whose head were Stephen of Paletz and Stanislaus of Znaim, with archbishop John the Iron of Leitomysl ; on the other side, John Huss. But in the memorials drawn up by the two parties, nothing appeared but the most diametrical opposition of principles. The theological faculty traced all the schism to the defending of the fortyfive erroneous doctrines of Wickliff, and insisted that the condemnation of them should be rigorously observed, and that the decision of the church of Rome should be submitted to in every point. The church in their view was the pope as head, and the college of cardinals as the body. Errors they found, especially in the widely-spread doctrines about the power of the keys being vested in the church; errors concerning the hierarchy; concerning the seven sacraments; concerning the veneration of relics; and concerning indulgence. They traced all these errors to one cause, that the party admitted no other authority than the sacred Scriptures, explained in their own sense and in contrariety with the doctrine of the church and of entire Christendom. They regarded themselves, on the other hand, as the people, who alone were in possession of the truth, inasmuch as they agreed with the doctrine of the Roman church and of entire Christendom. They required in all matters in themselves indifferent, among which were to be reckoned the late ordinances of the pope and the process against Huss, unconditional submission to the Roman church. The disobedience of Huss and his party to the commands of their superiors passed, with them, for the greatest crime. The interdict should be strictly observed; the order forbidding Huss to preach should remain in full force. They maintained that, since the proceedings against Huss had been accepted by the collective body of the clergy of Prague, and they had submitted to them, therefore all should do the same, especially as they related only to things in themselves indifferent, forbade nothing good, and commanded nothing wrong; and it was not the business of the clergy of Prague to judge whether the ban pronounced on John Huss was a just or an unjust one. Severe punishment for publicly holding forth any of those things which they from their particular point of view called heresy, was required by them. Their proposals for peace, therefore, looked to nothing else than a total suppression of the other party and the triumph of their own. Huss, on the other hand, began by laying down the principle, that the sacred Scriptures alone should pass as a final authority; no obedience could be required to that which was at variance with their teaching. He said, in answer to the challenge of obedience to the interdict and ban: "It were the same as to argue that, because the judgment pronouncing Christ a traitor, an evil-doer, and worthy of death, was approved by the collective body of the priests in Jerusalem, therefore that judgment must be acquiesced in."* Looking at the matter from this point of view, he was conscious of no heresy himself, nor could he see any ground for asserting that heresies existed in Bohemia. He demanded, therefore, that they should return back to the earlier compact concluded under archbishop Zbynek. He declared that he was ready to clear himself from the charge of heresy against any man, or else suffer at the stake, provided his accusers would also bind themselves under the same conditions. Every man who took it upon himself to accuse another of heresy, should be required to come forward and take this pledge. But if none could be found that were able to do so, then it should be proclaimed anew that heresy did not exist in Bohemia. The hierarchical party would naturally look upon all this as a mere shift to avoid the necessity of submitting to the church, and of giving up the defence of heresy. Archbishop John the Iron, of Leitomysl, approved the propositions of the other party, and declared strongly against those of the party of Huss. He advised that all writings in the vulgar language of Bohemia, relating to religious subjects, writings that had contributed in a special manner to the spread of heresy, should be condemned, and the reading of them forbidden.† Where there was such contrariety in principles, as we here see manifested, it is evident that all attempts at compromise would necessarily prove idle, or only terminate in making the breach still wider. These transactions afforded Huss a good oppor * Opp. I. fol. 247, 2. † See the documents in Cochlæus, p. 29, seq., and Palacky, III. 1, p. 289 ff. tunity for more fully expounding and defending, in the tracts which he wrote in confutation of the propositions above stated, of the arrogant pretensions clearly avowed therein by the other party, and of the accusations brought against him and his friends, the principles which had guided him in these disputes, and which by occasion of these disputes became more distinctly evolved to his own consciousness. We shall state them more fully in the next section, where we shall recur to them for the purpose of a more distinct exposition of the doctrines and principles of Huss, and of their bearing on the aims and tendencies of the dominant party. The synod above mentioned was not held, as at first intended, at Bohmisch-Brod, but in Prague itself, on the 6th of February, 1413. Huss therefore could not be present. His place was represented by his advocate, Master John of Jesenic. Before this synod were laid the propositions of the two parties. And here it should be mentioned, that one of the most zealous friends of Huss, Master Jacobellus of Mies, submitted a resolution to this effect that if the matter now in question related to the restoration of peace, it should first be settled what peace was meant, whether peace with the world, or with God; the latter depended on keeping the divine commandments. The origin of the strife was this: that the attempts of some to bring back that peace of God met with such unholy and violent resistance on the part of others. Yet the peace of the world, without Christian and divine peace, would be as unstable as it was worthless. Let the king but give his thoughts to the latter first, and the other would follow of itself.