The Modern Devotion

Confrontation with Reformation and Humanism

[p. 273]

Chapter Six
The Opposition to both Institutions, and the Defence

In the last year of his life especially (1383-84), Groote himself aroused much opposition, which eventually rendered it impossible for him to preach. This was an attack on Groote's activities, an attack directed against him personally. There can be no doubt that such opposition to Groote did exist and that it was successful. The question then arises, however: did Groote's personal opponents and victims also turn against the institutions which Groote had founded, the Brethren and Sisters of the Common Life? It has been assumed, mainly on the basis of statements made by John Busch, that the mendicant orders and notably the Dominicans, launched their attack on Groote's institutions even during his lifetime. In his Chronicon Windeshemense, John Busch devotes a separate chapter to this subject. According to him, members of the mendicant orders (fratres mendicantes) tried to have the communal life of the Modern Devotionalists condemned, but Groote got the better of them. He then gives the content of a sermon which Groote is supposed to have directed against these attacks.¹ Van de Borne, however, has proved that this sermon is a fabrication on the part of Busch.² This eliminates the main support for the theory that the opposition to Groote's institutions began during his lifetime. Random statements put forward by a member of the Fraternity are not sufficient proof that the mendicants joined battle so soon. Even Thomas a Kempis' story of the last conversations of the Brothers with Groote on his deathbed seem to have more reference to what was expected to happen than to what had actually occurred. The Brothers call Groote ‘our defender,’ defensor noster. ‘The opponents will rejoice and the worldly will mock us: they have no leader now, thus they will soon perish. If they have dared to laugh at us and curse us while

1 F.v.d. Borne, Geert Groote en de Moderne Devotie in de geschiedenis van het Middeleeuwse ordewezen IV, Studia Catholica 18 (1942) 26. J. Busch, 256: P. Fredericq, Corpus Documentorum inquisitionis haereticae pravitatis neerlandicae II, Gent 1896, 150 sq.

2 Ibid., 26-30.

[p. 274]

you lived, what will they do when you are dead? May you pray for us and bring help soon to your sons who have remained behind,’ etc. The words do lead one to assume that the enemies had turned not only against Groote but also against his disciples, and thus against their organization. It seems to me, however, that the affair may have been dramatized from Thomas a Kempis' later observations.

This explanation gains support from the fact that the Brothers had only been very recently founded, so that the outside world scarcely knew what was going on. They, were moreover, an extremely small group and dispersed over two or three places so that they can scarcely have been seen as a menace or even viewed with disfavour. People would have had to wait to see exactly what this foundation signified. The Sisters, in the Master Geert's house, were in 1384 nothing other than almshouse-dwellers, like those of the Master Stappen convent. It can scarcely be supposed that the mendicants took the trouble to oppose them.

But the Brothers did not disappear after Groote's death! On the contrary, they gained several novices and many schoolboys as well. In Deventer they first of all acquired the vicarage and afterwards a larger house which already proved too small in 1391 and was exchanged for that of Zwedera of Runen. Shortly afterwards plans were made for a larger hostel, since the vicarage could hold only twenty boys and there was a great demand for places. The Brothers evidently received enough outside help to cover the building costs. People of means did begin to enter the Fraternity and bring their money with them. The Brethren made a particular impression on the schoolboys, and they received the support of the parish priest, the school rector and of some of the magistrates. Their preaching was popular, especially that of John van de Gronde. Stories began to circulate concerning their great humility, their inner devotion and their work. After the death of John van de Gronde († 1392) his successor, John Brinckerinck, attracted an ever increasing number of women to the Master Geert's house, and if there was no room for them there he sent them to found little communal groups elsewhere in the city. It was known that he had also introduced communal life in the Master Geert's house and that there would thus be Sisters of the Common Life alongside the Brothers. The Sisterhood aroused considerable interest, not only in Deventer but in many other cities as well. A pair of rich and aristocratic ladies began to occupy themselves with this foundation and wished to enter it themselves. It seems that

[p. 275]

the Beguines were given a new lease of life, but these Sisters went even further. They renounced their incomes and their property. Had they not thus become monastics, like the Brothers, without adopting any particular rule? Were they founding a new order? There was every appearance of it, for the question did not remain confined to Deventer. Zwolle too had her Brethren. The former may have left the town but Henry Voppenszn copied in Zwolle exactly what Florens Radewijns had done in Deventer. He preached in the church, admitted schoolboys into his house and enjoyed so much success among rich and pious gentlemen like Meynold that he too founded a Brotherhouse in Zwolle. Henry also established contact with a few of the existing Sisterhouses and with the new ones, imitating the model of the Master Geert's house.

