Chapter LXXIV: Letter LVI: , and the Last.138

TO HIS FAITHFUL FRIEND LEDERTZ.

Seignior Ledertz, my faithful friend, you, Dame Margaret, and all of you who love me, may God bestow on you all his riches, for the great trouble you have taken, and for the many favours that I have received at your hands! Dear and faithful Master Christian, may God be with you! Master Martin, my disciple, forget not the faithful manner in which I taught you the word of God! Master Nicholas, Peter, the priest of the Lord, the King, the masters and heads of the University, preserve faithfully God’s word! May Gallus preach it, and all of you, my beloved, listen attentively to it, and guard it in your hearts!

FOOTNOTE:

[138] _Hist. et Monum. Johann. Huss_, Epist. xxv.

END OF JOHN HUSS’S LETTERS.

REMARKS ON THE WORKS OF JOHN HUSS.

The writings of +John Huss+, which have been handed down to us, may be classed under four principal heads:--His letters; his works and commentaries on the Scriptures; his sermons; and, lastly, his moral and theological treatises. His letters have been given in this volume. His particular works on the Scriptures are,--

_1st_, A History of the Life of Jesus Christ, according to the Four Gospels.

_2dly_, The History of our Lord’s Passion, as collected from the Four Gospels, and augmented by notes and commentaries from the most celebrated Doctors of the Church.

_3dly_, The Explanation of the First Seven Chapters of the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians.

_4thly_, Commentaries on the Seven Canonical Epistles of the Apostles St James, St Peter, St John, and St Jude.

_5thly_, Explanations and Developments of the Psalms cix., cx., cxi., cxii., cxiii., cxiv., cxv., cxvi., cxvii., and cxviii.

All these writings reveal in their author a profound knowledge of the sacred books, and of the works of the Fathers, as well as a great zeal to diffuse the light of the Scriptures, and to draw from them salutary instruction. They indicate, besides, an independence of views which must have given umbrage to the clergy. It is thus that Huss, in arranging the Epistles of the Apostles, names first that of St James, who, he says, presided at the Council of Jerusalem. He assigns the first place to this Epistle, on account of the superior dignity which the Apostle bears in the eyes of Christians by reason of three different claims:--“First, In addressing himself particularly to converted Jews, who were superior to the pagans; afterwards, in consideration of his personal merit; for although Peter was the first of the apostles, nevertheless the first evangelical preaching is traced to St James;--and lastly, in consideration of the dignity of the place where he held his See, which was Jerusalem, where the first preaching of God’s word took place.”[139]

These works of John Huss on the Scriptures, so different in their nature, and so considerable in their extent, are, however, like most of the theological writings of the epoch, prolix and diffuse. The author subdivides his matter without end, fatigues with his repetitions, and, in his commentaries, presents, in general, subtile explanations and interpretations, sometimes trifling, and often forced, in order to discover in each word of the sacred books of the Old Testament, the type of our Saviour’s words in the New one.

The sermons and discourses of John Huss, collected in his works, amount to about forty, amongst which several were pronounced before his rupture with his ecclesiastical superiors, and his interdiction. In them might be already recognised that pure and ardent zeal for morality, and that horror for the vices of the clergy, which animated his bosom in every circumstance of his life--a manifestation at once noble and rash in an age when the clergy were as powerful as they were corrupt, and which accumulated on the head of John Huss such implacable resentment.

In some sermons, delivered at a later period, and when he was already exposed to the attacks of his enemies, he expresses himself openly against the abuses springing from the doctrines of the Roman Church. He energetically censures the pomp and ostentation displayed in the festivals in honour of the saints. He reproves the lying flatteries of funeral eulogiums, and the profit derived from them by the priest. He alludes to this verse--

De morbo medicus gaudet, de morte sacerdos;[140]

and adds: “What is the use of multiplying vigils in the house of a rich defunct, unless, indeed, for empty praise? Neither he who pays, nor he who is paid, care much about the psalms that are sung. What utility is there in this pompous cortege of the rich at the burial of a corpse? Why are so many priests sitting luxuriously on cushions round a coffin, whilst thou, O Christ! stoodst weeping over the tomb of Lazarus, and humbly invokedst thy Father? We do not weep, but make merry; we utter not pious groans, but vain clamours.”[141]

