various persons to hostels, unmasking a false physician, appointing parish priests. He gives legal advice or enlists the help of others. He founds houses for Brethren in Deventer, Zwolle and Kampen at least, and has numerous books copied, sometimes employing as many as five people for this work. Some of these persons are called scholares. The admission of schoolboys to their own hostels is, however, never mentioned in the letters. Geert Groote did not occupy himself with education as such. In addition to various small matters he fights against the violation of celibacy among secular priests, the giving of a dowry on entering a convent and the retention of personal property by monks and nuns, particularly the Cistercian nuns. He fiercely opposed the heretic Bartholemew. Finally he gave his opinion on various problems connected with the schism. He is a scholar, devoted to study, and has an extensive knowledge of the Bible, Church Fathers, a few pagan philosophers like Aristotle and Seneca and various medieval theologians, notably St. Thomas and Bernard. Of the Fathers, he is particularly fond of Augustine and St. Jerome. He is a passionate lover of books, not as a bibliophile, but in order to study them and to utilize their content for his own life and work. He worked extremely hard

1 Ger. M. Ep., p. 6.

[p. 170]

up to his final illness and death, and this in his own opinion distracted his mind too much from the inner religious life. In his predilection for the inner devotion, he did not neglect the oral prayers such as the breviary, but we know this chiefly from other sources which will be discussed later.

It is not known whether his treatises De Matrimonio, De locatione ecclesiarum and Contra magna edificia superflua ac institutiones faisas principaliter contra turrim Traiectensem, were ever published. If they were this may explain why many considered Groote a dangerous preacher on account of his rigorism. This rigoristic attitude is also strong in the Sermo contra focaristas, not so much in the condemnation of keeping focariae, as in his ideas on the automatic legal consequences of suspension; excommunication, irregularity, prohibition from attending Holy Mass, all without legal sentence. Such ideas aroused opposition and even Salvarvilla was not too enthusiastic about them. He adopted the same rigoristic and personal attitude towards heretics - he was even more severe than the judges and offered his services as inquisitor.

On the basis of these facts it will not have been too difficult for his enemies to compile a report branding Groote as a dangerous preacher, and to convince the bishop that it was better to silence this deacon. He himself mentions that he was silenced on account of his preaching. The appeal to Rome was well within his rights.¹

1 I can agree with Lindeboom in accepting that a certain relationship existed between Groote and the Beguines, while at the same time rejecting the ‘wrong’ Beguines. J. Lindeboom, Geert Groote's preeksuspensie. Meded. d. Ned. Kon. Ak. v. Wet., Afd. L., new series 4 (1941) 99-131. This rejection appeared clearly enough from his conflict with the Free Spirits; the relationship is evident in his piety. It is certain that the enemies of the Brothers and Sisters and especially of the latter, thought, in the years following Groote's death, that the best way to combat them was to accuse the Sisters of being Beguines (cf. p. 261.). I have very grave doubts, however, whether this similarity between Groote and the Beguines and Bogards already existed to such an extent in 1383 and was so noticeable that it contributed to the bishop's decision to forbid Groote to preach. For at this time the Brethren and the Sisters of the Common Life scarcely existed as such. Those who wished to attack Groote could hardly do so by referring to his connections with the Beguines. For Groote was a man who fully participated in real life and proclaimed his opinions undaunted, unlike the retiring Beguines and Bogards. Lindeboom thinks that there was evidence of ‘heresy’ (his quotation marks) in the tendency or at least the possibility of falling into real heresy through the rigoristic, laicistic striving after poverty, in the critical attitude towards all that in any way diverged from the apostolic, in the subjectivist evaluation of the hierarchy and in the spiritualistic emphasis on the vita interior with the (again relative) neglect of all that had to do with the vita exterior. Yet no matter how carefully all this is phrased, it seems to me exaggerated. The striving after poverty is not to my mind a tendency towards laicization (as with his contemporary Wyclif), and he was certainly not critical of everything which diverged from the apostolic (at most he returned in certain matters to the apostolic tradition). He recognized the limitations of the power of the hierarchy and fought the bishops' usurpation of power, but on the other hand he was docile with regard to the pope and bishops and esteemed ecclesiastical law.
It seems to me to be going too far to speak of a subjectivist attitude, and finally his emphasis on the vita interior did not lead to an (again relative) neglect of the vita exterior; his resolutions clearly show his opinion on this subject and his letters the practice.