Priests came to Deventer from Twente to take stock of the situation and the then renowned pastor of Almelo, who enjoyed fame as a doctor, put into practice in his presbytery what he had observed in Deventer. Interested persons came from as far as Westphalia and priests from Münster joined the Deventer Brothers, evidently with the intention of introducing this Brotherhood in Münster. A Brotherhouse was begun in Amersfoort and another in Hoorn. Groote had friends among the priests in various cities in the province of Holland. Should they too undertake to found similar houses? Nothing seems to have daunted the Brothers. In 1387, three years after Groote's death, they founded a monastery in Windesheim and then in Marienboom in Arnhem and Nieuwlicht in Hoorn. They had very good contacts with the Canons Regular of Eemsteyn and thence even a link with Groenendaal. It really seemed as though something great was growing from all this. Even though the beginnings were still small, the Brethren had the sympathy of the young people. It might well be that vocations to the Mendicant Orders declined, since like them these Brothers aspired to an active life alongside the more passive routine of the monastery. They appear to have gained considerable influence upon the as yet rather unregulated communities which grew up in recent times. Moreover, it is said that these Sisters had strange customs, which the Inquisition would do well to look into. In actual fact both they and the Brothers are completely at variance with church law, for they are virtually founding a new order, which is forbidden. Even though they take no vows, their communal life under the direction of a rector or a ‘mistress’, their daily routine, their harking back to the early church, all these things must cause them to be regarded as monastics.

[p. 276]

If this was their opinion of the Sisters and the Brethren, it is not surprising that various Mendicants and notably the Dominicans, the men of the Inquisition, grew so uneasy and so irritated in the last decade of the 14th century that they decided to take action against these innovators who were, in actual fact, forbidden. And take action they did. They attacked the Brethren and Sisters on two points: firstly, that they were transgressing the law of the Church, and secondly, that as Bogards and Beguines they had already been condemned long ago. The Sisters, moreover, were given to peculiar practices which were dangerously reminiscent of the forbidden Beguines. These attacks began in the 1390's and the somewhat naive supposition mentioned by Rudolf Dier¹ that this enmity would cease if they founded more monasteries, proved false.

The first clear sign that something was going on is found in the document dated March 19th 1395, in which the priors of the monasteries of Windesheim, Marienborn near Arnhem and Nieuwlicht near Hoorn, together with the sub-prior and a canon from Windesheim, testified before a notary and three witnesses that they had been long acquainted with the Brothers of the Florens' House in Deventer, and that after their entry into the monastery they had paid frequent visits to the Brothers of Deventer and that the Brothers had several times come to them. They were completely familiar with the Brethren's life and thought and were prepared to testify under oath against the envious and the slanderers: ‘We have not found amongst them any heresy, sect, schism or secret assemblies; nor have we observed them to preach outside the Church or to dispute the articles of faith or concerning the Holy Trinity of divine mercy. We have not seen either that they adopted any rule or a new order or any habit of a new order, or that they chose prelates who call themselves guardian or some other name while they make their profession before them and in their presence vow obedience, poverty and chastity. We have never seen amongst them any such unlawful and forbidden practices. We firmly believe of them that they live together in community, from the work of their hands and from the incomes possessed by some of them and which they voluntarily pay into the communal fund. We also believe that they humbly and modestly practise poverty, chastity and other virtues. They obey the Roman Church and her prelates. They visit the church devoutly and are not ensnared in error, but serve each

1 G. Dumbar, Analecta I 13.

[p. 277]

other in complete love, in the desire to serve God equally and together in the spirit of humility, according to the spirit of the Constitution of Gregory XI which begins Ex injuncto.’¹

This declaration before a notary concerns only the Brothers. There is no mention of the Sisters. It deals with two main questions: there are slanderers who have uttered accusations against the Brothers in the domain of doctrine which bear some resemblance to what we shall meet presently regarding the Sisters, and secondly, that there is no question of a new order being founded contrary to the law of the Church. These are replies to two important accusations, and the canons are doing their best to exonerate the Brothers.² The above-mentioned persons finally declared that the Brethren were entirely innocent of error, as the pope had heard. Since the Council of Vienne (1311) had condemned various doctrines of the supporters of the ‘Free Spirits’, these had been repeatedly attributed to the Beguines and Bogards. The Dutch members especially had reacted to this. At their request the bishops and some sisters in Rome had declared that the Dutch Beguines and Bogards held none of the errors ascribed to them, with the result that they were not only allowed to continue in the Netherlands but were even very widespread. With his Bull of December 2nd. 1377, Gregory XI had taken these people under his protection, since they were not heretical but persecuted only on account of their dress.³ But even this protection did not ensure their safety. Apart from the fact that the inquisitors considered certain practices among the Sisters suspect, several persons were of the opinion that the very institution of the Brethren and Sisters of the Common Life contravened ecclesiastical law. For did they not live as monastics under the direction of a sub-prior? If this indeed constituted monastic life, then Geert Groote had founded a new order without the pope's permission, and this was forbidden. Or else the life lived by the Brethren and Sisters was not monastic, in which case they ought not to act as monastics. Such a community life was misleading and for this reason

1 And yet this piece, which purports to be a notarial document, arouses some suspicion. It contains too many persons who bear similar names whom we know to be at least friends of the fraters: William Hendrikx, notary, whom we have already met, Henry Mande, whom we have yet to meet; only Stephen Mulert and John Scutken were not fraters. Was this document composed by a group of fraters?

2 E. Barnikol, o.c. 158-159. P. Fredericq, Corpus documentorum haereticae pravitatis Neerlandicae. I, 1889, 230.

3 P. Fredericq, I, 338.

[p. 278]

they must be suppressed. They are in fact Bogards or Beguines and as such have long since been condemned!

