Chapter 26

[512]Von der Hardt IV. 32, 311-13, 329.--Martene Thesaur. II. 1611.--Berger, Johann Hus u. König Sigmund, p. 138.--Palacky Documenta, 541, 543, 546-53.--Jo. Hus Epistt. xxxiii., liv., lix., lx.(Monument. I. 68-9, 74-77).--Mladenowic Relat. (Palacky, p. 314-15).--Narr. Hist, de Condemnatione (Monument. II. 346a; Von der Hardt IV. 393).--Ægid. Carlerii Lib. de Legat. (Monument. Concil. Gen. Sæc. XV. Tom. I. p. 435).--Martene Ampl. Coll. VII. 174-6, 179-83.--Jo. de Turonis Regestrum (Monument. Con. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. p. 860). The incident of Sigismund’s blush has been disputed by some recent writers. It is a matter not worth controversy, but as the only evidence to his credit in the whole affair it may be hoped to be true.[513]Richentals Chronik p. 78.--Von der Hardt IV. 313, 521-22.--Chron. Glassberger ann. 1415.--Martene Ampl. Collect. VIII. 131-33. Cf. Noel Alexander’s justification of the decree of September 23 (Hist. Eccles. Ed. Paris, 1699. T. VIII. p. 496). It is customary with modern Catholic writers to stigmatize as a Protestant calumny the assertion that the Church held the doctrine that faith is not to be kept with heretics. See, for instance, Van Ranst, Regent of the College of Antwerp, in his “Historia Hæreticorum” (4th. Ed. Venet. 1759, p. 263), together with his ingenious endeavor to argue away the case of Huss. I have already alluded to this subject (Vol. I. p. 228), and have shown that it was a recognized principle of the Church that faith and oaths pledged to heretics were void. It has also been seen how the efforts of the popes procured the insertion in the public law of Europe of the principle that suspicion of heresy in the lord released the vassal from the most binding engagement known to the Middle Ages--the oath of allegiance (Lib.V. Extra,VII. xiii. § 3). When thus the basis on which society itself was founded was destroyed by heresy all minor pledges were necessarily invalidated. The Church did not allow this to become obsolete. When, in 1327, John XXII. sentenced the Emperor Louis of Bavaria as a heretic, he not only released all his vassals from their oaths of allegiance, but declared void all compacts and agreements made with him (Martene Thesaur. II. 702, 775-6, 791). So, in 1463, when it pleased Pius II. to declare George Podiebrad a heretic, he released the communities of Breslau and Namslau from their allegiance, and excommunicated all who should lend their aid or service to their monarch (Æn. Sylvii Epist. 401); and when Frederic III. asked him to compel Breslau to submit to George, he replied by arguing that heresy dissolved compacts as effectually as death (Martene Ampl. Coll. I. 1598-99). When, in 1469, Paul II. again declared George a heretic he pronounced that each and every obligation, promise, and oath made to that heretic was null and void, for faith was not to be kept with him who kept not faith with God. Acting under this, when George released from prison Wenceslas of Biberstein, on bail of six thousand florins furnished by John and Ulric of Hazemburg, the papal legate Rudolph incontinently ordered the bailors neither to surrender the accused nor to pay the forfeit (Ludewig Reliq. MSS. VI. 77). The play upon the double meaning of the word faith by which this was epigrammatically justified was seriously accepted by Christendom. In April, 1415, Fernando of Aragon wrote to Sigismund earnestly remonstrating with him for the delay in judging Huss, and expressing the hope that the safe-conduct would not be allowed to protect him “quoniam non est frangere fidem in eo qui Deo fidem frangit.”--Andreæ Ratisponens Chron. ann. 1414 (Pez Thesaur. Anecd. IV.III. 626.--Palacky Documenta, p. 540). All statutes and laws impeding the free action of the Inquisition, directly or indirectly, were null and voidipso jure, as we have repeatedly seen above (see also Farinaccii de Hæresi Quæst. 182 No. 76); and what Sigismund could not have done at the head of the Imperial Diet, he certainly could not do by a simple safe-conduct, and no ecclesiastical jurisdiction was bound to respect it. If the Church thus disregarded the pledges of laymen, it was equally unmindful of its own when heretics were concerned. Even late in the sixteenth century the bullMultiplices interof Pius V. annulled all letters of absolution and decrees of acquittal for heresy issued by inquisitors, bishops, popes, and even by the Council of Trent, showing how scant was the ceremony customarily used in such cases, and how completely suspicion of heresy deprived a man of all rights (Lib.V. in SeptimoIII. x.). Even without this general principle, however, there would have been no difficulty in soothing Sigismund’s scruples of conscience, if, perchance, he had any. The system of the mediæval Church so completely confused the ideas of right and wrong that the ordinary notions of morality were superseded. The power of the keys was such that a papal dispensation could release any one from an inconvenient vow or promise, no matter how binding might be its form. Sigismund’s father, Charles, when Margrave of Moravia, was released, in 1346, by Clement VI. from a troublesome oath which he had taken (Werunsky Excerptt. ex Regist. Clem. VI. p. 44); and the sin of perjury was one for which the popes were accustomed to grant efficacious pardons when it was committed in their interest (Ludewig op. cit. VI. 14). It was deemed only a reasonable precaution in compacts for the parties to pledge themselves that they would not seek a release by a papal dispensation (Hartzheim IV. 329; Preger, Der kirchenpolitische Kampf unter Ludwig dem Baier, p. 59). Sigismund, in the case of Huss, admitted that his pledge was dissolved by heresy and a dispensation was superfluous, but it could have been had for the asking. In view of these facts all attempts to argue away the betrayal of Huss are useless, nor is it possible to accuse the good fathers of Constance of conscious bad faith. They but accepted and enforced the principles in which they were trained.[514]Mandata Synodalia ann. 1390 (Höfler, Prager Concilien, p. 40).--Æn. Sylvii. Hist. Bohem. cap. 35.--Laur. Byzyn. Diar. Bell. Hussit. ann. 1414 (Ludewig Reliq. MSS. VI. 125, 128-9).--Von der Hardt III. 335 sqq.; IV. 288-91, 334, 342.--Jo. Hus Monument. I. 42-44, 62, 72. The relentless obstinacy with which the Church of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries refused the use of the cup to the laity at the cost of Christian unity and unnumbered troubles is perhaps the most impressive example on record of the perversity of sacerdotalism in sacrificing essentials to non-essentials. No one denied that in the early Church communion in both elements was administered to all the faithful, as it continued to be without interruption in the Greek Church. The refusal of the cup to the laity was originally a Manichæan custom, in imitation of the corresponding ancient Izeshne rite of the Mazdeans. Communion in one element thus became a mark of heresy, and was condemned as such by Leo the Great (Leon. PP. I. Serm.XLII. cap. 5), about the middle of the fifth century, and again towards its end by Gelasius I., whose decretal on the subject is embodied, without comment or contradiction, by Gratian in the Decretum (P.II. Dist. ii. c. 12), showing that it was still good law in the twelfth century. When, however, in the tenth and eleventh centuries the belief in transubstantiation became the accepted dogma of the Church, the supreme veneration felt for the consecrated elements naturally gave rise to the necessity of the utmost care in handling them and to excessive dread as to any accidents which might occur to them; and the penitentials grew full of all manner of penalties inflicted on priests who, through carelessness, let fall a crumb of the body or a drop of the blood, for which, by forged decretals of the early popes, a false antiquity was claimed (DecretiIII. ii. 27). Of course the liquid was much more subject to these accidents, and to decomposition, than the solid, and the ministering priests were sorely tried to avert such profanation and its consequences to themselves. At first they adopted the ready expedient of dipping the host in the wine-and-water, and thus administering both elements together, which was conducive both to safety and comfort. This innovation was condemned by the Church, but was suppressed with great difficulty. Under Gregory VII. the author of the Micrologus devotes a chapter to its prohibition (Micrologi c. 19). In 1095 the great Council of Clermont forbade it, except in cases where it was demanded by prudence or necessity for the avoidance of accidents (Conc. Claromont. ann. 1095, c. 28); and some twenty years later Paschal II. laid down the rule that it was only admissible in the communion of infants and the sick who could not swallow the bread (Paschal PP. II. Epist. 535). In a Bohemian document dating about the close of the twelfth century the priest carrying the viaticum to the dying is directed to dip the wafer in the wine so as to avoid accidents and yet be able to administer both elements (Höfler, Prager Concilien, Einleitung, p. ix.). When this resource was denied, while the veneration of the sacrament as the flesh and blood of Christ continued to develop, the custom was gradually introduced of restricting the laity to the solid element, in administering which there was less liability to accident, while the priest continued to partake in both. About 1270 Thomas Aquinas tells us that in some churches the bread only is given to the laity, as a matter of prudence, to avoid spilling, and his dialectics are equal to the task of proving that both body and blood are contained in the wafer (SummaIII. lxxx. 12). The convenience of the innovation led to its extension, but it was left to the individual churches, and no authoritative decree was issued withdrawing the cup from the laity until the Bohemian controversy led to the action of the Council of Constance. How universal the custom had become without authority of law is shown by the special privilege granted, about 1345, by Clement VI. to John, Duke of Normandy, son of Philip of Valois, to receive both elements (Martene Ampl. Coll. I. 1456-7). When the question was exhaustively debated before the Council of Basle, the orator of the council, John of Ragusa, freely admitted that the Hussite practice was in accordance with the traditions of the Church, but argued that it could be changed if convenience or other reasons demanded it (Harduin. Concil. VIII. 1712, 1740); and the Cardinal of St. Peter told William, Baron of Kostka, the Bohemian chief, that the cup was refused to children and common people simply as a precaution, adding. “If you were to ask of me I would give it, but not to the careless” (Petri Zaticensis Liber Diurnus; Mon. Concil. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. p. 315). The final decision of the Council of Basle, in December, 1437, admits that there is no precept on the subject, but lay communion in one element is a laudable custom, the law of the Church, and not to be modified without authority (Conc. Basiliens. Sess.XXX.; Harduin. VIII. 1234). How thoroughly indefensible the Church felt its position to be, yet how arbitrarily and despotically it was resolved to enforce that position, is most clearly shown by the inquisitor Capistrano, in 1452, when he heard that the cardinal legate, Nicholas of Cusa, was thinking of giving Rokyzana a hearing on the subject at Ratisbon. Capistrano expressed his mind freely to the legate: “If we excuse the heretics we condemn ourselves.... I have always avoided a debate with the Bohemians under the ordinary rules, for they study to justify their heresy from the ancient Scriptures and observances, and they have a perfect knowledge of the texts, which certainly are numerous, in favor of communion in both elements.” Capistrano then quotes to the legate the bulls of Nicholas V. sent to him, in which the Bohemians are denounced as schismatics, heretics, and disobedient to the Roman Church, pointedly adding that the disciple is not above the teacher, nor the servant superior to the master; he had never read in the law that heretics were to be rewarded, but were to be sharply punished with confiscation and the bitterest penalties (Wadding. Annal. ann. 1452, No. 12). So it had come to this, that those who admittedly followed the practices of the Church current until the thirteenth century were to be condemned and exterminated as heretics. Disobedience was heresy, and Rome, for a century, endeavored to convulse Europe on this simple punctilio. An episode of this question was the communion of infants. This was the practice of the early Church (Cyprian. de Lapsis c. 25), and St. Innocent I. and St. Gelasius I. had both declared that as soon as infants were baptized the sacrament was necessary to secure them eternal life (Innocent PP. I. Epist.XXX. c. 5; Gelasii PP. I. Ep.VII.). The epistle of Paschal II., quoted above, shows that this was still customary in the twelfth century, but the same causes which led to the withdrawal of the cup from the laity induced the withholding of the sacrament from infants, who were liable at any moment unconsciously to commit sacrilege with the body and blood of Christ. In their enthusiasm for the Eucharist the Bohemians naturally recurred to infantile communion, and their obstinacy in this gave the fathers of Basle infinite trouble. After the reconciliation of 1436 the question still remained disputed. The feeling about it is well defined by the Bishop of Coutances, legate of the Council of Basle in Prague, who was horror-stricken when, April 28, 1437, Rokyzana administered communion to a number of infants, and one of them ejected the wafer from its mouth, forcing Rokyzana quietly to replace it. This incident was evidently regarded as the most convincing argument, and the terms in which it is alluded to show how profound was the terror which it was expected to create (Jo. de Turonis Regestrum; Monument. Conc. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. p. 863). At the Council of Constance it was gravely argued that if a layman allowed the wine to moisten his beard he ought to be burned with his beard (Von der Hardt III. 369). Gerson was not quite so absurd, but he did not shrink from alleging such reasons as the expensiveness of wine and its liability to turn sour (ib. 771 sqq.). In 1391, when John Malkaw, in preaching against the concubinary priesthood, hotly declared that he would rather place reverently on the ground a consecrated wafer than violate his vow of chastity, Böckeler, the Strassburg inquisitor, in trying him, made this the ground of a charge of heresy with respect to the sacrament of the altar (Haupt, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 1883, pp. 366-7). In older times the Church had felt no such exaggerated reverence for the elements. In 646 Pope Theodore, when he excommunicated Pyrrhus, the refugee Patriarch of Constantinople, mingled consecrated wine from the cup with the ink with which he signed the sentence; and in 869 the Council of Constantinople adopted the same device in condemning Photius.--Chr. Lupi Dissert. de Sexta Synodo c.V. (Opp. III. 25). As a matter of course the vilest stories were circulated to inspire the faithful with abhorrence for the Bohemian innovations. It was said that the wine was consecrated in bottles and barrels; that the sectaries held conventicles in cellars, where they would partake of it to intoxication and then commit all manner of sexual abominations (Laur. Byzyn. Diar. Bell. Hussit,; Ludewig VI. 129-30).[515]Palacky Documenta, pp. 194-204, 506.--Mladenowic Relatio (Palacky, p. 252). The council itself recognized that its proceedings were inquisitorial. In the sentence of Jerome of Prague it uses the phrase “Hæc sancta synodus Constantiensis in causa inquisitionis hæreticæ pravitatis per eamdem sanctum synodem mota.”--Von der Hardt IV. 766.[516]Palacky, pp. 204-24.--Mladenowic Relatio (Palacky, p. 254).--Martene Thesaur. II. 1635.--Jo. Hus Epist. xlviii. (Monument. I. 72).[517]Epist. xxxii. (Monument. I. 68).--Von der Hardt IV. 20-8.--Jo. Hus Monument. I. 39-41.--Mladenowic Relatio (Palacky, pp. 276-8, 303, 318). Already in 1411 Huss energetically disclaimed to John XXIII. belief in remanence and in the vitiation of sacraments (Palacky, p. 19. Cf. pp. 164-5, 170, 174-85).[518]Mladenowic Relatio (Palacky, pp. 252-3).--Palacky, pp. 73, 174, 318, 560.--Von der Hardt IV. 308, 420-8.[519]Mladenowic Relatio (Palacky. pp. 253, 323).--Von der Hardt IV. 188, 212, 289.--Epist. xlix. (Monument. I. 73a).[520]Von der Hardt IV. 47.--Mladenowic Relatio (Palacky, p. 255).--Palacby, p. 541.--Jo. Hus Monument. I. 7, 29-42.--Epistt. xi., xxvii., xxx., xxxi., xxxii., xxxvi., xlvii., li., lii., lvi. (Monument. I. 60, 65-9, 72-5).--Laur. Byzyn. Diar. Bell. Hussit. (Ludewig Reliq. MSS. VI. 128-9).[521]Epist. lii. (Monument. I. 75).--Theod. a Niem de Vit. Joann. XXIII. Lib. III. c. 5.--Raynald. ann. 1419, No. 5.[522]Jo. Hus Monument. I. 118, 128.--Epist. xliii. (Ib. 71a).--Palacky Documenta, pp. 60, 185, 523-8.--Mladenowic Relatio (Palacky, p. 301).[523]Von der Hardt IV. 100, 118, 136, 153, 189, 209, 212-13, 288-90, 296, 306.--Martene Thesaur. II. 1635.--Harduin. VIII. 280.--Mladenowic Relatio (Palacky, pp. 256-72).[524]Epistt. xliii., xlvii. (Monument. I. 71, 72).--Von der Hardt IV. 291, 306-7.[525]Jo. Hus Monument. I. 25b.--Von der Hardt IV. 307, 311-29.--Epistt. xii., xv., xxxvi. (Monument. I. 60-2, 69),--Palacky, pp. 275, 308-15. The attempt to deny to Huss the inalienable privilege of recantation was based upon a mistranslated passage of his Bohemian address to his disciples, in which he was made to assure them that if he was forced to abjure, it would only be with the lips and not with the heart (Palacky, pp. 274, 311). In such matters the council was at the mercy of Huss’s Bohemian enemies.[526]Von der Hardt IV. 432-33.[527]Huss was by no means the first to suffer from this technical necessity of confession in abjuring. In the case of the English Templars, William de la More, Preceptor of England, and Humbert Blanc, Preceptor of Aquitaine, refused to abjure because they would not confess to heresies which they had never entertained.--Wilkins, Concil. II. 390, 393.[528]Epistt. xxx., xxxi., xxxii. (Monument. I. 67-8).--Von der Hardt IV. 342-5.[529]Mladenowic Relatio (Palacky, p. 309).--Epistt. xxvii., xxix., xxx., xxxviii., xxxix., xl., xli. (Monument. I. 63-66, 67, 70).--Von der Hardt IV. 329-30.--Palacky, pp. 225-34.[530]Mladenowic Relatio (Palacky, pp. 316-17).--Von der Hardt IV. 345-6, 386.--Palacky, p. 560. To appreciate properly the extent of the concessions offered to Huss it is necessary to bear in mind the elaborately careful formulas of abjuration which the inquisitors were accustomed to use, so as to allow no loophole for the avoidance of the penalties of relapse, and to force the penitent to betray his fellow-heretics. See Modus Procedendi (Martene Thesaur. V. 1800-1).--Lib. Sententt. Inq. Tolosan. p. 215.--Bern. Guidon. Practica pp. 92-3 (Éd. Douais).[531]Mladenowic Relatio (Palacky, pp. 318-21).--Von der Hardt IV. 389-96, 432-40.--Harduin. VIII. 408-10.--Richentals Chronik p. 80.--Richental says that Huss was delivered to the secular arm with the customary adjuration for mercy, but the text of the sentence as printed by Von der Hardt contains no such clause. It may well have been omitted at Sigismund’s request, as he had already incurred sufficient obloquy, but the same omission is noticeable in the sentence of Jerome of Prague (Von der Hardt IV. 771).[532]Richentals Chronik pp. 80-2.--Von der Hardt IV. 445-8.--Mladenowic Relatio (Palacky, pp. 321-4).--Æn. Sylvii Hist. Bohem. c. 36.--Laur. Byzyn. Diar. Bell. Hussit. (Ludewig VI. 135-6).--Andrew Ratispon. Chron. (Pez Thes. Anecdot. IV.III. 627).[533]P. d’Ailly (Theod. a Niem) de Necess. Reform. c. 28, 29 (Von der Hardt I.VI. 306-9).--Theod. Vrie Hist. Concil. Constant. Lib.VI. Dist. 11; Lib.VII. Dist. 3 (Ibid. I. 170-1, 181-2). It is simply a lack of familiarity with the ecclesiastical jurisprudence of the Middle Ages that has led historians to regard the cases of Huss and Jerome as exceptional. Even so well informed an authority as Lechler does not hesitate to say “Hussens Verbrennung war, mit dem Massstab des damaligen Rechts gemessen, ein warer Justizmord” (Herzog’s Real-Encyklop. VI. 392).[534]Loserth, Huss u. Wiclif p. 156.--Epistt. lxi., lxii., lxiv. (Monument. I. 77-9, 81).--Von der Hardt IV. 489-90, 494-7.--Palacky Documenta, pp. 580-4, 593-4.--Laur. Byzyn. Diar. Bell. Hussit. (Ludewig VI. 136). The temper of the Bohemians had been excited, a few days before the burning of Huss, by the news that in Olmütz a student of Prague named John, described as a zealous follower of God, had been, within the short space of twelve hours, arrested, tortured, convicted, and burned.--Palacky Documenta, p. 561.[535]Von der Hardt IV. 634-91, 756.--Palacky Documenta, pp. 63, 336-7, 408-9, 417-20, 506, 572.--Loserth, Mittheilungen des Vereins für Gesch. der Deutschen in Böhmen, 1885, pp. 108-9.--Schrödl, Passavia Sacra, pp. 284-5.[536]Von der Hardt IV. 103-5, 134bis.--Palacky Documenta, p. 541-2.--Richentals Cronik, p. 78.--Laur. Byzyn. Diar. Bell. Hussit. ann. 1415 (Ludewig VI. 132).[537]Von der Hardt IV. 119, 134, 139, 142, 148-9, 216-18.[538]Richentals Cronik p. 70.--Theod. Vrie Hist. Concil. Constant. Lib.VI. Dist. 12.--Theod. a Niem de Vita Joann. PP. XXIII. Lib.III. c. 8.--Palacky Documenta, pp. 596-9.[539]Von der Hardt IV. 501-7.--Richentals Cronik p. 79.--In the final official articles drawn up against Jerome by thePromotor Hæreticæ Pravitatis, his absolute refusal to write to Bohemia, after promising to do so, is made a special point of accusation. Yet his letter to that effect, of September 12, is still on record, and in his last defiant address to the council he speaks of having written it under fear of burning, and now desires to withdraw it (V. d. Hardt IV. 688, 761).