John Huss believed in purgatory, although he placed but little confidence in the efficacy of praying for the dead; and in the sermon already mentioned, he supports his opinion on this point by the silence of the Scriptures. “We find no mention made of it,” he remarks, “except in the Book of Maccabees, which is not placed by the Jews in the canon of the Old Testament; neither the prophets, nor Jesus Christ, nor the Apostles, nor the saints who have followed their footsteps, have explicitly taught that the dead should be prayed for; but they have publicly declared, that whoever lived without crime should be deemed holy. For my part, I think that the introduction of this custom originated in the avarice of the priests, who, though but little desirous of teaching men to live well after the examples of the prophets, of Christ and the Apostles, carefully exhort them to make rich offerings, in the hope of procuring celestial happiness, and a speedy deliverance from purgatory.”[142]

The first nine sermons collected in the works of John Huss[143] were preached by him in Prague at different periods, and are followed by twenty-eight discourses relative to _Antichrist_, in which he openly designates the Pope, and where he repeats most of the arguments of the treatise, _On the Anatomy of the Members of Antichrist_.

The last two sermons of John Huss are those which he composed on arriving at Constance; the one on _Faith_, the other on _Peace_. They breathe the desire of a reconciliation, which his enemies repulsed, and he was not permitted to deliver them.

The moral and theological treatises form the fourth part of John Huss’s works, and the most important of the whole, for they especially shew his doctrines, and were those which furnished his enemies and judges with arguments and arms against him.[144]

The principal of the treatises are:--_The Treatise on the Church_, publicly read in the city of Prague; _The Refutation of the Bull of John XXIII., concerning Indulgences for the First Crusade_;[145] _Answer to Stephen Paletz_; _Answer to Stanislas Znöima_; _Refutation of the Writing of Eight Doctors of Prague_; _The Book of Antichrist_; and the _Treatise on the Abominations of Priests and Monks_.

All the doctrines and peculiar opinions of John Huss are to be met with in his celebrated _Treatise on the Church_, and in his _Answers to Paletz_, _to Stanislas de Znöima_, and _The Eight Doctors_. It may be discovered, on perusing them, that on a great number of points, which, a century later, separated the Reformers from the Roman Catholic Church, Huss shared the opinion of the latter, or at least did not believe that it was allowable to oppose it; he attacked it, consequently, much more for its abuses than for its errors.

The horror which he felt at the sight of evil, and especially when it was committed by men who ought to set an example of every virtue to others, often carried him too far. Anger mingled its violence with his indignation, and, in some treatises, amongst others _The Antichrist_, and _The Abominations of Priests and Monks_, he forgets himself so far as to indulge in abuse, and employ insulting and offensive expressions. Nevertheless, it would be unjust to see, on that account, an excuse for those who condemned him; for these treatises were not known to them, and were only made public after his death. Besides, the expressions to be blamed in them belong less to John Huss than to the age in which he lived. They are to be met with in the writings of the most celebrated Doctors and orthodox priests; and it seems that, in hazarding a language which astonishes our more sensitive ears, John Huss had adopted for his authority the Prophet Ezekiel, from whom he often drew his inspirations.

Among the doctrines signalized as heretical in the works of Huss are those on _Predestination_ and _Election_. A heresy was seen in the definition which Huss gives of the Catholic and the universal Church, “_This Church_,” says he, “_is the assembly of all the elect, present, past, and future, including also the angels_.”[146] And lower down he adds:--“_No particular tie, no human election, renders a person member of the universal Church, but divine predestination alone; this predestination is, according to St Augustin, election by the grace of the Divine will, or preparation to grace in the present life, and to glory in the future one_.”[147]

