Page:John Huss by Hastings Rashdall (1879).pdf/41

 counsels were precepts; they were bound, others were only encouraged, to aim at “perfection.”

His view of the obligation of the Priesthood to obey the Evangelical counsels in all the strictness of the letter, led him into a kind of Quakerism. He taught that the clergy might not under any circumstances engage in war, or in litigation for temporal matters, or take an oath. We have alluded to his defence of Nicholas of Welesnowicz, who refused to take an oath before the Inquisition. And he acted upon the same principle himself by refusing to make answer upon oath, though required to do so by the Archbishop, to the Articles exhibited against him in 1409.

But the very point on which Huss is most sacerdotal,—his doctrine as to the obligation of the Clergy, and of them only, to obey the Law of Christ in all its strictness,—was the foundation of his anti-hierarchical doctrines. The powers and rights of the Priest were, as he held, so indefeasibly theirs that a Priest “living according to the law of Christ, and having a knowledge of the Scripture,” might not lawfully cease from preaching or administering the Sacraments, in obedience to the commands of any ecclesiastical authority whatsoever. He ascribes the origin of the Papacy solely to the supposed donation of Constantine: he declares that at some future time the Church may be ruled without a Pope or Cardinals, as was actually the case during the first three hundred years of its existence. He denies, in short, as an historical fact, the Primacy of S. Peter, and the jus divinum of the primacy of his successors. The commands of the Pope are only to be obeyed when in the judgment of the person commanded they are in accordance with the law of Christ. “The faithful disciple of Christ,” he says, “is bound to consider whence a command given by the Pope is derived (quomodo emanat), whether it is expressly the command of any Apostle, or of the law of Christ, or has its foundation in the law of Christ; and when he has satisfied himself of that, he is bound reverently and humbly to obey a command of this kind. If, however, he truly satisfies himself that the command of the Pope is contrary to a command of Christ, or tends in any way to the hurt of the Church, then he is bound boldly to resist it, lest he be a participator in the crime by consent.”

The power of Bishops Huss does seem to place upon a some-