[540]Von der Hardt III.IV. 39; IV. 634-91.--Laur. Byzyn Diar. Bell. Hussit (Ludewig VI. 137-8).[541]Von der Hardt IV. 600-1, 732-33, 748-56.[542]Von der Hardt III. 64-9.[543]Ibid. IV. 754-62.[544]Von der Hardt III. 55-60; IV. 763-71.--Theod. Vrie Hist. Conc. Constant. Lib.VII. Dist. 4.[545]Von der Hardt III. 64-71; IV. 771-2.--Richentals Cronik p. 83.--Theod. Vrie Hist. Conc. Constant. Lib.VII. Dist. 3.--Laur. Byzyn. Diar. Bell. Hussit. (Ludewig VI. 141).--Æn. Sylvii Hist. Bohem. c. 36.[546]Chron. Glassberger ann. 1416.[547]Palacky Documenta, pp. 566-7, 572-9, 602-3.--Von der Hardt IV. 528, 609-12, 724, 781-2, 823-40.--Æn. Sylvii. Hist. Bohem. c. 35.--Theod. a Niem Vit. Joann. PP. XXIII. Lib.III. c. 12.[548]Epistt. lxiii., lxv. (Jo. Hus Monument. I. 79-80, 82).--Palacky Documenta, pp. 611-14, 621.--Ludewig Rel. MSS. VI. 69.--Stepbani Cartus. Epist. ad Hussitas P.I. c. 5 (Pez Thesaur. Anecd. IV.II. 521).[549]Von der Hardt IV. 1077-82, 1410-13.--Palacky Documenta, pp. 652-4. Doubtless there was much ill-treatment of such of the clergy as remained faithful to Rome. In 1417 Stephen of Olmütz complains that they were driven from their benefices, beaten, and slain.--Steph. Cartus. Epist. ad Hussit. P.I. c. 3 (Pez Thesaur. Anecd. IV.II. 517).[550]Von der Hardt IV. 1514-18.--Palacky Documenta, pp. 676-77.[551]Von der Hardt IV. 1518-31.--Palacky pp. 684-6.[552]Palacky Documenta, pp. 631-2, 633-8, 654-6, 679.--Laur. Byzyn. Diar. Bell. Hussit. (Ludewig VI. 138-9).--Jo. Hus Monument. II. 364.--Ægid. Carlerii Lib. de Legation. (Monument Concil. General. Sæc. XV. T. I. pp. 385-6).[553]Laur. Byzyn. Diar. Bell. Hussit. (Ludewig VI. pp. 142-44).--Æn. Sylvii Hist. Bohem. c. 36, 37.[554]Laur. Byzyn. Diar. Bell. Hussit. (Ludewig VI. 145-52, 154-56).--Hist. Persecut. Eccles. Bohem. pp. 37-8.--Camerarii Hist. Frat. Orthod. p. 49.[555]Ægid. Carlerii Lib. de Legation. (Mon. Concil. General. Sæc. XV. T. I. p. 387).--Laur. Byzyn. Diar. Bell. Hussit. (Ludewig VI. 152-4, 157-8, 168, 172).[556]Laur. Byzyn. Diar. Bell. Hussit. (Ludewig VI. 159).--Raynald. ann. 1420, No. 13.--Hist. Persecut. Eccles. Bohem. pp. 39-40.--Ægid. Carlerii Lib. de Legation. loc. cit. There was warning also to the democratic party among the Bohemians in the vengeance taken by Sigismund on citizens of Breslau who had been concerned in an uprising similar to that of Prague. On March 7 he caused twenty-three of them to be beheaded.--Bezold, König Sigmund und die Reichskriege gegen die Husiten, München, 1872, p. 37.[557]Laur. Byzyn. Diar. Bell. Hussit. (Ludewig VI. 161-3, 167-70, 181).--Andreæ Ratispon. Chron. (Eccard. Corp. Hist. I. 2147).--Schrödl, Passavia Sacra, p. 289.--Naucleri Chron. p. 933 (Ed. 1544).--Hist. Persecut. Eccles. Bohem. pp. 43-44.[558]Palacky, Beziehungen, pp. 20-1.--Æn. Sylvii Hist. Bohem. c. 41.--Dubravii Hist. Bohem. Lib. 27.[559]Laur. Byzyn. Diar. Bell. Hussit. (Ludewig VI. 202-7).--Palacky, Beziehungen, p. 31.--J. Goll, Quellen u. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder, Prag, 1882, II. 10-11, 57-60.--Hist. Persecut. Eccles. Bohem. pp. 46-8.--Palacky, Præf. in Mon. Conc. Gen. Sæc. XV. p. xx.[560]Ægid. Carlerii Lib. de Legation. (Mon. Conc. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. p. 389).--Epistt. lxvi. lxvii. (Jo. Hus Monument. I. 82-4).--Laur. Byzyn. Diar. (Ludewig VI. 175-81).[561]Conciliab. Pragens. ann. 1421 (Hartzheim V. 199-201). Cf. Johann. de Przibram Profess. Cath. Fidei (Cochlæi Hist. Hussit. pp. 501 sqq.).[562]Jo. de Turonis Regestrum (Mon. Conc. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. p. 833, 858). Yet these Puritans were represented to Europe in the papal bulls for the crusades as not only subverting all political and social order, but as condemning marriage and abandoning themselves to all manner of license and bestiality.--Martini PP. V. Bull.Permisit Deus, 25 Oct. 1427 (Fascic. Rer. Expetendarum et Fugiend, II. 613).[563]Jo. de Turonis Regestrum (Mon. Conc. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. pp. 843, 858, 865).--Wratislaw, Diary of an Embassy from George of Bohemia, London, 1871.[564]Æn. Sylvii Hist. Bohem. c. 35; Ejusd. Epist. 130 (Opp. Ed. 1571, p. 678).--Pet. Zatecens. Lib. Diurnus (Monument. Conc. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. p. 352).--Concil. Bituricens. ann. 1432 (Harduin. VIII. 1459).--Goll, Quellen u. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder, I. 106.[565]Goll, Quellen u. Untersuchungen, II. 40-1.--Preger, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Waldesier, pp. 68-71.--Laur. Byzyn. Diar. (Ludewig VI. 183-4, 194-202).--Johann. de Przibram Profess. Fidei (Cochlæi Hist. Huss. p. 507).--Huss, Sermo de Exequiis (Monument. II. 50). See also Æneas Sylvius’s statement of the identity between the Waldensian and Hussite teachings (Hist. Bohem. c. 35).[566]Laur. Byzyn. (loc. cit. p. 195).--Martene Ampl. Coll. VIII. 19-27, 249-51, 596-99.--Jo. de Turonis Regest. (Mon. Conc. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. p. 842, 846).--Jo. de Ragusio Tractatus (Ibid. T. I. pp. 272-4, 278, 285).--Goll, Quellen, II. 17-18, 61-1.--Æn. Sylvii Epist. 130 (Ed. 1571, p. 661). Even Rokyzana, in 1436, was with great difficulty forced to express his disbelief in the remanence of the substance of the bread.--Jo. de Turonis Regest. (loc. cit. pp. 426-7). Yet nothing can exceed the strength of his affirmation of the existence of the body and blood, in hisTractatus de Septem Sacramentis(Cochlæi Hist. Hussit. pp. 473-4). In view of the exaggerated superstitious adoration of the Eucharist by the Calixtins, the assertion of Cardinal Giuliano, in 1431, that the Hussites were wont to manifest their contempt for it by trampling it in the blood of the slain, is a good illustration of the stories invented to stimulate popular abhorrence (Cochlæi op. cit. p. 240).[567]Herburt. de Fulstin Statut. Regni Poloniæ, Samoscii, 1597, p. 191.[568]Balbin. Epit. Rer. Hung. pp. 475-6.--Sommersberg Silesiac. Rer. Scriptt. L. 75.--A popular rhyme of the period described:“Meissen und Sachsen verderbt,Oesterreich verhergt,Schliesien und Laussnitz zerscherbt,Mähren verzerht,Bayern aussgenehrt,Böheimb umbgekehrt.”(Balbin. p. 478.)[569]C. Constant. Decr.Frequens(Von der Hardt IV. 1435).[570]Ludewig Reliq. MSS. XI. 385, 409.[571]Concil. Senens. ann. 1423 (Harduin. VIII. 1015).[572]Jo. de Ragusio Init. et Prosec. Conc. Basil. (Mon. Conc. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. pp. 28-30, 32-35, 53-61, 64).--Concil. Senens. (Harduin. VIII. 1025-6).--Act. Conc. Basil. (Harduin. VIII. 1108-10).--Raynald. ann. 1425, No. 3, 4. John of Ragusa was the delegate of the University of Paris to Siena, and subsequently played an active part at Basle.[573]Jo. de Ragusio Init. etc. (Mon. Con. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. pp. 66-7).--Cochlæi Hist. Hussit. pp. 237-9. The repulsion of the papacy for general councils was not unnatural. On June 3, 1435, the Council of Basle, with virtual unanimity, abrogated the annates and decreed that in future no charges should be made for sealing collations and confirmations of sees and benefices, except the scrivener’s moderate fees. The Bishops of Otranto and Padua protested in the name of the pope, and finding this unheeded arose and left the council, followed by a few others, while the rest gave themselves up to rejoicing and thanking God.--Ægid. Carlerii Lib. de Legation, (op. cit. I. 568).[574]Martene Ampl. Coll. VIII. 15-18.--Chron. Concil. Zantfliet (Ibid. V. 425-7).--Jo. de Ragusio Tractatus (Mon. Conc. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. pp. 135, 138).[575]Harduin VIII. 1575-8.--Raynald. ann. 1431, No. 26.--Epist. Card. Juliani (Æn. Sylv. Opp. Ed. 1571, pp. 66-9). The letter of Cardinal Giuliano and Æneas Sylvius’s Commentaries on the Council of Basle were subsequently put in the Index Expurgatorius (Reusch, Der Index der verbotenen Bücher, I. 40).[576]Hemmerlin Lollardor. Descriptio.--Duverger, La Vauderie dans les États de Philippe le Bon, Arras, 1885, p. 24--Harduin. VIII. 1141, 1172-82, 1263, 1280, 1582. 1606.--Martene Ampl. Coll. VIII. 80-2.[577]Martene Ampl. Coll. VIII. 131-33.--Pet. Zatecens. Lib. Diurn. (Mon. Conc. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. p. 304-5, 324, 328-31, 348).--Naucleri Chron. ann. 1434.[578]Ægid. Carlerii Lib. de Legation (Ibid. T. I. pp. 447-71, 495-7).--Martene Ampl. Coll. VIII. 305-40, 356-415, 698-704.--Hartzheim V. 768-9.--Kukuljević, Jura Regni Croatiæ, Zagrabiæ, 1862, I. 192.--Batthyani Legg. Eccles. Hung. III. 419. The question of infantile communion affords an illustration of the skilful casuistry of the orthodox. After the reconciliation, when Sigismund was ruling in Prague, infantile communion was forbidden by the legate of the council, on the ground that the Compactata only guaranteed the privilege to those who had been accustomed to it, and that infants born since then were therefore not entitled to it.--Jo. de Turonis Regest. (Mon. C. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. p. 865).[579]Martene Ampl. Coll. VIII. 710-19.--Harduin. VIII. 1604, 1650-2.--Ægid. Carlerii Liber de Legationibus (Mon. Conc. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. pp. 522, 529-39, 544).--Raynald. ann. 1435, No. 22-3.--Naucleri Chron. ann. 1434. The democratic insubordination characteristic of the Taborites is seen in an incident occurring in September, 1433. Procopius sent a detachment to invade Bavaria, and appointed as leader a captain named Pardus. The men mutinied before setting out, and, on Procopius interposing, one of them felled him to the ground with a blow on the head with a stool. The man who struck him was elected leader, and under his guidance the Taborites lost two thousand of their best veterans.--Ægid. Carlerii l.c. pp. 466-7. The reduction to serfdom of the Bohemian peasantry, in 1487, may be regarded as the final result of the overthrow of the Taborites.[580]Martene Ampl. Coll. VIII. 354-6.--Ægid. Carlerii Lib. de Legationibus (Mon. Conc. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. pp. 368-9, 516-17, 519, 595, 597, 600, 632-4, 662-4, 674-6, 678, 684-6, 688).--Th. Ebendorferi Diar. (Ib. pp. 767-9, 776-9, 782-3).--Jo. de Turonis Regest. (Ib. 834-5, 837-8, 848, 868).[581]Th. Ebendorferi Diar. (loc. cit. 82).--Jo. de Turonis Regest. (Ib. 821-22).--Naucleri Chron. ann. 1436.[582]Jo. de Turonis Regest. (loc. cit. pp. 862, 865).--Æn. Sylvii Hist. Bohem. c. 59.--Naucleri Chron. ann. 1437.[583]Æn. Sylvii Epist. lxxi. (Opp. inedd.ap.Atti della Accademia dei Lincei, 1883, p. 465).--Jo. de Turonis Regest. (Mon. Conc. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. pp. 855, 857).--Camerarii Hist. Frat. Orthod. pp. 57-8.--Naucleri Chron. ann. 1436, 1438. Concil. Basiliens. Sess. XXX. (Harduin. VIII. 1244).--Petitiones Bohemorum (Fascic. Rer. Expetend. et Fugiend. I. 319, Ed. 1690).--Martene Ampl. Coll. VIII. 942-3--Æn. Sylvii Epist. 101 (Ed. 1571, p. 591).--Chron. Cornel. Zantfliet (Martene Ampl. Coll. V. 445).--De Schweinitz, Hist. of Unitas Fratrum, pp. 91-2, 94.

