Page:John Huss, his life, teachings and death, after five hundred years.pdf/269

 called scandalous, yet were they in agreement with the Scriptures and the doctors of the church. If he were shown good reasons for so doing, he would correct them. But, as he wrote to the university of Prague, he refused to do so simply upon the bare authority of the council. They must be shown to be plainly out of accord with the Scriptures—nolui nisi scriptura ostenderet falsitatem. The council, as he wrote at another time, had not attempted to refute him by a single text taken from Scripture or by any other arguments. On the contrary, in its attempts to silence him, it had used threats and deception.

He stuck to the ground that he could not abjure errors he had never held. This was a matter of conscience, and he refused to accept the view presented by those sent to persuade him to abjure on the basis of the council’s supremacy. For him to abjure would have meant a renunciation of false doctrine, whether the charges against him were well taken or not. He denied that there was any merit in submitting to the church.

A final deputation visited Huss, July 5, including Cardinals d’Ailly and Zabarella, the patriarch of Antioch, the archbishop of Milan, the bishop of Riga, and the English bishops of Salisbury and Bath. This influential deputation came by Sigismund’s direction, and was accompanied by the two faithful Hussite nobles, Duba and John of Chlum. Huss was led out of prison to meet the deputies who sought to secure from him a recantation, but in vain. Addressing him, John of Chlum said: “Master, we are laymen and cannot advise you, but if you feel that you have written anything hurtful, do not shrink from being instructed in regard to the charges brought against you. If, however, you do not feel yourself guilty, follow your conscience and do not do anything against it. Do not lie in God’s sight, but stand firm till death in the truth