To these different passages has been opposed the necessity of the sacraments for obtaining salvation; and it has thence been concluded, that, whoever admitted predestination, gratuitous safety of election and grace, or communion with the universal Church--could attribute no efficacy to the sacraments--to the communion of the external and visible Church.[148] Nevertheless, Huss nowhere disputes the virtue of the sacraments, but, on the contrary, recommends their frequent use. This doctrine of _predestination_ and _election_ has often divided the Catholic Church. It has been supported in every age by some of its most illustrious members, and has had for interpreters St Augustin and Gerson.[149] The boldest opinions of John Huss have almost all of them found partizans among men whom Rome venerates as saints and learned doctors. But he separated from them upon two principal points: in his eyes, as in those of Wycliffe, the authority of the Church could only direct the faith and conduct, as long as the decisions of the Church agreed with the Scriptures; and the priest, whatever his external dignity might be, was not, in the sight of God, priest, bishop, or pope, and representative of Jesus Christ, but as far as he took for model and guide in his private life the example of our Saviour. These two capital points, on which repose all the doctrine of Wycliffe, are the real basis of all Christian dissent. Huss, as we stated in a previous work, acknowledged them without calculating their importance, without clearly understanding the abyss they opened between him and the Church of which he believed himself a member. His opinion on this subject strongly manifests itself in all the above-mentioned treatises. Even his adversaries are forced to admit that he derived it from the unshaken conviction that morality and religion are inseparable, and that they who have the mission of representing Jesus on earth could not desire or order otherwise than what God himself had willed and commanded.

On these two points, he goes beyond the limits of the Roman Church, and openly subjects himself to the reproach addressed to him by one of the Catholic writers, who judged him most impartially. “It is greatly to be lamented,” says the writer alluded to, “that such a man should have so frightful a destiny, and so bitter a death,--he, who glowed with so ardent a love for Christ and his doctrine,--who shone, by the integrity of his life, the sincerity of his heart, the ardour of his mind, his eloquence, and other precious gifts, to so high a degree, that he might have become an illustrious Reformer, if, after the example of some very eminent men, such as Gerson, d’Ailly, or Clémangis, he had devoted his talents to the work of reform in the Church itself, and not out of its bosom.”[150]

This reproach is best refuted by referring to John Huss’s life, and the history of his time. Both form the subject of the work, which this one completes, and to which the reader has been often referred.[151] It will be there seen that the reform of abuses could not be accomplished by those whose interests it was to perpetuate them, and that the corruption of the external and visible Church was then so profound, that to introduce a reform in it, it was necessary first to leave it altogether.

* * * * *

Of all John Huss’s treatises, that on _The Church_ is the most complete and celebrated. We must insert here an analysis of it, which will terminate this work.

ANALYSIS OF THE TREATISE ON THE CHURCH.

John Huss defines the universal Church to be the assembly of all the predestined, past, present, and to come, including the angels. “The Church,” writes he, “is the most excellent thing created by God. We ought not therefore to believe in the Church, because it is not God; but we should believe that there is a holy universal Church, of which Jesus Christ is the sole Chief. The entire Church and all its parts ought to honour God; but it ought not to wish that divine worship should be rendered her.”[152]

“Reprobates,” says Huss, “are not members of the Church. It may occur that one is in the Church, without being of the Church. Such may be the case with the popes, bishops, priests, and clergy, although they style themselves the Church in particular, because it is possible that they are reprobate: we may also belong to the Church, without being exteriorly in the Church, like those who commence to be converted to the faith.”

Huss next examines the celebrated passage of St Matthew: _Thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, &c._ (Matthew xvi., 18, 19). He considers in it four things: _The Church_, its _faith_, its _foundation_, and its _power_. He examines, first of all, whether the Roman Church is the universal one, as is affirmed by the canon law, where the Pope is called the chief, and the cardinals, the body of the Church. He denies this to be the case, for the reason that the Pope and the cardinals do not compose the whole assembly of the elect. _Thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build my Church_, signifies, according to Huss, “Thou art the confessor of the true Rock, which is Christ; and it is on this rock that I will raise my Church by faith and by grace; but this Church does not consist in men, constituted in power and dignities, whether secular or ecclesiastical, because several popes have fallen into error and crime.”