There must thus have existed some similarity between the Bogards and the Brothers and between the Beguines and the Sisters for the condemnation of 1311 to be so readily applied to them. The points of resemblance were that they all practised piety, lived retired from the world in houses especially intended for them, were under the direction of a sub-prior and for certain purposes held a communal coffer - all this, however, without adopting one of the monastic rules. And yet the Brethren (and Sisters) differed from the Bogards and Beguines in that they had carried their communal life a step further. They had renounced all personal property and incomes for the benefit of the community, so that they lived from the communal purse and from a communal table.

That they were equated with the Bogards and Beguines appears already from the document of 7th April 1374, quoted above (p. 277, n. 2), in which they themselves adopted a passage from the papal deed concerning the Beguines, thereby virtually admitting or at least fearing that they might be confused with the Beguines. This emerges clearly in the long version of the statutes of the Master Gerard's house, fabricated with this attack in mind. The Sisters evidently ran more danger than the Brothers, for the simple reason that the Beguines were more widespread than the Bogards. Moreover an accusation has been levelled against them in the domain of church life. Hence this document adds to an article in the statutes of 1379 a clause concerning the Beguines: No one has the right to transform their institution into a new monastic order.¹ To the decree (no 5) that the Sisters may not wear monastic dress, is added: ‘the clothing which all the Beguines wear.’² Furthermore (No. 13): No one may continue to live in this house who holds or teaches any point for which the Beguines were condemned at the Council of Vienne³ or any other point contrary to the Holy Church. Then follow certain particular questions, derived from the sect of the ‘Free Spirits’ and which were thought to be held by some Beguines of the Rhineland region. This probably explains why they were incorporated here. No one may live in the Master Gerard's house who disputes the Holy Trinity, the simple nature of God, the Holy Sacraments, the Holy Church or in general doubts lofty matters

1 Archief ... aartsb. Utrecht, 71 (1952) 3. See p. 265.

2 Ibid., 4, ‘de kleding die de baghijnen allen dragen.’

3 Ibid., 9, Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 22, Freiburg, 1953, p. 282, nos. 891-899.

[p. 279]

beyond his comprehension, who speaks or makes propaganda against the words of Christ and the Holy Father and the Holy Scriptures, or who lives contrary to the law of Christ or who holds the eight articles against the Beguines as found in Clementines,¹ or who holds the 28 articles of Eckhart.² They are also excluded who possess books containing these articles, which are often learned in Germany. Furthermore anyone is excluded who imagined or thought he saw God's essence in unity or Trinity without having practised particular virtues, who holds the opinion that all inner inspirations always come from God and the Holy Ghost and never from the evil spirit, who holds the quietistic conviction that the way of light leads to God without penitence, without the practice of virtue.³

The rejection of the status of Beguines and of the errors attributed to them, and all which might be in the slightest way connected with them, proves that the leaders of the Sisters and the civic administration needed some document to prove that Geert Groote had already foreseen the possibility of such accusation, had entirely rejected the errors and had preserved his Sisters from them by strict regulations. When did this occur? All kinds of data exist, ranging between the years 1393 and 1398. We possess a petition to Pope Boniface IX, dated 7th January 1394, in which it is besought that the inquisitors should cease to trouble the Bogards and the Beguines, since they are obedient and virtuous persons.⁴ The Pope's reply, dated as was customary on the same day as the petition, (7th January 1394) must have been promulgated weeks, if not months later, since it had to be composed after the granting of the petition and to pass through the usual channels. The Pope ordered the archbishops of Cologne, Trèves and Mainz to institute an investigation into the condition of the Bogards and Beguines and to keep the inquisitors in check.⁵ There is also a decree by the same pope, dated two years later on 31st January 1396, in which he urges an investigation by the inquisitors into the Beghardi, Lollardi and ‘Zwestriones.’⁶ This was probably preceded by a petition on the part of the inquisitors, dated 31st January 1396. During this period the function of inquisitor in West Germany and the Netherlands was held by Jacob of Soest and Eylard Schoneveld. The latter was a

1 These are the same as those referred to above.

2 Denzinger, nos. 951-978 suggested by Joh. XXII, 27 March 1329.

3 Archief ... aartsb. Utrecht 71 (1952) 3-12.

4 P. Fredericq I no. 238, p. 253.

5 Ibid., I, p. 254, no. 239.

6 Ibid., I, p. 256, no. 241.

[p. 280]

Dominican and the former may have been. From their hand or from their papers we possess two undated documents, the first of which is usually dated in 1393 or '94¹ and the second with more certainty after 1398.² Both deal with the religious practices of the house (of Beguines, of Sisters of the Common Life) in Rhenen. It is probable that one or both of the inquisitors in question undertook an investigation there and sent a report to Rome, together with a petition which resulted in the document of 31st March 1396 (only sent later and known here much later still).³ It is striking, however, that the Rhenen⁴ case led to questions being asked about the Bogards and Beguines in general⁵ and finally to a generalization of the findings to cover the houses of the Brothers and especially the Sisters of the Common Life, who are even called Secta Gherardinorum⁶ in the introduction to the piece dated after 1398.⁷ It is no wonder that around this period the friends of the Brothers, notably the leaders of Windesheim, Marienborn and Nieuwlicht, should have sprung to action (19th March 1395)⁸ and that shortly afterwards the Brothers should have tried to elicit from high academic authorities a statement to the effect that their institution was not contrary to church law, as was continually asserted by their opponents. This led to the two replies by Everard Foec, deacon of St. Salvator in Utrecht, which have been preserved undated,⁹ by an anonymous writer, also undated¹⁰ and by Arnold, Abbot of Dikninge, dated on December 24th, 1397,¹¹ and also by certain doctores decretorum of Cologne and others¹² which are dated in the introduction in the year 1398.¹³

