Page:John Huss, his life, teachings and death, after five hundred years.pdf/144

 The discussion which the indulgence campaign called forth not only constitutes one of the more important events in Huss’s career, but is one of the sources from which we derive a satisfactory conception of his real views. The issue was distinctly stated and Huss’s exact meaning not clouded by any of that uncertainty which arose from the repeated charges which he made at Constance, that his writings were misquoted and his views not accurately stated by his accusers. From the standpoint of the teaching of the church in that age, he was certainly a heretic. He had chosen another foundation for his theology than the mediæval and papal system. He planted himself firmly on the Scriptures as the supreme authority in matters of faith and conduct. He held the teaching of free grace and Christ’s immediate forgiveness, and thus set himself against the mediæval dogma of penance and the necessity of priestly intervention. He denied the pope’s infallibility. He insisted that pardon for sin was not to be bought with money, all papal bulls to the contrary. He enunciated the principle of the lordship of conscience. He asserted preaching to be the chief function of the priesthood.

A most important result of the discussion which John’s bulls aroused was the definite detachment of old friends at the university. The other members of the faculty of theology took sides against him by giving their active support to the bulls and definitely repudiating the teachings of Wyclif. Stanislaus of Znaim and Michael Palecz, friends of his student days, were from this time on arrayed against Huss, and became his determined accusers before the church authorities. At first Palecz had found palpable errors in Tiem’s articles of absolution, but he underwent a change of mind. Palecz, Huss