the saints since he was accused of contending against the veneration of the saints, their intercession, the veneration of Mary, he vindicates himself, as he could with truth and propriety do, against all such accusations. With regard to several of these doctrines, he was not conscious as yet of the contradiction in which they stood with his biblical principles. All this would, in time, have more clearly developed itself to his understanding if he had been permitted to continue his labours for a longer period; and as to that matter, his opponents may doubtless have seen, more distinctly than he himself did, to what his principles were leading. With regard to several other points, which also had something to rest upon in the purely Christian consciousness, he never perhaps would have been led to oppose the doctrine of the church even by a still further development of his principles; for, in defining the doctrine of the community of saints, a doctrine which he also believed was taught in the New Testament (Eph. iv. 3, 15; 1 Cor. iii. 4 ff.), he says: "This communion of the saints is a participation in all the good which belongs to all the members of the mystical body of Christ, so long as they are found in a state of grace.' From this he argues that the glorified saints assist and sustain the elect on the earth, take joy in their repentance and their progress, just as the saints on earth assist those who are passing through the refining process of the purgatorial fire, with their prayers, their good works, their fasts and alms, so that they are more speedily delivered out of this state and brought up to their heavenly home. "And as I heartily believe," he goes on to say, "in this community of saints, and have now publicly avowed it with my lips, so I entreat the most gracious Lord Jesus Christ, who never refuses his grace to the truly penitent, that he would forgive the sin of those who, privately or publicly, have said of me that I denied the doctrine of the intercession of saints, whether in relation to those who go on pilgrimages, or those who have died in grace." He argues this from the fellowship of all the members of the body of Christ with one another, where one sustains the other; adducing as proof those cases in Scripture where the centurion's intercession with Christ had benefited his servant, and where the Syropheni

cian woman had helped her daughter, and then goes on to argue: "If a saint on earth, still affected with sin, can benefit another believer and the whole church by his intercession, how foolish it would be to say that one who is present with Christ in glory could not do the same!" The second discourse relates to the restoration of peace. He distinguishes three kinds of peace,-peace with God, with ourselves, and with our neighbour. The first he considers to be the foundation of all other peace. He then makes a like threefold distinction in speaking of the assembly which had been convoked for the restoration of peace, describing peace with God as having its foundation in supreme love to God in the church; peace with ourselves as consisting in this, that the church should govern itself in holiness; peace with our neighbour, that it should satisfy every neighbour in all that is requisite for his eternal welfare. To deficiency in the first, he traces all failure in respect to the last. The worldliness of the church he designates as the ground of corruption and schism, giving special prominence to the corruption of the clergy. The evil was bad enough already, when they failed in that which constitutes the chief end of their vocation, to hold forth the word of God to the laity. When priests neglected this, they were already angels of darkness, clothing themselves like angels of light; servants of Antichrist, not servants of Christ; and their neglect to study the divine word, their want of fidelity to that word, was the source of all the other corruptions, which he then goes on to portray.* Again, as Huss had been accused of rejecting the authority of church traditions and of the ecclesiastical laws, of disturbing the foundations of ecclesiastical and civil order, it was his wish to explain, in a discourse before the council, the sense of the propositions really expressed by him and perverted by his opponents. This he did in his discourse on the sufficiency of the law of Christ for the guidance of the church,† where we shall recognise a great deal that corresponds with the doctrines of Matthias of Janow. He begins with saying: "I, an

*De Pace, Opp. I. fol. 52, seq.

† De Sufficientia Legis Christi ad Regendam Ecclesiam,

ignorant man, being about to speak before the wise of all the world, entreat you by the mercy of Jesus Christ, true God and true man, that you would calmly listen to me. For I know from the words of Nicodemus (John vii. 51) that the law judgeth no man before it hear him and know what he doeth. I, the poorest of priests, will however endeavour, as I have aforetime endeavoured, to carry out the law of Christ in myself, by taking heed, so far as the grace of God enables me, against revenge, envy, and vain-glory; since from my heart I strive only for the glory of God, the confession of his truth, the banishment of all evil thoughts against my neighbour, and the defence of the law of Christ. For I am bound carefully, humbly, and patiently to defend the most excellent law of Christ, as Christ himself and his disciples did the same." "As I have often said before," he adds, " so now too I solemnly protest, that I never have and never will pertinaciously affirm anything which is contrary to a truth of faith. I hold firmly all the truths of faith, as I have ever firmly held them and am resolved that I will ever firmly hold them; so that, rather than defend an error opposed to them, I would prefer, hoping in the Lord and with his help, to suffer a terrible punishment of death; nay, sustained by the grace of God, I am ready to give up this poor life for the law of Christ. As I have in my academical answer and acts and in my public preaching often submitted, so now too I submit and will in the future humbly submit myself to the order of this most holy law, to the atonement by the same, and to obedience to it; ready to retract anything whatever that I have said, when I am taught that it is contrary to truth." In the prosecution of his theme he takes notice of an objection, namely that, according to the above supposition of the sufficiency of the law of Christ, all other laws would be superfluous, and ought therefore to be done away with. He disposes of this objection by referring all other laws to this one law, by holding that they are to be regarded only as dependent on the latter, their force consisting in their harmony and correspondence with the same. All other laws were, in their principle, contained implicite in this law, were only the evolution of this law, or simply designed to establish and promote its claims in all circumstances and relations;