The question of whether or not the congregations or houses of the Brethren and Sisters of the Common Life could be said to have a lawful existence, clearly exercised the minds of many in the northern Netherlands in the years 1394-1398, perhaps even somewhat earlier

1 Fredericq, II, p. 153, no. 106, preserved in the city Archives Soest (Germany).

2 Ibid., II, p. 181, no. 114.

3 Ibid., I, p. 256, no. 241.

4 Ibid., I, p. 256, no. 241.

5 Ibid., II, p. 155.

6 Ibid., p. 181.

7 Ibid., II, p. 181, no. 114.

8 Ibid., II, 156, no. 107; Schoengen p. 499.

9 Ibid., II, p. 159, no. 109.

10 Ibid., II, no. 111, p. 169.

11 Ibid., no. 112, p. 172.

12 In 1398 a collection was made of the separate letters and this has been preserved. Ibid., II 176, no. 113.

13 Ibid., p. 177.

[p. 281]

and later. Everard Foec speaks of sermons and writings which condemn the state of the Beguines as pernicious and full of defects.¹ It is remarkable too how opponents and supporters of this new form of community tend to equate them with the Bogards and Beguines, as did the preachers and writers referred to above. Everard Foec, deacon of St. Salvator in Utrecht, does not reply that the Brethren and Sisters have no connection with the Bogards and Beguines, but shows that not all of them were condemned in the papal pronouncements - only those who preached erroneous doctrines. The Dutch Beguines were not included in this condemnation.² In replying to the questions put by the Brethren of the Common Life, this same deacon Foec utilizes all the papal documents concerning Bogards and Beguines, including the already quoted letter of Pope Gregory XI Ex injuncto, of April 7th 1374³ written before the Brethren and Sisters even existed. This same process was adopted by the anonymous writer of the defence⁴ and by Arnold, abbot of Dikninge.⁵ The person who summarized the contents of the letters by Cologne lawyers and others, simply classes them as written in defence of the Bogards (pro munimine Beghardorum).⁶ Anyone wishing to refute these authors merely quoted in defence the findings of the inquisitor Schoeneveld at a visitation of the sisters in Rhenen - as applying to the Brethren and Sisters of the Common Life.⁷ It is thus understandable that the statutes of the Master Geert's house should expressly state that they were not Beguines. This had not occurred to any of the defenders. They were content to prove that not all Bogards and Beguines were forbidden. In any case they viewed the matter from a different aspect. Their task was to reply to questions put to them by the Brothers who had probably set down a description of their organization and aims, together with a number of questions, and submitted these to various lawyers.

Everard Foec and Arnold of Dikninge both mention the same seven questions and reply to them. The anonymous writer deals with three while the rapporteur of the Cologne doctores and other gives the answers to five questions preceded by a condensed description of the Fraternity. It seems to me important, not only for the matter under discussion, but also for our knowledge of the Brothers, to give an account here both of the description and the questions.

1 P. Fredericq, p. 168.

2 Ibid., p. 168.

3 Cf. p. 277.

4 Fredericq, II no. 111, p. 170.

5 Ibid., II no. 112, p. 173.

6 Ibid., no. 113, p. 176.

7 Ibid., no. 114, p. 181-183.

[p. 282]

The Cologne rapporteur defines the case thus: In certain regions various persons have withdrawn from the world in order to live together as clerici (either clergy or schoolboys) in a house in which they copy books for money. There are others too who cannot write but who are skilled in all kinds of crafts which they carry out for gain in another house, or do other sorts of handwork. These persons work with their hands and live from what they earn by their work and from their property if they have any. They share everything freely in the interests of greater harmony or else deposit their money in a communal fund. They eat together and do not beg. They have among them, however, a reliable person, who looks after the house, whose admonitions they accept and whom they obey as good pupils their master. And they have embarked on this way of life in order to live more comfortably and to obtain the necessities of life more easily, but principally because they hope by living thus to please God more and serve Him better.¹

This description, compiled by lawyers, accurately renders the nature and aims of the Fraternity. It is doubtful, however, if this view of the rector's task corresponds to reality.

This definition of the Fraternity is followed by four questions with the appropriate answers.

Is it permitted to various persons to live together in one house, following no monastic order, in order to serve God more securely, to live more easily and to share voluntarily what they have and what they earn, living communally on the proceeds without begging? All answer in the affirmative, basing their decision on several papal pronouncements. Then follows a refutation of counter arguments.

The second question concerns the position of the superior. His authority over the Brothers and their corresponding duties to him causes the group to bear considerable resemblance to a monastic order. The lawyers accordingly only approve the existence of such a rector if no legal relationship exists between authority and subject, but all follow the superior's admonitions of their own free will, accepting them as the advice of a good friend.²

The third question deals with the revealing of individual temptations, passions and sins to another who is not a priest. All consider that this may be allowed, providing it be firmly borne in mind that

1 P. Fredericq, II, p. 177.

2 Ibid., 178. Here one finds the basis for the free organization of the Brothers, to which Spoelstra has drawn attention.

