Page:John Huss by Hastings Rashdall (1879).pdf/31

 into four nations, and every question was to be decided by a majority of nations. Thus the seven representatives of England enjoyed a voting power equal to that of the whole herd of Italian Prelates and Papal Chamberlains. It was determined that every matter to be brought before the Council should be discussed first by each nation separately, and then by an assembly of all the nations together. The solemn Sessions in the Cathedral, with their elaborate introductory ceremonial, merely ratified what had been already determined upon in the informal Congregations.

The Council of Constance represents the fleeting triumph of Gallicanism. But in spite of the facility which it showed in breaking with the traditions of the past, it soon became apparent that a Reform of the Church, or even such a reform of the morals of the clergy as the Church of Rome did succeed in effecting in the seventeenth century, was as little to be expected, without strong pressure from without, of a priestly Democracy or a priestly Aristocracy, as of a priestly Absolutism. The theologians of Constance might alter the distribution of sacerdotal authority; but they were as firmly attached to the maintenance of that authority, they were as little disposed to favour any questioning of the power of the priesthood over the souls of men, as the Franciscans of that day or the Jesuits of this. John Huss stood as small a chance of obtaining fair treatment from the Reformers who asserted the superiority of Councils over Popes and the legislative equality of Bishops and Priests, as he would have done in the Court of a Cardinal who lived upon simony and judicial bribery in his Palace at Avignon or at Rome. Various efforts were, indeed, made to induce Huss to agree to some kind of compromise. But they were prompted by a conviction that Huss’ submission in any form would have been a greater triumph for the Council than his execution. Huss never showed the smallest disposition for compromise, even where many honest men would have had no scruples in yielding. He refused to abjure even those opinions which he had never held: and he was probably not wrong in thinking that such an abjuration would have been construed into an admission that he had held them.

While Huss was a prisoner in the Dominican dungeon, the effluvia from the sewer had brought on a severe attack of fever and vomiting. It was feared that the victim might die before his time; the Pope sent his own physician to attend him, and he was moved to a less noisome cell. But the misfortunes of the Pope altered his position for the worse: with the rest of the Papal retinue, the gaolers followed their master in his ignominious flight. The Emperor transferred Huss to the custody of the Bishop of the diocese, who sent him to his castle of Gottleben, three miles from the town. The Papal “Clerks of the Chamber” had shown their prisoner some kindness: now he was kept in chains day and night; and the hemorrhage and racking headache which the close 4em