66

therefore, subservient to it. "Human laws," says he, are included in the divine law; nay, they are themselves the law of Christ in so far as they are subservient to this law." Of the "canon law," he remarks that it was partly derived from the divine law, and partly akin to the civil law, and included in both these parts. Civil laws had been created by occasion of the sins of mankind, for the purpose of securing forcibly the state of justice in the commonwealth, so far as it concerned earthly goods; while the evangelical law was designed for the preservation of goods in the kingdom of grace. Accordingly he is of the opinion that everything else should be made subservient to Christianity; because the trades, professions, and liberal arts should all be regulated with reference to the law of Christ as the highest end, should be subservient to that law; the trades and professions, in preparing what is requisite for the supply of bodily wants; the liberal arts, in promoting the understanding of the holy Scriptures.* But the expectation of Huss, that he would have liberty to speak freely before the assembled council was not fulfilled. The intrigues of his enemies; the tickets sent about, by his friends or his enemies, announcing that he would appear and preach in public on a certain Sunday;† the fear that Huss might escape from Constance, a rumour to this effect having already got abroad; the uncompromising

* De Suffic. Leg. Christi, Opp. I. fol. 44, 2, seq.

† It was an announcement of this sort, that whoever would come to church to hear him on this particular Sunday should have a ducat. Master Cardinalis of Reinstein, who reports the fact, does not himself decide whether this was done by a friend or an enemy: Alias nescitur, an amicus vel inimicus heri intimavit in ecclesia, quia Hus dominica proxima prædicabit ad clerum in ecclesia Constantiensi, et cuilibet præsenti dabit unum ducatum. Opp. I. fol. 58, 1; Ep. 4. And among the articles of complaint afterwards brought against Huss, one was that he had preached openly. V. d. Hardt, IV. p. 213.

It is plain how this rumour arose when we compare what Palacky (III. 1, p. 321 note) has communicated from the manuscript report of Peter of Mladenowic, the freshest and most trustworthy witness, who was at that time in the vicinity of Huss. A hay-waggon covered with canvas had left the city and afterwards returned without the covering. Hence it was subsequently noised abroad that Huss had been concealed under the canvas. The canonical Ulrich of Reichenthal, and the courtmartial Dacher, in their histories of the council of Constance, are cited as witnesses of the flight of Huss. To say nothing of the confusion

zeal with which he unfolded and explained his principles before all who visited him in his place of abode: all these things coöperated to bring it about that, on the 28th of November, 1414, Huss was deprived of his liberty.

On that day, towards noon, an embassy from the pope and cardinals, consisting of the bishops of Augsburg and Trent, the burgomaster of Constance, and the lord Hans of Baden, visited Huss, with whom his faithful friend the knight of Chlum happened then to be present. The envoys told him it was now agreed to give him the hearing which he had so often demanded, and he was invited to follow the embassy into the pope's palace. The knight of Chlum, who at once saw through the motives of the whole arrangement, rose with indignation and exclaimed: Such a violation of the honour of the emperor and of the holy Roman empire was not to be tolerated. The emperor had given his own word to Huss that he should obtain a free hearing at the council. He himself, who had received it

of dates in the former, it is easy to see how he may have been deceived by the rumour; and their histories, having been drawn up long after the time of the events, are on this account the less worthy to be relied on as vouchers for facts. The silence of Huss and of his accusers with regard to any such event is assuredly the most certain testimony of his innocence. As everything was raked up which could possibly be made use of against him, as there was so great a desire especially to smooth over the affair of his imprisonment, they certainly would not have neglected to mention any such attempt of Huss to escape, if such a thing had in any way been possible. In particular, his violent enemy, the already-mentioned bishop John of Leitomysl, who spared no pains in bringing together facts to justify his conduct towards Huss, would never have omitted to take notice of this flight. But all he has to say against Huss in this regard is, that he preached publicly at Constance. But even this could be disputed by the knight of Chlum, who solemnly affirmed that Huss had never left his quarters during the whole time of his abode in Constance. He denies, quod ipse Hus a tempore adventus sui ad hanc civitatem usque ad diem et tempus captivitatis suæ unum passum extra domum hospitii exiisset (V. d. Hardt, IV. 213). It is plain, therefore-and the same thing has been already shown by Palacky in the passages cited on a former page-how entirely without foundation the story about the attempt of Huss to escape is represented by Aschbach, as a credible one in his History of the Emperor Sigismund (II. 32); not to mention that he describes it as having occurred at a time when it could not have occurred, viz., in the interval between the appearance of Huss before the papal chancery and his return to his quarters; for, as we have seen, no such return ever took place.