[p. 283]

this is not a confession, with no power of absolution or to impose penance. A sacramental Confession may only be made to a priest who has jurisdiction.¹ The jurists can find no objection either to the brotherly admonition, the correptio fraterna.²

Everard Foec and Arnold of Dikninge are completely in accord that the Brothers should have published books from the scriptures in the vernacular, provided that the translated text does not distort the meaning of the Holy Scriptures, the apostolic doctrine and the sacred canons.³ It is worthy of note that Everard Foec considers a knowledge of languages extremely useful for the faith; certain schools should thus have teachers in the Hebrew, Arabic and Chaldean languages.⁴ Such a requirement was already in advance of Erasmus in the 16th century who considered Greek and Hebrew, together with Latin, to be essential for a good scriptural scholar. The fact that both these lawyers regard the reading of the Bible in the vernacular as permissible clearly shows that the Brothers did not stand alone in this regard.⁵ If frater Gerard Zerbolt († 1398) really wrote the treatise De libris teutonicalibus et de precibus vernaculis,⁶, he was probably not so original as many have thought.

Neither lawyer has any objection, in the sixth place, to the Brethren following an order of the day, working with their hands, reading aloud during meals or praying Benedicite and Gracias before and after the meal. They are of the opinion that such monastic practices do not render the institutions of the Brethren and Sisters monastic.⁷

In conclusion both jurists, in reply to the seventh and last question, considered that the inquisition had nothing to do with this affair. Their task was to deal with heresy, of which there was no question here, or even suspicion. It was at most a problem of church discipline to determine whether the Brethren and Sisters had transgressed any ecclesiastical law and notably that which forbade the founding of new monastic orders.⁸

An anonymous jurist tackles the question differently. He refutes

1 P. Fredericq, p. 179.

2 Ibid., p. 179.

3 Ibid., 163, 174.

4 Ibid., 164.

5 See hereafter p. 326.

6 J. van Rooy, Gerard Zerbolt van Zutphen, Diss. Nijmegen, 1930, 198-211.

7 Ibid., p. 164, 175.

8 Ibid., 165, 175-176. In a separate article Ed. Foec shows that, if the Brethren and Sisters are to be considered as Bogards and Beguines, then they belong to those groups which are approved by the pope.

[p. 284]

the arguments of those who oppose the institution and stresses that there is no question of heresy. The matter is thus outside the province of the inquisition.¹

All these juridical opinions make it clear that the Brothers had to withstand a series of violent attacks. The most dangerous was evidently that of the Inquisition, whose main objection to the Brethren and Sisters was that they had founded a new monastic order and thus transgressed the laws of the Church. The inquisitors were in possession of a document which they considered as proof. This was a complaint addressed to the inquisitors, drawn up and confirmed under oath by several reliable persons, against the congregations and in particular against the house of Master Werembold of Utrecht.

Various points are mentioned in this complaint, but the majority purport to show that these congregations were in reality monasteries. The members eat together, pray Benedicte in Dutch, and books are read aloud in the same language. Martha (the superior) begins the thanksgiving and all take it up, as is done among the religious. They have a chapter of faults which concludes with a request by Martha to pray for her, and she gives psalms to be said as penance. The Sisters must ask Martha's permission before they can hear Mass, listen to a sermon, go to Confession or to Communion. She considers that it is more meritorious to do this out of obedience than from private inclination. Martha also tells them what priest or confessor they may attend and chooses only those priests who are well acquainted with their observances. If the Sisters disobey on this point they are openly reprimanded in the chapter and if they do not mend their ways they are expelled from the house. Sometimes Martha asks those who wish to confess why they prefer a particular confessor. On Holy Thursday she conducts the ceremony of the washing of the feet, while one of the Sisters reads aloud the sermon of the Lord in the vernacular. She sometimes requires that those Sisters who wish to confess tell her beforehand all they intend to say in the confessional, even though it concerned murder. It happened in Rhenen that a serious matter confessed by a Sister leaked out. When the priest questioned her about this Martha explained that she did it to prevent the Sisters from developing carnal affection for a particular person and from confessing more from frivolity than necessity. Although they make no official profession they have to promise to remain and to respect the ordi-

1 P. Fredericq, no. 111, p. 169.

[p. 285]

nances of the house, which may not be revealed to outsiders. When two of the older sisters asked advice on the regulations from a Carthusian prior, he considered the rules to be contrary to the statutes of the Church; and when Werembold requested these Sisters to consult a legal adviser in Utrecht he sent Aleida Cluten, the Martha of the convent in Utrecht (St. Cecilia) to order the sisters to deny the existence of these rules even under oath. Werembold called those who left the house apostatae (like those who fled the convents). This Aleida Cluten persuaded persons in the world, even married women, to place themselves under her spiritual direction and to confess to her as they would to a priest.

This document then gives a statement on how an inquisitor should undertake to interrogate these congregations. It is important that the Sisters should begin by taking an oath, and if they refuse they must be considered as heretics. One of the most significant questions is: whether they had ever heard that the Church prohibited the founding of new monastic orders and that people should abandon those which were not approved.