Huss does not, however, contest great privileges to the Roman Church, because St Peter founded it; and he does not oppose the Pope and the cardinals holding the principal rank in the Church, provided they follow the example of Jesus Christ, and that, stripping themselves of pomp and ambition, they serve with humility the common mother of all believers.

Yet the Roman Church can hardly be termed a universal one, because, in reality, it is a particular Church; the first and most ancient being that of Jerusalem, and the second that of Antioch, of which the faithful were the first called Christians.[153]

As to faith, Huss distinguishes several kinds. “The true faith,” says he, “is faith formed by charity.[154] This, when persevered in, is the foundation of all the other Christian virtues; it ought necessarily to be founded on _truth_, which enlightens the understanding, and on _authority_, which strengthens the soul. This authority can be only that of God speaking by his word. If the Christian is convinced that a truth has been dictated by the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures, he ought, without hesitation, to declare his opinion, and expose his life for it. The obligation is not the same with regard to the words of the saints, and popes’ bulls: one is not held to believe them, but only so far as they agree with the Holy Scriptures. We may, besides, believe in them as in opinions, because the Pope and his court might err, through ignorance of the truth. It is, then, one thing to believe in God, because he cannot err or be deceived, and another to believe in the Pope, who is liable to error; it is one thing to believe the Holy Scriptures, and another to believe in a bull, because the latter is of human invention. It can never be permitted not to follow the Scriptures, or to oppose them; but it is sometimes allowable not to believe in a bull, and even to oppose it, as, for instance, when it has originated in avarice, when it raises to dignity unworthy persons, or oppresses the innocent; in a word, when it is contrary to the instructions and commandments of God.[155] As regards the foundation of the Church, there is but one, which is Jesus Christ. If the Apostles, therefore, are called the foundations of the Church, it is in a figurative manner, as being subjected to Jesus Christ, because it is he who has built the Church, and St Peter is only its basis and foundation; in the same manner is the Apostles his colleagues. It must be admitted, that Jesus Christ, who is the corner-stone of the Church, established Peter in humility, poverty, and faith, and that it was by these virtues he elevated the Church which he governed. But to pretend, from these words, _On this rock will I raise my Church_, that Jesus Christ intended to found the entire Church in the person of _Peter_, is to believe what is contrary to faith and reason. St Peter never boasted of being the head of the whole Church, because he never governed the whole of it; yet there may be allowed to him, with some of the Fathers, a priority of order over the other Apostles, on account of the excellence of his virtues; and, _in this sense_, the words of the blessed St Denis are true: St Peter was the Chief of the Apostles,[156] which does not mean the Chief of the Universal Church. The Bishop of Rome may be looked upon as the vicar of St Peter, and the first in the church which he governs, if he imitate the virtues of this Apostle; but if he follow an opposite path, he is only the forerunner of Antichrist.” Huss supports his opinion by citing several of the Fathers, and amongst others, St Bernard, St Jerome, St Gregory, and St Chrysostom. “It is not the post which he holds that makes the priest,” says the last named saint, “but the priest which makes the post; it is not the place which sanctifies man, but man that sanctifies the place.”

“_Lastly_, As relates to the power of priests, it is purely spiritual; it consists in instructing, in condemning the culpable by spiritual punishment, in absolving the penitent, and announcing to them the remission of their sins; it dwells actually in Jesus Christ, and has been given, in the person of Peter, to all the Church militant.

“Priests are only the ministers of the Church, and are not able to bind or loose, remit or retain sins, if God has not previously done so; and the people greatly err, if they believe that the priests first bind or unbind, and that God only does so after them; as if God executed the sentence of priests, whereas, priests ought to execute the judgment of God, only in accord with Jesus Christ.[157]