[513]Richentals Chronik p. 78.--Von der Hardt IV. 313, 521-22.--Chron. Glassberger ann. 1415.--Martene Ampl. Collect. VIII. 131-33. Cf. Noel Alexander’s justification of the decree of September 23 (Hist. Eccles. Ed. Paris, 1699. T. VIII. p. 496). It is customary with modern Catholic writers to stigmatize as a Protestant calumny the assertion that the Church held the doctrine that faith is not to be kept with heretics. See, for instance, Van Ranst, Regent of the College of Antwerp, in his “Historia Hæreticorum” (4th. Ed. Venet. 1759, p. 263), together with his ingenious endeavor to argue away the case of Huss. I have already alluded to this subject (Vol. I. p. 228), and have shown that it was a recognized principle of the Church that faith and oaths pledged to heretics were void. It has also been seen how the efforts of the popes procured the insertion in the public law of Europe of the principle that suspicion of heresy in the lord released the vassal from the most binding engagement known to the Middle Ages--the oath of allegiance (Lib.V. Extra,VII. xiii. § 3). When thus the basis on which society itself was founded was destroyed by heresy all minor pledges were necessarily invalidated. The Church did not allow this to become obsolete. When, in 1327, John XXII. sentenced the Emperor Louis of Bavaria as a heretic, he not only released all his vassals from their oaths of allegiance, but declared void all compacts and agreements made with him (Martene Thesaur. II. 702, 775-6, 791). So, in 1463, when it pleased Pius II. to declare George Podiebrad a heretic, he released the communities of Breslau and Namslau from their allegiance, and excommunicated all who should lend their aid or service to their monarch (Æn. Sylvii Epist. 401); and when Frederic III. asked him to compel Breslau to submit to George, he replied by arguing that heresy dissolved compacts as effectually as death (Martene Ampl. Coll. I. 1598-99). When, in 1469, Paul II. again declared George a heretic he pronounced that each and every obligation, promise, and oath made to that heretic was null and void, for faith was not to be kept with him who kept not faith with God. Acting under this, when George released from prison Wenceslas of Biberstein, on bail of six thousand florins furnished by John and Ulric of Hazemburg, the papal legate Rudolph incontinently ordered the bailors neither to surrender the accused nor to pay the forfeit (Ludewig Reliq. MSS. VI. 77). The play upon the double meaning of the word faith by which this was epigrammatically justified was seriously accepted by Christendom. In April, 1415, Fernando of Aragon wrote to Sigismund earnestly remonstrating with him for the delay in judging Huss, and expressing the hope that the safe-conduct would not be allowed to protect him “quoniam non est frangere fidem in eo qui Deo fidem frangit.”--Andreæ Ratisponens Chron. ann. 1414 (Pez Thesaur. Anecd. IV.III. 626.--Palacky Documenta, p. 540). All statutes and laws impeding the free action of the Inquisition, directly or indirectly, were null and voidipso jure, as we have repeatedly seen above (see also Farinaccii de Hæresi Quæst. 182 No. 76); and what Sigismund could not have done at the head of the Imperial Diet, he certainly could not do by a simple safe-conduct, and no ecclesiastical jurisdiction was bound to respect it. If the Church thus disregarded the pledges of laymen, it was equally unmindful of its own when heretics were concerned. Even late in the sixteenth century the bullMultiplices interof Pius V. annulled all letters of absolution and decrees of acquittal for heresy issued by inquisitors, bishops, popes, and even by the Council of Trent, showing how scant was the ceremony customarily used in such cases, and how completely suspicion of heresy deprived a man of all rights (Lib.V. in SeptimoIII. x.). Even without this general principle, however, there would have been no difficulty in soothing Sigismund’s scruples of conscience, if, perchance, he had any. The system of the mediæval Church so completely confused the ideas of right and wrong that the ordinary notions of morality were superseded. The power of the keys was such that a papal dispensation could release any one from an inconvenient vow or promise, no matter how binding might be its form. Sigismund’s father, Charles, when Margrave of Moravia, was released, in 1346, by Clement VI. from a troublesome oath which he had taken (Werunsky Excerptt. ex Regist. Clem. VI. p. 44); and the sin of perjury was one for which the popes were accustomed to grant efficacious pardons when it was committed in their interest (Ludewig op. cit. VI. 14). It was deemed only a reasonable precaution in compacts for the parties to pledge themselves that they would not seek a release by a papal dispensation (Hartzheim IV. 329; Preger, Der kirchenpolitische Kampf unter Ludwig dem Baier, p. 59). Sigismund, in the case of Huss, admitted that his pledge was dissolved by heresy and a dispensation was superfluous, but it could have been had for the asking. In view of these facts all attempts to argue away the betrayal of Huss are useless, nor is it possible to accuse the good fathers of Constance of conscious bad faith. They but accepted and enforced the principles in which they were trained.