The intention behind all this is clear. The inquisitor had to have the means of condemning the Sisters and Brethren on the grounds that they had set up a new order.

The inquisitor Eylard Schoneveld probably commenced his investigations in Rhenen or elsewhere on the basis of this complaint. This must have been about the same time, 1396-1398, as the Brethren sought the help of the above-mentioned legal advisers. An anonymous writer did in fact attempt, with data derived from the inquisitor, to refute the arguments of the legal scholars, again by stressing the point that they were in fact dealing with a new monastic order. This anonymous opponent suggests that the pronouncements of the Cologne lawyers have contributed to the spread of the ‘sect of the Gerardini’¹ in the Netherlands, and that their letter is being used for this purpose wrongfully and contrary to their intentions. He again lists the monastic practices of the Brothers and especially of the Sisters, notably Martha's authority. This must clearly show that the Brethren and Sisters are acting in defiance of church law which states that new

1 P. Fredericq., no. 114, p. 181. This document is based for a large part on the above mentioned accusation, but on certain points it goes even further; hence my opinion that there was an inquisition. It is also possible that this ‘advocate’ only padded out the document somewhat, adding certain corrections. According to Rudolf Dier (G. Dumbar, Analecta 30-31) the inquisitor Eylard considerably harrassed the sisters in Utrecht (St. Cecilia) under Werembold.

[p. 286]

congregations after the manner of monasteries may only be founded with the special permission of the Holy See. Martha's intervention in the Sisters' spiritual life and especially the secret ordinances, are all suspect, and no less so the fact that Martha and her assistants oblige the Sisters to reveal to them the points that they wish to confess. Finally, it is completely absurd that this Martha of Utrecht should act as general superior in other houses, hold visitations and recommend improvements, and that she should hear the confessions of married women. No less remarkable is the fact that a priest lives in the same house as Martha and functions as legislator and director of the congregation. The priest in question will be Werembold, who acts as though he were a superior general of an order. The secrecy surrounding the ordinances throws suspicion upon the entire establishment. They err, therefore, who defend this institution, so contrary to the constitution of the Church. The Sisters possess documents (probably those from their legal advisers) with which they attempt to defend themselves the inquisitors. They refuse, however, to accept an approved rule. The leader (Werembold) has even said that he would rather be in charge of a cattle-shed than accept an approved rule. In the last ten years three hundred girls of good family have entered. They refused to give up their property in order to enter a new monastery with an established rule and clausura to serve God without personal property. They prefer to deprive God of so many hymns of praise and the province of their example of virtue, rather than cooperate in founding such a monastery.

This is plain language. In the height of this controversy Gerard Zerbolt, one of the Deventer Brethren, wrote a treatise entitled: ‘Super modo vivendi devotorum hominum simul commorantium’ in which he makes considerable use of the recommendations of the legal advisers.¹ This treatise, comprising 100 pages of modern print, takes up the same questions dealt with by Everard Foec and Arnold, abbot of Dikninge. Several pages might be considered as replies to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th questions. Only the seventh, whether or not the inquisitor is entitled to intervene, is omitted. Since the treatise offers more scope than the lawyers in their opinions, the author is

1 A. Hyma, Is Gerard Zerbolt of Zutphen the author of the ‘Super modo vivendi.’ Nederlandsch Archief voor kerkgeschiedenis, N.G. XVI (1921) 107-128. P.J. van Rooy, Gerard Zerbolt van Zutphen, Nijmegen Diss. 1936, 47-49, 165-198. He defended the authorship of Gerard Zerbolt. Number of impressions given by van Rooy, 301-303.

[p. 287]

lavish with his quotations from texts, his drawing of distinctions and his description of situations. It thus follows that the treatise is not a description of the way of life in these devout communities, but a defence of their design and aims. The writer is fully aware that it is forbidden to found a new order without the Pope's permission. In this connection it is interesting to note that Gerard Zerbolt does not confine the use of the term ‘religious’ to the monastics, but employs it too in the general sense of ‘devout,’ so that seculars and laity may also be called religious if they lead pious lives. His task, like that of the lawyers, is to show that the Brethren and Sisters did not found any new order, even though their way of life bears much resemblance to that of any established order. He sets about this in three ways: firstly that the Brothers reject what is essential for a monastery, namely the vows; secondly, this resemblance is not entirely accurate, for example their obedience to a superior, and the authority of this superior, are different from in a monastery; thirdly, what they have is permitted to everyone: community of property, simple dress, exhortation to the good, confession to lay persons under certain circumstances, or solely for the purpose of humility, which is a different thing from confession in the sacrament to a priest with jurisdiction; a simple yet not monastic habit, the following of a house rule, manual work and the reading of the Holy Scriptures and other pious books in the vernacular. For a self-trained scholar like Gerard Zerbolt, the writing of this treatise is an important achievement. This was not the full extent of his capabilities, as we shall see, but in writing this treatise he came actively to the fore in the great struggle for existence. His treatise, which was perhaps more easily disseminated than the personal recommendations, certainly helped to resolve the conflict. It ended in a victory for the Brothers, but Gerard Zerbolt did not live to see it. He died in Windesheim on December 4th, 1398, on the way back from Dikninge, where he had certainly conferred with the abbot on his treatise. When Florens and Gerard Zerbolt stayed in Amersfoort in 1398, the conflict was still at its height. The inquisitor was making life very difficult for the Sisters in Utrecht. Florens and Gerard held repeated consultations with Werembold in Utrecht and also discussed this important matter with Everard Foec. The leaders of other houses (especially Sisterhouses) were also asked for their opinions. Several wished to comply with the inquisitor's demands by adopting the Third Rule of St. Francis, with the vow of chastity. This also meant that the Tertiaries would become part of a community with, for the