“There are two kinds of power: one legitimate, and which should be obeyed; the other pretended and usurped, which ought to be resisted. Such is the power of Simoniacs, who, through interest, take advantage of the keys in order to condemn the innocent and absolve the guilty; who buy and sell holy orders, bishopricks, canonries, and livings; who make a traffic of the sacraments; who live in avarice and voluptuousness, and sully the authority of the priesthood.” Huss maintains that the power of binding or loosing was equally given to all the Apostles, and contests the right of the popes to bear the title of _universal bishop_ and _most holy_. “They have no right,” he says, “to decorate themselves with it;” and he cites, as proofs, the example of the Apostles, the canons, the councils, as well as the scandalous lives of several popes, in whom there was no holiness. “As to the cardinals, of whom it is said that they form the body of the Church, it would be necessary, in order to acknowledge it, to know by revelation that they are predestined to salvation, and that they live as becomes the successors and vicars of the Apostles; but do they shew themselves as such? Those men who accumulate livings, gain favours by presents after the example of Giezi; who go early in the morning, dressed in splendid clothing, to visit the Pope, mounted on horses richly caparisoned, not on account of the distance or difficulty of the roads, but to display their magnificence to the eyes of the world, in opposition to the example of Christ and his Apostles, who visited on foot, and in humble clothing, the towns and villages, preaching the Gospel, and announcing the kingdom of God.[158]

“The Church,” says John Huss, “may be governed without the Pope and cardinals, as was the case during three hundred years. It was Constantine who established, in the third century, the universal domination of the Roman Pontiff. Before the donation, the Bishop of Rome was like the other bishops;[159] and for that reason, the Roman pontiffs who succeeded Sylvester, fearing to lose this pre-eminence, besought the Emperors to confirm it.” John Huss afterwards quotes Gratian’s decree, confirmed by Lewis-le-Debonnaire, and adds--“St Peter never required that Lewis-le-Debonnaire should bestow on him the temporal domain of Rome; he was in possession of the kingdom of heaven, and consequently greater than Lewis. Would to God that Peter had replied to him, I accept not your concession. When I was Bishop of Rome, I did not envy Nero the domination of Rome, and I had no need of it. I believe it to have been injurious to my successors; it turned them from the preaching of the Gospel, from prayer, and observing the commandments of God, and filled them with pride.”

“It is the law of God, and not the arbitrary will of the Pope and cardinals, that ought to regulate ecclesiastical judgment.” The adversaries of Huss considered this proposition of his as a crime. He defends it against them, and makes it a point of honour to acknowledge only the Scriptures as authority, although he respects the holy doctors, when their decisions are in harmony with the Divine word. He rejects the application to Christians of certain passages of Deuteronomy, in which God orders the Israelites to have their disputes judged in the place he had chosen, and sentences with death whoever should not submit himself to the Pontiff and to the judge.[160] “It is here a question,” says John Huss, “of civil affairs rather than of religious ones, and the spirit of the Gospel, which, only employing persuasion, differs greatly from the ancient law, which was one of rigour. If these distinctions were not established, it would follow that Jesus was justly condemned, because the high priests Annas and Caiaphas presided in the places designed by God himself.”

Huss likewise rejects the accusation of wishing to excite the people, and induce them to disobedience towards their superiors, viz., the pope, bishops, priests, and all the clergy. He distinguishes three kinds of obedience: _1st_, Spiritual obedience, which is that which all Christians, without exception, are expected at all times to render to the law of Jesus Christ. _2dly_, Secular obedience, which is that which is due to civil laws, admitting them to be conformable to the law of God. _3dly_, Ecclesiastical obedience, which is that paid to the laws invented by the priests of the Church without any express authority of the Scriptures. “This latter,” he says, “is only obligatory as far as the things prescribed or forbidden are in conformity with what is ordered or prohibited by the Word of God;” and he draws this inference, “_that he who knows of a certainty that the commandments of the Pope are contrary to what is counselled and commanded by Jesus Christ, or tends to the ruin of the Church, ought boldly to resist them, for fear of sanctioning a crime by his consent_.” He invokes, in support of this opinion the authority of the canon law, as well as the Fathers, from whom he quotes many passages, extracted especially from Nicholas Lyra and Saint Augustin.[161] In the last chapters, Huss inveighs energetically against the abuse of _excommunication_, _suspensions_, and _interdicts_.