[514]Mandata Synodalia ann. 1390 (Höfler, Prager Concilien, p. 40).--Æn. Sylvii. Hist. Bohem. cap. 35.--Laur. Byzyn. Diar. Bell. Hussit. ann. 1414 (Ludewig Reliq. MSS. VI. 125, 128-9).--Von der Hardt III. 335 sqq.; IV. 288-91, 334, 342.--Jo. Hus Monument. I. 42-44, 62, 72. The relentless obstinacy with which the Church of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries refused the use of the cup to the laity at the cost of Christian unity and unnumbered troubles is perhaps the most impressive example on record of the perversity of sacerdotalism in sacrificing essentials to non-essentials. No one denied that in the early Church communion in both elements was administered to all the faithful, as it continued to be without interruption in the Greek Church. The refusal of the cup to the laity was originally a Manichæan custom, in imitation of the corresponding ancient Izeshne rite of the Mazdeans. Communion in one element thus became a mark of heresy, and was condemned as such by Leo the Great (Leon. PP. I. Serm.XLII. cap. 5), about the middle of the fifth century, and again towards its end by Gelasius I., whose decretal on the subject is embodied, without comment or contradiction, by Gratian in the Decretum (P.II. Dist. ii. c. 12), showing that it was still good law in the twelfth century. When, however, in the tenth and eleventh centuries the belief in transubstantiation became the accepted dogma of the Church, the supreme veneration felt for the consecrated elements naturally gave rise to the necessity of the utmost care in handling them and to excessive dread as to any accidents which might occur to them; and the penitentials grew full of all manner of penalties inflicted on priests who, through carelessness, let fall a crumb of the body or a drop of the blood, for which, by forged decretals of the early popes, a false antiquity was claimed (DecretiIII. ii. 27). Of course the liquid was much more subject to these accidents, and to decomposition, than the solid, and the ministering priests were sorely tried to avert such profanation and its consequences to themselves. At first they adopted the ready expedient of dipping the host in the wine-and-water, and thus administering both elements together, which was conducive both to safety and comfort. This innovation was condemned by the Church, but was suppressed with great difficulty. Under Gregory VII. the author of the Micrologus devotes a chapter to its prohibition (Micrologi c. 19). In 1095 the great Council of Clermont forbade it, except in cases where it was demanded by prudence or necessity for the avoidance of accidents (Conc. Claromont. ann. 1095, c. 28); and some twenty years later Paschal II. laid down the rule that it was only admissible in the communion of infants and the sick who could not swallow the bread (Paschal PP. II. Epist. 535). In a Bohemian document dating about the close of the twelfth century the priest carrying the viaticum to the dying is directed to dip the wafer in the wine so as to avoid accidents and yet be able to administer both elements (Höfler, Prager Concilien, Einleitung, p. ix.). When this resource was denied, while the veneration of the sacrament as the flesh and blood of Christ continued to develop, the custom was gradually introduced of restricting the laity to the solid element, in administering which there was less liability to accident, while the priest continued to partake in both. About 1270 Thomas Aquinas tells us that in some churches the bread only is given to the laity, as a matter of prudence, to avoid spilling, and his dialectics are equal to the task of proving that both body and blood are contained in the wafer (SummaIII. lxxx. 12). The convenience of the innovation led to its extension, but it was left to the individual churches, and no authoritative decree was issued withdrawing the cup from the laity until the Bohemian controversy led to the action of the Council of Constance. How universal the custom had become without authority of law is shown by the special privilege granted, about 1345, by Clement VI. to John, Duke of Normandy, son of Philip of Valois, to receive both elements (Martene Ampl. Coll. I. 1456-7). When the question was exhaustively debated before the Council of Basle, the orator of the council, John of Ragusa, freely admitted that the Hussite practice was in accordance with the traditions of the Church, but argued that it could be changed if convenience or other reasons demanded it (Harduin. Concil. VIII. 1712, 1740); and the Cardinal of St. Peter told William, Baron of Kostka, the Bohemian chief, that the cup was refused to children and common people simply as a precaution, adding. “If you were to ask of me I would give it, but not to the careless” (Petri Zaticensis Liber Diurnus; Mon. Concil. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. p. 315). The final decision of the Council of Basle, in December, 1437, admits that there is no precept on the subject, but lay communion in one element is a laudable custom, the law of the Church, and not to be modified without authority (Conc. Basiliens. Sess.XXX.; Harduin. VIII. 1234). How thoroughly indefensible the Church felt its position to be, yet how arbitrarily and despotically it was resolved to enforce that position, is most clearly shown by the inquisitor Capistrano, in 1452, when he heard that the cardinal legate, Nicholas of Cusa, was thinking of giving Rokyzana a hearing on the subject at Ratisbon. Capistrano expressed his mind freely to the legate: “If we excuse the heretics we condemn ourselves.... I have always avoided a debate with the Bohemians under the ordinary rules, for they study to justify their heresy from the ancient Scriptures and observances, and they have a perfect knowledge of the texts, which certainly are numerous, in favor of communion in both elements.” Capistrano then quotes to the legate the bulls of Nicholas V. sent to him, in which the Bohemians are denounced as schismatics, heretics, and disobedient to the Roman Church, pointedly adding that the disciple is not above the teacher, nor the servant superior to the master; he had never read in the law that heretics were to be rewarded, but were to be sharply punished with confiscation and the bitterest penalties (Wadding. Annal. ann. 1452, No. 12). So it had come to this, that those who admittedly followed the practices of the Church current until the thirteenth century were to be condemned and exterminated as heretics. Disobedience was heresy, and Rome, for a century, endeavored to convulse Europe on this simple punctilio. An episode of this question was the communion of infants. This was the practice of the early Church (Cyprian. de Lapsis c. 25), and St. Innocent I. and St. Gelasius I. had both declared that as soon as infants were baptized the sacrament was necessary to secure them eternal life (Innocent PP. I. Epist.XXX. c. 5; Gelasii PP. I. Ep.VII.). The epistle of Paschal II., quoted above, shows that this was still customary in the twelfth century, but the same causes which led to the withdrawal of the cup from the laity induced the withholding of the sacrament from infants, who were liable at any moment unconsciously to commit sacrilege with the body and blood of Christ. In their enthusiasm for the Eucharist the Bohemians naturally recurred to infantile communion, and their obstinacy in this gave the fathers of Basle infinite trouble. After the reconciliation of 1436 the question still remained disputed. The feeling about it is well defined by the Bishop of Coutances, legate of the Council of Basle in Prague, who was horror-stricken when, April 28, 1437, Rokyzana administered communion to a number of infants, and one of them ejected the wafer from its mouth, forcing Rokyzana quietly to replace it. This incident was evidently regarded as the most convincing argument, and the terms in which it is alluded to show how profound was the terror which it was expected to create (Jo. de Turonis Regestrum; Monument. Conc. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. p. 863). At the Council of Constance it was gravely argued that if a layman allowed the wine to moisten his beard he ought to be burned with his beard (Von der Hardt III. 369). Gerson was not quite so absurd, but he did not shrink from alleging such reasons as the expensiveness of wine and its liability to turn sour (ib. 771 sqq.). In 1391, when John Malkaw, in preaching against the concubinary priesthood, hotly declared that he would rather place reverently on the ground a consecrated wafer than violate his vow of chastity, Böckeler, the Strassburg inquisitor, in trying him, made this the ground of a charge of heresy with respect to the sacrament of the altar (Haupt, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 1883, pp. 366-7). In older times the Church had felt no such exaggerated reverence for the elements. In 646 Pope Theodore, when he excommunicated Pyrrhus, the refugee Patriarch of Constantinople, mingled consecrated wine from the cup with the ink with which he signed the sentence; and in 869 the Council of Constantinople adopted the same device in condemning Photius.--Chr. Lupi Dissert. de Sexta Synodo c.V. (Opp. III. 25). As a matter of course the vilest stories were circulated to inspire the faithful with abhorrence for the Bohemian innovations. It was said that the wine was consecrated in bottles and barrels; that the sectaries held conventicles in cellars, where they would partake of it to intoxication and then commit all manner of sexual abominations (Laur. Byzyn. Diar. Bell. Hussit,; Ludewig VI. 129-30).