[p. 288]

present, not Werembold of Utrecht, but William Hendrikx, rector of the Brothers in Amersfoort, at its head.¹ Werembold, notwithstanding, gained considerable influence, witness the manner in which he admitted the Sisters of St. Agatha in Delft. He was a man of enormous energy, who was often on the road and did not spare himself. ‘If I had two bodies, I would wear them both out in the service of God.’ The inquisitor, Eylard of Schoneveld, accused him of dominating the Sisters of Rhenen like an abbot-general, and when he was chaplain in Kruiningen in Zeeland, with Rudolf of Enteren, he considered that the pastor was too generous to the poor. His influence was by this time so considerable, that the priest dared not give anything while the chaplain was in the presbytery and apologised to the poor who came begging: ‘He (the Chaplain) is in the presbytery, come back later.’²

The Brethren of Deventer suffered a defeat in that various houses and several leaders of the Devotionalists adopted a monastic rule, but this step may have served to calm the storm. Victory on the principal point was in sight. On April 30th 1401, the bishop of Utrecht, Frederic of Blankenheim³ promulgated a decree in favour of the Brethren, in which he granted them permission to exist and approved their institution. He did this after considering testimony by theologians and jurists, at the request of the Brothers, by virtue of his own authority and the powers granted to him by Gregory XI, in order to restore peace to the Brethren and Sisters. He gives a brief summary of the characteristics of the Brethren: a communal life in honour of God and to live more easily; community of possessions earned by the work of their hands; no begging; a superior whom all obey as good pupils obey their teacher; they might live according to a fixed order, hearing Mass, visiting the church and working, provided they did not found any new monastic order. In addition they were free to practise the fraterna correptio, brotherly admonition in conversations, to obey the prelates, to inform a person, not a priest, of temptations and inclinations, so long as there was no question of absolution, penance or other sacramentalia. It was permitted to read the Bible and other pious works in Latin or in the vernacular. Although certain objections might be made to this decree,³ it fulfilled its purpose. Whether authentic or not it existed from the 26th August of 1401, and could be

1 v. Heel, pp. 9-8, cf. above p. 269-272.

2 R. Dier, G. Dumbar, Analecta I 29.

3 Ed. in Archief ... aartsb. Utrecht, 2 (1875) 229-235; Schoengen, 512-514.

3 Ed. in Archief ... aartsb. Utrecht, 2 (1875) 229-235; Schoengen, 512-514.

[p. 289]

displayed. The bishop's approval will have contributed in no small measure to the first great expansion from Deventer in 1401, namely the founding of the Brotherhouses of Delft and Münster.¹

Life now continued peacefully for 15 years, until a fresh attack was directed at the Brethren during the Council of Constance, by the Dominican, Mathias Grabow. But times had changed. The Brothers immediately counter-attacked and Grabow lost his case. He was even condemned. Matthew Grabow belonged to the Dominican monastery of Wismar, in the diocese of Merseburg of the Saxon province, and around 1416-17 acted as lector of the Dominican monastery in Groningen. He wrote a book against the fraters and Beguines, as he too called the Sisters, but in addition proclaimed these which have little relevance in this connection. He was completely entangled in his own speculations. Although he revived the accusation that the fraters (and Sisters) had founded a new monastic order without ecclesiastical approval, giving as proof their assemblies, dress and obedience to a superior, he approached the question from another angle. He asserted that no one outside the monastery could maintain the three so-called Evangelical counsels, poverty, chastity and obedience, in a lawful and meritorious manner. He attempted to prove this by taking the example of the virtue of poverty, with which the other two are closely linked. In his opinion anyone who remained in the world after renouncing all his possessions was committing sin, since this would amount to suicide, seeing that no one can live in this world entirely without goods.² Certain these from his work are in direct opposition to the Modern Devotion. For example, No. XVII, which states that women who live a communal life in a separate house, commonly called Beguines, are daughters of perdition and their state of life is forbidden and condemned³ even though they hold or proclaim no error or are not suspected of errors or heresy. Those who renounce their posses-

1 This document only survives in a transsumptus, made on August 26th 1401, whereby it is established that the official of the provost in Deventer, Lubbert of Rander, recognizes the authenticity of the document. Why was this done so soon after it was drawn up? Why could the official himself not authenticate the copy? Why did the bishop's seal disappear so quickly from the document? Is it possible that Frederick of Blankenheim had authority from pope Gregory XI?

2 The story of his struggle against the fraters and of what happened in Constance is found in the Chronicon Windeshemense of J. Busch, 172-174; the articles referring to Constance in H. van der Hardt Concilium Constantiense vol. III 106-119, also in P. Fredericq, Corpus doc. inquisitionis Gent II, 1896, nos. 133, 134, 135, 136. p. 216-225.