“One ought not to be excommunicated,” continues Huss, “but on account of a mortal sin which separates from the grace of God. The _major excommunication_ is pronounced against a public sinner, and it is that which was pronounced against myself; but blessed be God, who has not given to this excommunication the power of taking away justice and virtue from a just man, and of making him become a sinner.... I am more afraid of the greatest of all excommunications, viz. that by which the Sovereign Pontiff, in presence of angels and men, will eternally excommunicate the wicked from all participation in eternal beatitude.... It is on that One, that he who judges should reflect, through fear of excommunicating unjustly; for whoever shall excommunicate a man from temporal interest or pride, or in order to revenge himself of some injury, and against his conscience, excommunicates himself.[162]

“As to suspension, it is God who pronounces it against every bad priest who lives scandalously and criminally. It follows from hence, that there are but few preachers whom God does not at present suspend from the ministry of his Word, because there are few who do not reject the knowledge of the Scriptures, and contradict, by their lives, the duties which they teach unto others.” Huss concludes from this, that he was forced to preach against the vices of the clergy. “Wo unto me,” he exclaims, “if I had remained silent; for, according to the canon law,[163] not to oppose an error is to approve of it; and to neglect denouncing the perverse when it is in our power to do so, is to shew ourselves their accomplices.[164]”

Afterwards passing to the subject of interdicts, a punishment which ecclesiastical dignitaries may inflict on a country or town, simply for the fault of one individual, and forbidding divine service to be celebrated in the place, without distinguishing the innocent from the guilty, John Huss adds: “One of the manifest proofs that these censures, which are called _fulminations_, are derived from Antichrist, is, that they are cast against those who preach the Gospel, and expose the corruption of the clergy. Interdicts began after the year one thousand, and by the rage of Satan, when the clergy had become fat on the misfortunes of the world, and had grown in voluptuousness, pride, and impatience of submitting to any restraint.”

Huss calls to mind the worldly motives which led the pontiffs, Adrian IV., Alexander III., Innocent III., Boniface VIII., Innocent IV., and Clement IV., to interdict towns and countries, in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and concludes by quoting, against this custom, an admirable letter of St Augustin to a young bishop, who, on account of the ill-conduct of a holy father, had excommunicated his whole family. This is the letter:--“Instruct me, I pray you, by strict reason or Scripture, in what case, should you know of any, the child should be excommunicated for the sin of the father, the wife for that of the husband, the servant for the master, and even the children that may be born in the house thus excommunicated, since, as long as it remains so, it is impossible to procure for the children, even when in danger of death, the grace of regeneration produced by Baptism. The chastisement which God inflicted on several of the impious who had despised his law, and in which he included all belonging to them, was an external punishment, which fell only on the body, in order to fill the living with dread; but the excommunication resulting from the power given us by these words: ‘_That which you shall have bound on earth, shall be bound in heaven_,’ falls even upon the soul; and it is said of souls: ‘The soul of the father belongs to me, as likewise the soul of the son; and that which has sinned shall die.’ Perhaps you have heard of some bishops of great repute, who anathemised sinners with the whole of their families; but if they were asked to explain their conduct, it is likely they would be embarrassed to assign a good reason for it; and as I should not myself have known how to answer a similar inquiry, I have never, on that account, dared to act in this manner, however great might have been the crimes committed against the Church. Nevertheless, if God has revealed to you that this may be done with justice, I shall not despise your youth, and your little experience of the weight of episcopacy. Behold me, then, an old man, and for many years a bishop, ready to learn from a young man, my colleague a year since only, how I should justify myself before God and men, if I inflicted a spiritual punishment on innocent souls for the sins of others.”[165]

John Huss, after supporting his argument by the imposing authority of St Augustin, energetically addresses the doctors, his adversaries, and asks them if they believe in their conscience that it is an unimportant thing, keeping the middle path between good and evil, to deprive the innocent of the sacraments, and of sepulture--to prohibit divine service, and give rise, in consequence, to so much scandal, calumny, and hatred. “O doctors!” he exclaims, “to what church belongs this language? Is it that of an apostolical church? Say whether it be the language of an apostle, or of a saint. Assuredly it is not that of Jesus Christ, of the Chief of the Holy Church, in whose word is contained every truth useful to the Church.”[166]