[515]Palacky Documenta, pp. 194-204, 506.--Mladenowic Relatio (Palacky, p. 252). The council itself recognized that its proceedings were inquisitorial. In the sentence of Jerome of Prague it uses the phrase “Hæc sancta synodus Constantiensis in causa inquisitionis hæreticæ pravitatis per eamdem sanctum synodem mota.”--Von der Hardt IV. 766.

[516]Palacky, pp. 204-24.--Mladenowic Relatio (Palacky, p. 254).--Martene Thesaur. II. 1635.--Jo. Hus Epist. xlviii. (Monument. I. 72).

[517]Epist. xxxii. (Monument. I. 68).--Von der Hardt IV. 20-8.--Jo. Hus Monument. I. 39-41.--Mladenowic Relatio (Palacky, pp. 276-8, 303, 318). Already in 1411 Huss energetically disclaimed to John XXIII. belief in remanence and in the vitiation of sacraments (Palacky, p. 19. Cf. pp. 164-5, 170, 174-85).

[518]Mladenowic Relatio (Palacky, pp. 252-3).--Palacky, pp. 73, 174, 318, 560.--Von der Hardt IV. 308, 420-8.

[519]Mladenowic Relatio (Palacky. pp. 253, 323).--Von der Hardt IV. 188, 212, 289.--Epist. xlix. (Monument. I. 73a).

[520]Von der Hardt IV. 47.--Mladenowic Relatio (Palacky, p. 255).--Palacby, p. 541.--Jo. Hus Monument. I. 7, 29-42.--Epistt. xi., xxvii., xxx., xxxi., xxxii., xxxvi., xlvii., li., lii., lvi. (Monument. I. 60, 65-9, 72-5).--Laur. Byzyn. Diar. Bell. Hussit. (Ludewig Reliq. MSS. VI. 128-9).

[521]Epist. lii. (Monument. I. 75).--Theod. a Niem de Vit. Joann. XXIII. Lib. III. c. 5.--Raynald. ann. 1419, No. 5.

[522]Jo. Hus Monument. I. 118, 128.--Epist. xliii. (Ib. 71a).--Palacky Documenta, pp. 60, 185, 523-8.--Mladenowic Relatio (Palacky, p. 301).

[523]Von der Hardt IV. 100, 118, 136, 153, 189, 209, 212-13, 288-90, 296, 306.--Martene Thesaur. II. 1635.--Harduin. VIII. 280.--Mladenowic Relatio (Palacky, pp. 256-72).

[524]Epistt. xliii., xlvii. (Monument. I. 71, 72).--Von der Hardt IV. 291, 306-7.

[525]Jo. Hus Monument. I. 25b.--Von der Hardt IV. 307, 311-29.--Epistt. xii., xv., xxxvi. (Monument. I. 60-2, 69),--Palacky, pp. 275, 308-15. The attempt to deny to Huss the inalienable privilege of recantation was based upon a mistranslated passage of his Bohemian address to his disciples, in which he was made to assure them that if he was forced to abjure, it would only be with the lips and not with the heart (Palacky, pp. 274, 311). In such matters the council was at the mercy of Huss’s Bohemian enemies.

[526]Von der Hardt IV. 432-33.

[527]Huss was by no means the first to suffer from this technical necessity of confession in abjuring. In the case of the English Templars, William de la More, Preceptor of England, and Humbert Blanc, Preceptor of Aquitaine, refused to abjure because they would not confess to heresies which they had never entertained.--Wilkins, Concil. II. 390, 393.

[528]Epistt. xxx., xxxi., xxxii. (Monument. I. 67-8).--Von der Hardt IV. 342-5.

[529]Mladenowic Relatio (Palacky, p. 309).--Epistt. xxvii., xxix., xxx., xxxviii., xxxix., xl., xli. (Monument. I. 63-66, 67, 70).--Von der Hardt IV. 329-30.--Palacky, pp. 225-34.

[530]Mladenowic Relatio (Palacky, pp. 316-17).--Von der Hardt IV. 345-6, 386.--Palacky, p. 560. To appreciate properly the extent of the concessions offered to Huss it is necessary to bear in mind the elaborately careful formulas of abjuration which the inquisitors were accustomed to use, so as to allow no loophole for the avoidance of the penalties of relapse, and to force the penitent to betray his fellow-heretics. See Modus Procedendi (Martene Thesaur. V. 1800-1).--Lib. Sententt. Inq. Tolosan. p. 215.--Bern. Guidon. Practica pp. 92-3 (Éd. Douais).