3 P. Fredericq, II p. 219.

[p. 290]

sions, without entering an approved order, are committing sin. The reason is that, just as it is proper for religious to renounce their possessions, it is necessary for seculars to retain theirs.¹ Priests and clerics are not permitted to live a communal life outside an approved order, on pain of mortal sin.² All who by word or deed give support to those living a communal life outside an approved order, commit sin.³ All who live a communal life outside an approved order, are excommunicated,⁴ as are all who help them by giving alms, etc.⁵ The Lord says that they who live a communal life outside an approved order, must be shunned as false prophets.⁶ Following an investigation in Utrecht, Grabow appealed to the pope and so arrived in Constance.

The affair was placed in the hands of the commission of theologians who were charged with reporting on suspect doctrines. Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly immediately came out against Grabow⁷ and his pupil, Jean Gerson, drew up a report on April 3rd 1418⁸ which formed the basis of the Dominican's condemnation. He was accordingly imprisoned and threatened with death at the stake if he did not recant.⁹ Grabow chose recantation, and withdrew his remarks shortly after May 31st, 1419. he was released from prison and allowed to return to his monastery on condition that he stayed away from the church province of Cologne and especially the diocese of Utrecht. The penalty for disregarding this condition was life imprisonment.¹⁰

This last violent attack ended in a fiasco, with the Brothers springing to their own defence, aided by men like Henry Loder, prior of Frenswegen. The fact that it was necessary to stress so vehemently that the Brotherhood was not a new monastic order, provided the basis for the later opinion that the Brethren were hostile to the monasteries. It is indeed true that the Brotherhouses and Sisterhouses were not monasteries nor the inmates monastics, since they took no monastic vows, wore no monastic dress, followed no particular monastic rule and did not call themselves after any special saint. It was for these reasons that the Brethren and Sisters were so easily confused with Bogards and Beguines, for these also lived together, took no vows

1 P. Fredericq, 219.

2 Ibid., 220.

3 Ibid., 220.

4 Ibid., 220.

5 Ibid., 220.

6 Ibid., 220.

7 Ibid., 220.

8 Ibid., no. 134, p. 220.

9 Ibid., no. 135, p. 222.

10 Ibid., no. 136, p. 225.

[p. 291]

and in this period at least, followed no monastic rule. But they did not practise communal life in the strict sense, nor did they give up their personal possessions and incomes for the benefit of the community. The opponents of the Brotherhood attacked the innovations in their institution by accusing them of founding a new monastic order without the pope's permission and of adopting the monastic way of life, notably the community of table, work and property. They also followed a definite order of the day, under the direction of a superior whom both Brothers and Sisters were bound to obey. To the first objection the Brethren replied: we are not monastics; and to the second: our superior has no power of jurisdiction. We obey him out of love, as a good scholar obeys his teacher. Divergence of institution does not necessarily constitute hostility. In actual fact the first period at least saw the foundation of the monastery at Windesheim and they helped to found several others, including Marienborn, Frenswegen and Diepenveen. In their hostels, too, they fostered novices for the monasteries and even took over part of the noviciate during the first period. In their life, moreover, they followed all the monastic practices: fixed hours of prayer, work, church ceremonies, silence, reading aloud at table, examination of conscience, chapter of faults, brotherly admonition, subjection to a rector, visitations.

So much for the Brethren's attitude to the monasteries. The monastics' attitude to the Brethren, however, is not so clearly defined. It is impossible to give a clear ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to the question whether the monastics hated them or regarded their institution with hostility. There is no sign in this early period that the old Orders devoted much thought to the new - which, for the rest, only occurred in a few cities - or that they opposed them. In all probability they were overjoyed with the well-disposed postulants they received from the Brethren. Hostility there certainly was among the Dominicans. The activities of the Dominican inquisitor Eylard Schoneveld and the Groningen teacher M. Grabow reveal this only too clearly. And it cannot either be assumed that these were isolated instances. These Dominicans must have had the support of public opinion in their own monasteries. We do not possess sufficient data to judge the attitude of the Franciscans, Carmelites and Augustinians.¹ John Brugman's remarks concerning his dislike of the Brothers would seem to indicate

1 P. Fredericq, p. 225.

[p. 292]

a hostile attitude of the Franciscans.¹ Most likely they feared them more than they hated them.

The minimizing of the role of the superior, thought necessary by the Brothers during the conflict, has led modern authors like Spoelhof to consider the Brethren as democrats and nonconformists. To my mind, however, one must not forget, when judging the Brothers, that they were fighting for their lives and thus on occasion exaggerated their statements. When one reads in Rudolf Dier of the degree of absolutism displayed by the rector toward some of the Brothers in order to humiliate them, there seems little evidence of democracy. The rector was admittedly elected by the Brothers, but this was also done in various monasteries, notably by the Dominicans and Windesheimers. The friendship with the Windesheimers is a clear guide to the Brethren's attitude towards the monasteries during this period.

1 T.v.d. Borne, Geert Groote en de Moderne Devotie in de geschiedenis van het Middeleeuwse ordewezen, Studia Catholica 16 (1940) 397-414; 17 (1941) 120-133, 197-209; 18 (1942) 19-40, 203-224. W. Moll, Johannes Brugman en het godsdienstig leven onzer vaderen, Amsterdam 1, 1854, 84.