Huss terminates his celebrated treatise by alluding to the condemnation of the forty-five articles of Wycliffe, by the doctors, without their being able to demonstrate that any of these articles were heretical, erroneous, or scandalous. He expresses his astonishment at his adversaries abstaining from opposing too openly, at Prague, Wycliffe’s proposition, which authorizes lay lords to strip of their wealth ecclesiastics of depraved morals. “They are silent,” says he, “like the priests and Pharisees, and fear prevents them from condemning this article; but what they dreaded has occurred, and will again come to pass. _They shall lose their temporal wealth; God grant they may preserve their souls!_”

FINIS.

FOOTNOTES:

[139] _Hist. et Monum. Johann. Huss_, t. ii., p. 176.

[140] The physician delights in disease, the priest in death.

[141] _Hist. et Monum. Johann. Huss_, Sermo habitus Pragæ in Synodo ad Clerum, t. ii., p. 77.

[142] Ubi supra, p. 82.

[143] _Hist. et Monum. Johann. Huss_, t. ii.

[144] For the complete list of John Huss’s treatises, see Note B.

[145] For this celebrated writing, consult _Reformers before the Reformation_, vol. i., b. i.

[146] _De Eccles._

[147] Ibid.

[148] Retrum Hussi doctrina fuerit hæresiea. _Dissert. Hist. Dogmat. Cappenberg._

[149] Gers. Oper. _De Conosolat. Theolog._, t. i. p. 137.

[150] Maxime quidem dolendum esse ingenue confitemur quod tristissimam sortem necemque acerbissimam vir ille perpessus est, qui magno exarsit Christi reique christianæ amore, vitæ integritate voluntate sincera, maximo animi ardore, præstantissima concionandi facultate aliisque virtutibus mire excelluit, ita ut reformator extitisset egregius si cum æqualibus viris præclarissimis, Gersonio, Petro ab Alliaco, Nicolao Clémangis ea qua potuit ac debuit ratione intra, non extra Ecclesiæ fines, reformandæ Ecclesiæ operam novasset. _Dissert. hist. dogmat._ Cappenberg.

[151] _The Reformers before the Reformation._

[152] Tota ecclesia et quælibet ejus pars debet Deum colere et nec ipsa nec ejus pars vult coli pro deo.--_De Eccles. J. Huss, Hist. et Monum._, t. i., p. 244.

[153] _De Eccles._, p. 258. Compare this opinion with that of Gerson on the same subject. _Gers. Opera_, v. 11.--_De modis uniendi ac reform. Eccles. en Concil._ See also the _Reformers before the Reformation_, Introduction, sect. v.

[154] Unde quicumque habuerit fidem charitate firmatam in communis sufficit cum virtute perseverantiæ, ad salutem.

[155] The doctrine of the Gallic Church is still more restrictive. It only acknowledges bulls when they are not contrary to the laws of the kingdom.

[156] Et dictum beati Dionysii est verum, quod Petrus fuit capitaneus inter apostolos. _De Eccles._, cap. ix.

[157] _De Eccles._, cap. x. Compare this opinion of John Huss with that of Wycliffe and Gerson on the same matter, _Reformers before the Reformation_.

[158] _De Eccles._, cap. xv.

[159] This illegality of the donation of Constantine was not then discovered.

[160] Deut. xvii.

[161] Consult on this subject, and compare with this passage, Letter V. of the First Series, pages 24-29.

[162] _De Eccles._, cap. xxii.

[163] Distinct. 83.

[164] Error cui non resistitur approbatur.

[165] _De Eccles._, cap. xxiii.

[166] O doctores, cujus ecclesiæ est ille stylus? Numquam apostolicæ? Dicite cujus apostoli est stylus ille, vel cujus sancti post apostolos? Numquam est Christi stylus, illius capitis Ecclesiæ sanctæ, in cujus stylo omnis veritas utilis Ecclesiæ est contenta. Cap. xxiii.

NOTES.

+Note A.+, p. 2.