LEY, CHICHE- they all agreed, that to examine the pretensions of the three Abp. Cant, popes, would only serve to perplex the business and keep the differences on foot. The true way, therefore, of promoting the union of Christendom, was to oblige the competitors to resign their claim, and to pitch upon a fourth person, whose election might not be liable to any dispute. Now, though John XXIII. had convened the synod, and promised to quit the popedom, provided Gregory and Benedict would do so too; yet afterwards, when the matter came to the test, he, unwilling to perform his engagement, threw off his pontifical habit, and making his and the two escape out of Constance in the night, retired into the territories of the duke of Austria. The synod, highly resenting posed by the the misbehaviour of this pope, drew up a charge of maladminisConstance, tration, and proceeding through the usual forms of trial, pronounced the sentence of deposition against him. John, finding himself in no condition to oppose the council, submitted to their discipline, confirmed their sentence, and resigned the chair. Pope John other anti popes de Concil. Labbe et Cossart, tom. 12. col. 5. Du Pin's New Eccles. The council votes by nations. To proceed. It was debated at the opening of the council, what persons had a right to give their vote. Some affirmed, that none but bishops and abbots ought to be allowed this privilege. Against this opinion the cardinals of Cambray and St. Mark produced records, and alleged reasons, to prove that curates, doctors, and deputies of absent prelates ought to be admitted to give their votes; and that in disputes relating to schism, and where the peace of the Church was concerned, the ambassadors of princes were to be received as members of the assembly. After this, the question was put, whether the votes should xv. chap. 2. be reckoned by single persons, or nations. It had formerly been the custom to refer this matter to the poll; but because the poor bishops of Italy seemed to outnumber the prelates from all other countries, it was resolved, that the Fathers of the council should be ranged under five nations; viz. Italy, France, Germany, England, and Spain; that the matters proposed in the council should be examined and determined by the plurality of voices in each nation, and by the cardinals in their college; and that after the business had passed through these committees, a report should be made to the house, or full council, and the decrees formed upon the plurality of the votes of the nations above-mentioned. Ibid. pope. V. the council to this point. This synod gave a terrible blow to the pope's supremacy, HENRY declared the authority of the council above his holiness, and subjected the pope, both with reference to faith and manners, 642. A general to the sentence of a general council. Now this decree, as the council supelearned Du Pin argues, is not to take place only in a time of rior to the schism, or when the pope's title is questionable; but reaches to all other cases: as appears, first, because the terms of the decree are general: they import, that all Christendom, even the pope himself, is obliged to obey the council; that this submission ought to extend not only to the business of schism, but also to the reformation of the Church in its head and members, to the decision of points of doctrine, and the regulations for discipline and manners. Secondly, because the The sense of Fathers, in their decree, do not proceed upon any single view, cleared as or point their decision only upon the service of this particular council for their intention was to make a standing provision for the rights and liberties of the Church. Thirdly, that this was the meaning of the Fathers, is evident by the comprehensive penalties against all that should disobey the council, of what condition or dignity soever. Fourthly, this point is farther proved by the ground upon which these Fathers settled their decree and asserted the supremacy of the council. They prove the authority of the councils above the pope, first, from its advantage in representing the Church; and secondly, from its infallibility. Now these marks of preference and privilege apply to all general councils, without any restraints to time or place. And lastly, the decree is evidently to be interpreted in this sense, because the council owns John XXIII. Ibid. for a lawful and unquestionable pope, and yet sits in judgment upon him, and proceeds to deprivation. And to give the reader farther satisfaction, I shall translate the decree, which I think will put the matter beyond all question. The words are these: "The synod being lawfully assembled under the assistance of the Holy Spirit, constituting a general council, and representing the catholic Church militant, has an immediate authority from Christ. To which synodical authority all persons, of what degree, order, or quality soever, (the papal dignity not excepted,) are bound to submit in things relating Concil. Costo faith, and the extirpation of schism, and likewise with refer- col. 12. ence to a general reformation of manners in the Church of Sess. 4. God, both in head and members." sart. tom. 2. Concil. CHICHE LEY, A. D. 1415. The authority of this decree cannot be contested, if we conAbp. Cant. sider it was passed in full council after the matter had been previously debated and settled by the committee of the nations. As to the protestation of the cardinals, that dissent does not concern this article, but has a particular regard to the person of John XXIII. In short, all the decrees of the council of Constance, being confirmed by John XXIII. in the twelfth session, and by Martin V. in the forty-fourth and forty-fifth, without any exception; the case standing thus, there is no reason to question that this decree was one of the principal articles past under the general approbation, and consequently carries all the force a pope and council could give it. Du Pin, ibid. Wickliffs tenets cen his person In the eighth session of this council, forty-five assertions sured, and formerly held by Wickliff were examined and condemned; some as heretical, and others only as erroneous; but these propositions have been already mentioned in our English synods. anathematized. Concil. tom. 12. col. 45. et deinc. John Huss After this censure of Wickliff's tenets, the council proceeds to anathematize his person, and stigmatize his memory. And to make their sentence the more solemn, they