[531]Mladenowic Relatio (Palacky, pp. 318-21).--Von der Hardt IV. 389-96, 432-40.--Harduin. VIII. 408-10.--Richentals Chronik p. 80.--Richental says that Huss was delivered to the secular arm with the customary adjuration for mercy, but the text of the sentence as printed by Von der Hardt contains no such clause. It may well have been omitted at Sigismund’s request, as he had already incurred sufficient obloquy, but the same omission is noticeable in the sentence of Jerome of Prague (Von der Hardt IV. 771).

[532]Richentals Chronik pp. 80-2.--Von der Hardt IV. 445-8.--Mladenowic Relatio (Palacky, pp. 321-4).--Æn. Sylvii Hist. Bohem. c. 36.--Laur. Byzyn. Diar. Bell. Hussit. (Ludewig VI. 135-6).--Andrew Ratispon. Chron. (Pez Thes. Anecdot. IV.III. 627).

[533]P. d’Ailly (Theod. a Niem) de Necess. Reform. c. 28, 29 (Von der Hardt I.VI. 306-9).--Theod. Vrie Hist. Concil. Constant. Lib.VI. Dist. 11; Lib.VII. Dist. 3 (Ibid. I. 170-1, 181-2). It is simply a lack of familiarity with the ecclesiastical jurisprudence of the Middle Ages that has led historians to regard the cases of Huss and Jerome as exceptional. Even so well informed an authority as Lechler does not hesitate to say “Hussens Verbrennung war, mit dem Massstab des damaligen Rechts gemessen, ein warer Justizmord” (Herzog’s Real-Encyklop. VI. 392).

[534]Loserth, Huss u. Wiclif p. 156.--Epistt. lxi., lxii., lxiv. (Monument. I. 77-9, 81).--Von der Hardt IV. 489-90, 494-7.--Palacky Documenta, pp. 580-4, 593-4.--Laur. Byzyn. Diar. Bell. Hussit. (Ludewig VI. 136). The temper of the Bohemians had been excited, a few days before the burning of Huss, by the news that in Olmütz a student of Prague named John, described as a zealous follower of God, had been, within the short space of twelve hours, arrested, tortured, convicted, and burned.--Palacky Documenta, p. 561.

[535]Von der Hardt IV. 634-91, 756.--Palacky Documenta, pp. 63, 336-7, 408-9, 417-20, 506, 572.--Loserth, Mittheilungen des Vereins für Gesch. der Deutschen in Böhmen, 1885, pp. 108-9.--Schrödl, Passavia Sacra, pp. 284-5.

[536]Von der Hardt IV. 103-5, 134bis.--Palacky Documenta, p. 541-2.--Richentals Cronik, p. 78.--Laur. Byzyn. Diar. Bell. Hussit. ann. 1415 (Ludewig VI. 132).

[537]Von der Hardt IV. 119, 134, 139, 142, 148-9, 216-18.

[538]Richentals Cronik p. 70.--Theod. Vrie Hist. Concil. Constant. Lib.VI. Dist. 12.--Theod. a Niem de Vita Joann. PP. XXIII. Lib.III. c. 8.--Palacky Documenta, pp. 596-9.

[539]Von der Hardt IV. 501-7.--Richentals Cronik p. 79.--In the final official articles drawn up against Jerome by thePromotor Hæreticæ Pravitatis, his absolute refusal to write to Bohemia, after promising to do so, is made a special point of accusation. Yet his letter to that effect, of September 12, is still on record, and in his last defiant address to the council he speaks of having written it under fear of burning, and now desires to withdraw it (V. d. Hardt IV. 688, 761).

[540]Von der Hardt III.IV. 39; IV. 634-91.--Laur. Byzyn Diar. Bell. Hussit (Ludewig VI. 137-8).

[541]Von der Hardt IV. 600-1, 732-33, 748-56.

[542]Von der Hardt III. 64-9.

[543]Ibid. IV. 754-62.

[544]Von der Hardt III. 55-60; IV. 763-71.--Theod. Vrie Hist. Conc. Constant. Lib.VII. Dist. 4.

[545]Von der Hardt III. 64-71; IV. 771-2.--Richentals Cronik p. 83.--Theod. Vrie Hist. Conc. Constant. Lib.VII. Dist. 3.--Laur. Byzyn. Diar. Bell. Hussit. (Ludewig VI. 141).--Æn. Sylvii Hist. Bohem. c. 36.

[546]Chron. Glassberger ann. 1416.

[547]Palacky Documenta, pp. 566-7, 572-9, 602-3.--Von der Hardt IV. 528, 609-12, 724, 781-2, 823-40.--Æn. Sylvii. Hist. Bohem. c. 35.--Theod. a Niem Vit. Joann. PP. XXIII. Lib.III. c. 12.

[548]Epistt. lxiii., lxv. (Jo. Hus Monument. I. 79-80, 82).--Palacky Documenta, pp. 611-14, 621.--Ludewig Rel. MSS. VI. 69.--Stepbani Cartus. Epist. ad Hussitas P.I. c. 5 (Pez Thesaur. Anecd. IV.II. 521).

[549]Von der Hardt IV. 1077-82, 1410-13.--Palacky Documenta, pp. 652-4. Doubtless there was much ill-treatment of such of the clergy as remained faithful to Rome. In 1417 Stephen of Olmütz complains that they were driven from their benefices, beaten, and slain.--Steph. Cartus. Epist. ad Hussit. P.I. c. 3 (Pez Thesaur. Anecd. IV.II. 517).

[550]Von der Hardt IV. 1514-18.--Palacky Documenta, pp. 676-77.

[551]Von der Hardt IV. 1518-31.--Palacky pp. 684-6.

[552]Palacky Documenta, pp. 631-2, 633-8, 654-6, 679.--Laur. Byzyn. Diar. Bell. Hussit. (Ludewig VI. 138-9).--Jo. Hus Monument. II. 364.--Ægid. Carlerii Lib. de Legation. (Monument Concil. General. Sæc. XV. T. I. pp. 385-6).

[553]Laur. Byzyn. Diar. Bell. Hussit. (Ludewig VI. pp. 142-44).--Æn. Sylvii Hist. Bohem. c. 36, 37.

[554]Laur. Byzyn. Diar. Bell. Hussit. (Ludewig VI. 145-52, 154-56).--Hist. Persecut. Eccles. Bohem. pp. 37-8.--Camerarii Hist. Frat. Orthod. p. 49.

[555]Ægid. Carlerii Lib. de Legation. (Mon. Concil. General. Sæc. XV. T. I. p. 387).--Laur. Byzyn. Diar. Bell. Hussit. (Ludewig VI. 152-4, 157-8, 168, 172).

[556]Laur. Byzyn. Diar. Bell. Hussit. (Ludewig VI. 159).--Raynald. ann. 1420, No. 13.--Hist. Persecut. Eccles. Bohem. pp. 39-40.--Ægid. Carlerii Lib. de Legation. loc. cit. There was warning also to the democratic party among the Bohemians in the vengeance taken by Sigismund on citizens of Breslau who had been concerned in an uprising similar to that of Prague. On March 7 he caused twenty-three of them to be beheaded.--Bezold, König Sigmund und die Reichskriege gegen die Husiten, München, 1872, p. 37.

[557]Laur. Byzyn. Diar. Bell. Hussit. (Ludewig VI. 161-3, 167-70, 181).--Andreæ Ratispon. Chron. (Eccard. Corp. Hist. I. 2147).--Schrödl, Passavia Sacra, p. 289.--Naucleri Chron. p. 933 (Ed. 1544).--Hist. Persecut. Eccles. Bohem. pp. 43-44.

[558]Palacky, Beziehungen, pp. 20-1.--Æn. Sylvii Hist. Bohem. c. 41.--Dubravii Hist. Bohem. Lib. 27.

[559]Laur. Byzyn. Diar. Bell. Hussit. (Ludewig VI. 202-7).--Palacky, Beziehungen, p. 31.--J. Goll, Quellen u. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder, Prag, 1882, II. 10-11, 57-60.--Hist. Persecut. Eccles. Bohem. pp. 46-8.--Palacky, Præf. in Mon. Conc. Gen. Sæc. XV. p. xx.

[560]Ægid. Carlerii Lib. de Legation. (Mon. Conc. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. p. 389).--Epistt. lxvi. lxvii. (Jo. Hus Monument. I. 82-4).--Laur. Byzyn. Diar. (Ludewig VI. 175-81).

[561]Conciliab. Pragens. ann. 1421 (Hartzheim V. 199-201). Cf. Johann. de Przibram Profess. Cath. Fidei (Cochlæi Hist. Hussit. pp. 501 sqq.).

