Page:John Huss by Hastings Rashdall (1879).pdf/34

 thanked the Council for answering so well his intentions in the matter of the safe-conduct, he had apparently persuaded himself that the safe-conduct promised nothing more than protection on the way and a fair hearing, and urged Huss to recant.

At the third congregation, Huss was for the first time allowed something which might be called a hearing.On the former occasions he had merely been exposed to a running fire of questions or reproaches from any member of the Council who chose to insult the accused. But even now he could not make a connected speech: he was permitted to state, but not to defend, his opinions. The Articles extracted from his books were read; and he was allowed to explain, correct, or disown them. But not the slightest attention was paid to his explanations: the charges were not amended, even when proved to be garbled by actual reference to the books from which they were alleged to be extracted. So much, indeed, was his condemnation a foregone conclusion, that the Articles of Charge were framed with incredible carelessness. Well might Cardinal d’Ailly exclaim that the “De Ecclesia” contained heresies far worse than those which appeared in the extracts which had been made from it. In some cases passages to which exception might reasonably be taken, appear in a form in which it is difficult to understand how any one could possibly find fault with them. For instance, Huss had maintained that “if a man be virtuous, whatever he doth, he doth it virtuously; whereas, if he be vicious, whatever he doth, he doth it viciously.” In Article XII. of the accusation, this passage becomes, “A vicious man acts viciously, and a virtuous man acts virtuously.” Although worn out with prolonged suffering, Huss showed his habitual anxiety to let the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth be known about him and his opinions. He corrected the extracts even when the corrections were more damaging than the original Articles. All the Articles, however, whether heretical or orthodox, whether truisms or paradoxes, were alike condemned. It was determined that if the heretic recanted, he should be suffered to live in perpetual imprisonment; that if he remained obstinate, he must die.

A month elapsed between the last appearance of Huss before the congregation, and the day of his formal sentence and its execution. Repeated attempts were made both by secret friends and open enemies to induce him to recant: both alike were in vain. The efforts of the advocates of authority were directed not to proving the truth of the determinations of the Council, but to proving the duty of submitting to them without asking whether they were true or false. In the Middle Ages far more stress was laid upon the duty of blind submission to the Church, than upon