ordered his corpse, in case it could be distinguished, should be taken up and thrown out of consecrated ground. John Huss had an invitation from the pope and emperor to repair to the council, and make a report of his belief; and to comes to the deliver him from apprehensions of rigour, the emperor granted has a safe him a safe-conduct, both for his coming and return. council, and conduct from the emperor. Concil. tom. 12. col. 129. et deinc. When he appeared at Constance, there were thirty propositions extracted from his books, and condemned by the council. Most of these tenets were the same with those defended by Wickliff; particularly the twenty-fifth declares against the Fathers' censure of Wickliff's doctrine; and the thirtieth, to mention no more of them, affirms, "That no layman can have any civil dominion, nor any prelate any spiritual authority or jurisdiction, while under the guilt of mortal sin." After the censure of these thirty propositions, the Fathers Thirty of his brought in a farther charge against John Huss. The fourth propositions and ninth articles set forth, that he had taught and abetted Wickliff's doctrine in the pulpit and schools of the university of Prague. The ninth article charges him with raising and abetting an insurrection in the city of Prague, and that this censured. commotion was carried on to plundering, murder, sacrilege, and HENRY other horrid excesses of violence. A V. charge The seventeenth and eighteenth articles import his denial of 4 farther transubstantiation, and that a priest in mortal sin can neither drawn consecrate, ordain, nor baptize. In the twenty-first article he is said to affirm, that the court of Rome, and the Church in that communion, was the synagogue of Satan; and in the twenty-ninth he is accused of asserting, that the laity were bound to take away the temporalities and estates of the clergy. And to transcribe but one more: the thirty-second taxes him with maintaining in the pulpit, that none but God had any authority to excommunicate him. These articles and several others are reported to have been made good against him by witnesses in the council. : up against him. Id. col. 131. et deinc. John Huss, in his defence, denied some of these articles, 643. explained others, and defended many of them. For instance: His defence, he denied his ever having maintained that the substance of material bread remained in the eucharist after consecration. As to his abetting the errors of Wickliff, he answered, he did not know whether Wickliff had taught any heterodoxies in England and that he did not oppose the condemnation of Wickliff's books by the archbishop of Prague upon any other account, excepting that this prelate had condemned some articles which he thought maintainable. One of these censured articles was, that pope Sylvester and Constantine had done ill in endowing the Church. And here Huss declared himself of Wickliff's opinion. As to the assertion, that a priest in mortal sin can neither consecrate nor baptize, he qualified this proposition by saying, that those moral disadvantages made him administer the sacraments unworthily. As for tithes, he would allow them no better name than alms, though he granted the laity were obliged to pay them. And, touching Wickliff's tenets, he declared he had never obstinately maintained any of them; but he could not approve their condemnation without evidence from Holy Scripture. At last, upon his refusing to renounce his opinions, and give cent. xv. chap. 7. satisfaction to the council, he was condemned as an incorri- He is progible heretic, ordered to be degraded, and delivered to the heretic, desecular power. This sentence was immediately executed, and livered to the lay he was put into the emperor's hand, who sent him to the duke power, and of Bavaria. In short, his books were first burnt, and after- July 7. Du Pin, nounced a burnt. Ibid. LEY, p. 119. CHICHE- wards himself at the stake. He maintained his opinions to Abp. Cant. the last moment. Before I take leave of this affair, I must add, that Huss denied the charge of sedition, or that he was at all concerned in the disturbances in Bohemia. He was a person of learning and character in the university of Prague, Id. chap. 7. and had done the students, his countrymen, great service: for, having an interest with king Wenceslaus, he procured a revocation of the privileges of other nations in favour of the Bohemians. As for the burning of Huss, after the security of a safe-conduct, that breach of faith must be charged upon the emperor: for it was from his majesty, and not from the council, that this protection was given. Jerome of Prague seized, and carried to the council of Constance. While John Huss was imprisoned, and some months before he suffered, the council sent a citation to Jerome of Prague. This Jerome was one of Huss's intimate friends, and preached the same doctrine. He had travelled very much, and received the degree of master of arts at the universities of Prague, Cologne, and Heidelberg. He likewise made a voyage into England, where he transcribed several of Wickliff's books, Id. p. 121. and carried them to Prague. Upon his coming to Constance, and understanding how roughly Huss had been treated, he quitted the town, demanded a fuller safe-conduct, and endeavoured to make his escape: but before he could reach Bohemia, he was stopped by the officers of John, son to Clement, count Palatine, and carried to Constance and imprisoned. his tenets. After the execution of John Huss, Jerome of Prague was called upon to abjure his errors, to which he consented, and drew up a recantation, which he read before the council. In He abjures this paper he renounced the errors of Wickliff and Huss, declared his agreement with the doctrine of the Roman Church in every point, and owned the justice of the censure passed Id. p. 124. against John Huss. Notwithstanding this retractation, he was remanded to prison, where he afterwards repented his submission, as we shall see by and by. Concil. tom. 12. col. 191. In the mean time, I shall relate the censure of the council passed upon the proposition "quilibet tyrannus," &c. Upon this occasion the Fathers take notice, they were informed, "That several scandalous tenets, subversive of order and civil government, had been lately maintained: amongst the rest, this proposition had been asserted, that it was both lawful and meritorious for any subject or vassal to kill a tyrant by surprise, |