[562]Jo. de Turonis Regestrum (Mon. Conc. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. p. 833, 858). Yet these Puritans were represented to Europe in the papal bulls for the crusades as not only subverting all political and social order, but as condemning marriage and abandoning themselves to all manner of license and bestiality.--Martini PP. V. Bull.Permisit Deus, 25 Oct. 1427 (Fascic. Rer. Expetendarum et Fugiend, II. 613).

[563]Jo. de Turonis Regestrum (Mon. Conc. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. pp. 843, 858, 865).--Wratislaw, Diary of an Embassy from George of Bohemia, London, 1871.

[564]Æn. Sylvii Hist. Bohem. c. 35; Ejusd. Epist. 130 (Opp. Ed. 1571, p. 678).--Pet. Zatecens. Lib. Diurnus (Monument. Conc. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. p. 352).--Concil. Bituricens. ann. 1432 (Harduin. VIII. 1459).--Goll, Quellen u. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder, I. 106.

[565]Goll, Quellen u. Untersuchungen, II. 40-1.--Preger, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Waldesier, pp. 68-71.--Laur. Byzyn. Diar. (Ludewig VI. 183-4, 194-202).--Johann. de Przibram Profess. Fidei (Cochlæi Hist. Huss. p. 507).--Huss, Sermo de Exequiis (Monument. II. 50). See also Æneas Sylvius’s statement of the identity between the Waldensian and Hussite teachings (Hist. Bohem. c. 35).

[566]Laur. Byzyn. (loc. cit. p. 195).--Martene Ampl. Coll. VIII. 19-27, 249-51, 596-99.--Jo. de Turonis Regest. (Mon. Conc. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. p. 842, 846).--Jo. de Ragusio Tractatus (Ibid. T. I. pp. 272-4, 278, 285).--Goll, Quellen, II. 17-18, 61-1.--Æn. Sylvii Epist. 130 (Ed. 1571, p. 661). Even Rokyzana, in 1436, was with great difficulty forced to express his disbelief in the remanence of the substance of the bread.--Jo. de Turonis Regest. (loc. cit. pp. 426-7). Yet nothing can exceed the strength of his affirmation of the existence of the body and blood, in hisTractatus de Septem Sacramentis(Cochlæi Hist. Hussit. pp. 473-4). In view of the exaggerated superstitious adoration of the Eucharist by the Calixtins, the assertion of Cardinal Giuliano, in 1431, that the Hussites were wont to manifest their contempt for it by trampling it in the blood of the slain, is a good illustration of the stories invented to stimulate popular abhorrence (Cochlæi op. cit. p. 240).

[567]Herburt. de Fulstin Statut. Regni Poloniæ, Samoscii, 1597, p. 191.

[568]Balbin. Epit. Rer. Hung. pp. 475-6.--Sommersberg Silesiac. Rer. Scriptt. L. 75.--A popular rhyme of the period described:“Meissen und Sachsen verderbt,Oesterreich verhergt,Schliesien und Laussnitz zerscherbt,Mähren verzerht,Bayern aussgenehrt,Böheimb umbgekehrt.”(Balbin. p. 478.)

[568]Balbin. Epit. Rer. Hung. pp. 475-6.--Sommersberg Silesiac. Rer. Scriptt. L. 75.--A popular rhyme of the period described:

[569]C. Constant. Decr.Frequens(Von der Hardt IV. 1435).

[570]Ludewig Reliq. MSS. XI. 385, 409.

[571]Concil. Senens. ann. 1423 (Harduin. VIII. 1015).

[572]Jo. de Ragusio Init. et Prosec. Conc. Basil. (Mon. Conc. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. pp. 28-30, 32-35, 53-61, 64).--Concil. Senens. (Harduin. VIII. 1025-6).--Act. Conc. Basil. (Harduin. VIII. 1108-10).--Raynald. ann. 1425, No. 3, 4. John of Ragusa was the delegate of the University of Paris to Siena, and subsequently played an active part at Basle.

[573]Jo. de Ragusio Init. etc. (Mon. Con. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. pp. 66-7).--Cochlæi Hist. Hussit. pp. 237-9. The repulsion of the papacy for general councils was not unnatural. On June 3, 1435, the Council of Basle, with virtual unanimity, abrogated the annates and decreed that in future no charges should be made for sealing collations and confirmations of sees and benefices, except the scrivener’s moderate fees. The Bishops of Otranto and Padua protested in the name of the pope, and finding this unheeded arose and left the council, followed by a few others, while the rest gave themselves up to rejoicing and thanking God.--Ægid. Carlerii Lib. de Legation, (op. cit. I. 568).

[574]Martene Ampl. Coll. VIII. 15-18.--Chron. Concil. Zantfliet (Ibid. V. 425-7).--Jo. de Ragusio Tractatus (Mon. Conc. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. pp. 135, 138).

[575]Harduin VIII. 1575-8.--Raynald. ann. 1431, No. 26.--Epist. Card. Juliani (Æn. Sylv. Opp. Ed. 1571, pp. 66-9). The letter of Cardinal Giuliano and Æneas Sylvius’s Commentaries on the Council of Basle were subsequently put in the Index Expurgatorius (Reusch, Der Index der verbotenen Bücher, I. 40).

[576]Hemmerlin Lollardor. Descriptio.--Duverger, La Vauderie dans les États de Philippe le Bon, Arras, 1885, p. 24--Harduin. VIII. 1141, 1172-82, 1263, 1280, 1582. 1606.--Martene Ampl. Coll. VIII. 80-2.

[577]Martene Ampl. Coll. VIII. 131-33.--Pet. Zatecens. Lib. Diurn. (Mon. Conc. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. p. 304-5, 324, 328-31, 348).--Naucleri Chron. ann. 1434.

[578]Ægid. Carlerii Lib. de Legation (Ibid. T. I. pp. 447-71, 495-7).--Martene Ampl. Coll. VIII. 305-40, 356-415, 698-704.--Hartzheim V. 768-9.--Kukuljević, Jura Regni Croatiæ, Zagrabiæ, 1862, I. 192.--Batthyani Legg. Eccles. Hung. III. 419. The question of infantile communion affords an illustration of the skilful casuistry of the orthodox. After the reconciliation, when Sigismund was ruling in Prague, infantile communion was forbidden by the legate of the council, on the ground that the Compactata only guaranteed the privilege to those who had been accustomed to it, and that infants born since then were therefore not entitled to it.--Jo. de Turonis Regest. (Mon. C. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. p. 865).

[579]Martene Ampl. Coll. VIII. 710-19.--Harduin. VIII. 1604, 1650-2.--Ægid. Carlerii Liber de Legationibus (Mon. Conc. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. pp. 522, 529-39, 544).--Raynald. ann. 1435, No. 22-3.--Naucleri Chron. ann. 1434. The democratic insubordination characteristic of the Taborites is seen in an incident occurring in September, 1433. Procopius sent a detachment to invade Bavaria, and appointed as leader a captain named Pardus. The men mutinied before setting out, and, on Procopius interposing, one of them felled him to the ground with a blow on the head with a stool. The man who struck him was elected leader, and under his guidance the Taborites lost two thousand of their best veterans.--Ægid. Carlerii l.c. pp. 466-7. The reduction to serfdom of the Bohemian peasantry, in 1487, may be regarded as the final result of the overthrow of the Taborites.

[580]Martene Ampl. Coll. VIII. 354-6.--Ægid. Carlerii Lib. de Legationibus (Mon. Conc. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. pp. 368-9, 516-17, 519, 595, 597, 600, 632-4, 662-4, 674-6, 678, 684-6, 688).--Th. Ebendorferi Diar. (Ib. pp. 767-9, 776-9, 782-3).--Jo. de Turonis Regest. (Ib. 834-5, 837-8, 848, 868).

[581]Th. Ebendorferi Diar. (loc. cit. 82).--Jo. de Turonis Regest. (Ib. 821-22).--Naucleri Chron. ann. 1436.

[582]Jo. de Turonis Regest. (loc. cit. pp. 862, 865).--Æn. Sylvii Hist. Bohem. c. 59.--Naucleri Chron. ann. 1437.

[583]Æn. Sylvii Epist. lxxi. (Opp. inedd.ap.Atti della Accademia dei Lincei, 1883, p. 465).--Jo. de Turonis Regest. (Mon. Conc. Gen. Sæc. XV. T. I. pp. 855, 857).--Camerarii Hist. Frat. Orthod. pp. 57-8.--Naucleri Chron. ann. 1436, 1438. Concil. Basiliens. Sess. XXX. (Harduin. VIII. 1244).--Petitiones Bohemorum (Fascic. Rer. Expetend. et Fugiend. I. 319, Ed. 1690).--Martene Ampl. Coll. VIII. 942-3--Æn. Sylvii Epist. 101 (Ed. 1571, p. 591).--Chron. Cornel. Zantfliet (Martene Ampl. Coll. V. 445).--De Schweinitz, Hist. of Unitas Fratrum, pp. 91-2, 94.

Back to Index Next