* The result of this synod was such as might be expected in a case where the direct contrariety of the propositions offered rendered compromise impossible. It broke up without having accomplished anything. But the king, who looked at nothing but the interests of his government, and therefore desired nothing but a peaceful compromise, tried yet another expedient. He appointed a committee composed of four members: the archbishop Albic, the Wysehrad dean Jacob, the provost of All Saints Master Zdenek of Labaun, and the rector of the university * Palacky, III. p. 293. Master Christann of Prachatic.* This committee was empowered to take every measure necessary for the restoration of concord and tranquillity. They carried it so far as to oblige the two parties to bind themselves under the penalty of a pecuniary forfeit and of banishment from the country, to abide by the decision of this committee. But the same reasons which had operated to defeat the purpose of the synod, would operate with equal force against this experiment also. No sooner did they proceed to reduce to form the first proposition, expressing the agreement of the two parties with the faith of the church on the matter of the holy sacraments and the authority of the church, than a dispute arose out of this, namely, that Paletz, who with his friends did not consider themselves as a party standing over against the others, but as defending the cause of the church against a party standing opposed to that cause, thought he could not concede, that he and his were also to be called a pars, a mere party. He then directly proceeded to lay down his definition of the church, a definition which the other party would not admit; against which indeed they had always protested, as is evident from the writings of Huss; a definition by admitting which the party of Huss would have surrendered all their principles; namely, that by the church is to be understood the body of cardinals under the pope as their head. Master John of Jesenic, who represented the party of Huss, finally yielded, but with the qualifying clause that he and his party accepted the decisions of the church as every faithful Christian ought to accept and understand them. Now by this clause the definition, chosen with a purpose by the other party, was indeed, of itself, rendered impotent; for under the phrase, "such acceptation as every believing Christian is bound to give," was meant to be understood, by those from whom this clause proceeded, that everything was excluded thereby which might stand at variance with their principle, that the sacred Scriptures are the sole determining rule of faith. The commission, who had no other interest in view than that of securing an agreement, and who were ready to * Palacky, III. 1, p. 294. VOL. IX. 2 F welcome any terms of agreement however ambiguously expressed, would be satisfied with this. But looking upon the thing from their own point of view, the other party could not be blamed when they were led, by the same interest which had induced them to propose their narrow definition of the church, to protest against a clause by which their whole object would be defeated. Stanislaus of Znaim and Stephen Paletz declared that this was only a shift, a pretext, under which to conceal discord and disobedience. And in this, judged according to their own point of view, they were right. For two days they vainly disputed on this point. On the third, Paletz and the other doctors who had protested, wholly absented themselves, accusing the commission of weakness and partiality. King Wenceslaus now looked upon the four members of the theological faculty, who by their protest had hindered the compromise, as the promoters of schism, being unfaithful to the pledge under which they had engaged to submit to the decision of the committee; and he deprived them of their places and banished them from the country. Thus fell the party which regarded itself as exclusively the party of the church. Another defeat awaited it. In the senate of Prague the German element had hitherto had the ascendency; and it was, in fact, this element chiefly which resisted, in a decided manner, every tendency to reform; and hence those measures adopted by the senate against the cause of Huss, of which we have spoken before. But king Wenzel was now induced so to alter the relation, that out of the two races, Bohemians and Germans, all the nine members should be chosen into the senate by the king. At the same time a German, who had hitherto been a leader among the opponents of Huss, the senator John Oertel was, for some unknown reason, executed. Thus another victory, if it might be called such, was gained by the Hussite party. But the hatred of the hierarchical party in Bohemia towards the Hussites would only be fanned by such events to more violent flame, and its organs subsequently obtained, by the concatenation of greater events in the progress of church development, an opportunity to exercise their revenge. Stanislaus of Znaim died, it is true, soon afterwards; but Paletz had the satisfaction to appear as |