Hus Once More Before the Council.
In the final hearing, on June 8, thirty-nine articles from his books
were brought against Hus, twenty-six of them from his "On the Church."
He was charged with teaching that only the electing grace of God made
one a true member of the Church, not any outward sign or high office.
This God's truth was condemned as false by the Council.
Hus held the Pope a vicar of Christ only as he imitates Christ in his
living; if he lives wickedly, he is the agent of Antichrist.
The prelates looked at one another, shook their heads and laughed. If
Hus was to be burned for only saying that, what did they deserve for
actually imprisoning the Pope?
Hus held the Pope's temporal power came from the (forged) donation of
the Emperor Constantine, not from Christ, and stoutly stuck to it
against the great Cardinal of Cambray.
Hus had spoken and written plainly against the wicked lives of prelates
and popes, and for this he was to be burned, although d'Ailly and Gerson
also had done so, and this very Council had deposed a vile wretch, Pope
John XXIII.
Another heresy of Hus was this: "A heretic ought to be first instructed
kindly, justly, and humbly from the Sacred Scriptures," then he may be
burned.
"All those who give up to the civil sword any innocent man, as the
scribes and Pharisees did Christ," are like the Pharisees.
[Illustration: HUS BEFORE THE COUNCIL, BY BROZIK]
The Prelates felt the thrust. "You mean to condemn the dignitaries of
the Church!" For this they would burn Hus.
Hus said an evil nature cannot do good. In a state of grace, however,
the man, whether he eat or drink or sleep, does everything to the glory
of God. This plain truth of God was damned as heresy!
Hus was charged with calling an unjust excommunication a benediction.
"In truth, I say the same thing now, according to that Scripture, 'They
shall curse, but Thou shalt bless'."
Another heresy ran thus: "If pope, bishop or prelate be in mortal sin,
then is he no longer pope, bishop or prelate." Hus defended it by asking
pointedly: "If John XXIII was a true pope, why did you depose him from
his office?"
Hus said the Church did not need an earthly head, a pope; Christ, the
true head, can rule His church better without the popes, who were often
monsters of iniquity. Shouts of derision!
Hus calmly added the telling point: "Surely the Church in the times of
the Apostles was infinitely better ruled than now. At present we have no
such head at all."
He could not be answered, and so he was derided.
An Englishman correctly pointed out that this was the teaching of
Wiclif. That was ample to damn Hus as a heretic.
Pierre d'Ailly said to the Emperor Sigismund: "Almost all the articles
are based on Wiclif, so that the Englishman John Stokes was right in
saying Hus had no right to boast of these teachings as his property,
since they all demonstrably belonged to Wiclif."
In order to embitter the Emperor against Hus, they tried to show his
teachings to be dangerous to the civil government. Finally d'Ailly
advised Hus to submit to the Council. Hus again said he was open to
conviction. He only asked for a hearing to explain and prove his
doctrines. If his reasons and Bible proofs were not sufficient, he would
be ready to be taught better.
The Cardinal said: "You have only to perform the three conditions
required of you--to confess your errors, to promise not to teach them
hereafter, and to renounce all the articles charged against you."
Sigismund also again urged Hus to submit, and said, in effect: "Recant
now, or die."
Hus humbly but firmly refused to do anything against his conscience; he
asked for proof from God's word, then he would submit.
"I stand before the judgment of God; He will judge me and you in
righteousness, as we deserve it."
As Hus was led back to prison, John of Chlum, a Bohemian nobleman, shook
hands with him, just as Frundsberg comforted Luther at Worms.
Sigismund hounded on the prelates to make an end of Hus, even if he
recanted. This lost him the Bohemian crown for ever.