CHAPTER VIII.

THE HUSSITES.

The Council of Constance, after eighteen months of labor, had disposed

of Huss and Jerome. The methods employed had been the only ones known to

the Church, the only ones possible to the council. Two centuries earlier

the corruptions of the Church were recognized as the cause and excuse of

the revolt of the Albigenses and Waldenses, but the revolt was

ruthlessly put down without an effective effort to remove the cause. Now

again unchecked corruption had produced another revolt and the same

policy was followed--to leave untouched the profitable abuses and punish

those who refused to tolerate them, and who rejected the principles out

of which such abuses inevitably sprang. The council could do no

otherwise; the traditions of procedure established in the subjugation of

the Albigenses and the succeeding heresies furnished the only precedent

and machinery through which it could act. Again a religious revolt had

been provoked, and again that revolt was nursed and intensified till its

only recognized cure lay in the sword of the crusader.

The prelates and doctors assembled in Constance could not hesitate for a

moment as to their duty. Canon law and inquisitorial practice had long

established the principle that the only way to meet heresy--and

opposition to the constituted authorities of the Church was heresy--was

by force, as soon as argument was found ineffective. The disobedient son

of the Church who would not submit was to be cast out, after due

admonition, and casting out meant that he should have in this world a

wholesome foretaste of the wrath to come, in order to serve as an

edifying example. Accordingly the council addressed itself, as a matter

of course, to the task of widening the breach with Bohemia, of

consolidating and intensifying the indignation caused by the execution

of Huss and Jerome, and to stigmatizing as heresy the belief which was

now professed by the majority of Bohemians.

The council had proposed to follow up the execution of Huss by an

immediate application of inquisitorial methods to the whole Bohemian

kingdom, but, at the instance of John, Bishop of Litomysl, it had

commenced by the expedient of giving notice in its letter of July 26,

1415. This, as we have seen, only added to the exasperation of Bohemia,

and on August 31 it issued to Bishop John letters commissioning him with

inquisitorial powers to suppress all heresy in Bohemia; if he could not

perform his office in safety elsewhere he was authorized to summon all

suspect to his episcopal seat at Litomysl. Wenceslas dutifully issued to

him a safe-conduct, but the irate Bohemians were already ravaging his

territories, and he consulted prudence in not venturing his person

there. The canons evidently could not be enforced amid a people so

exasperated; so, on September 23, after listening to the recantation of

Jerome, the council tried a further expedient, by a decree appointing

John, Patriarch of Constantinople, and John, Bishop of Senlis, as

commissioners (or, rather, inquisitors) to try all Hussite heretics.

They were empowered to summon all heretics or suspects to appear before

them in the Roman curia by public edict, to be posted in the places

frequented by such heretics, or in the neighboring territories if it

were dangerous to attempt it at the residences of the accused, and such

edicts might be either general in character or special. This was

strictly according to rule, and if the object had been to secure the

legal condemnation _in absentia_ of the mass of the Bohemian nation, it

was well adapted for the purpose; but as the nation was seething in

revolt, and was venerating Huss and Jerome with as much ardor as was

shown in Rome to St. Peter and St. Paul, its only effect was to

strengthen the hands of the extremists. This was seen when, on December

30, 1415, an address was delivered to the council, signed by four

hundred and fifty Bohemian nobles, reiterating their complaints of the

execution of Huss, and withdrawing themselves from all obedience. This

hardy challenge was accepted February 20, 1416, by citing all the

signers and other supporters of Huss and Wickliff to appear before the

council within fifty days and answer to the charge of heresy, in default

of which they were to be proceeded against as contumacious. As it was

not safe to serve this citation on them personally, or, indeed,

anywhere in Bohemia, it was ordered to be affixed on the church doors at

Constance, Ratisbon, Vienna, and Passau. This was followed up with all

the legal forms; the citations were affixed to the church doors, and

record made in Constance May 5, in Passau May 3, in Vienna May 10, and

in Ratisbon June 14, 21, and 24. On June 3 the offenders were declared

to be in contumacy, and on September 4 the further prosecution of the

matter was intrusted to John of Constantinople.[547]

Here the affair seems to have dropped, for it had long been evident that

the inquisitorial methods were of no avail when the accused constituted

the great body of a nation. As early as March 27, 1416, the council had,

without waiting to see the result of its judicial proceedings, resolved

to appeal to force, if yet there was sufficient zeal for orthodoxy in

Bohemia to render such appeal successful. The fanatic John of Litomysl

was armed with legatine powers, and despatched with letters to the lords

of Hazemburg, John of Michaelsburg, and other barons known as opponents

of the popular cause. The council recited in moving terms its patience

and tenderness in dealing with Huss, who had perished merely through his

own hardness of heart. In spite of this, his followers had addressed to

the council libellous and defamatory letters, affording a spectacle at

once horrible and ludicrous. Heresy is constantly spreading and

contaminating the land, priests and monks are despoiled, expelled,

beaten, and slain. The barons are therefore summoned, in conjunction

with the legate, to banish and exterminate all these persecutors,

regardless of friendship and kinship. Bishop John's mission was a

failure, in spite of letters written by Sigismund, March 21 and 30, in

which he thanked the Catholic nobles for their devotion, and warned the

Hussite magnates that, if they persisted, Christendom would be banded

against them in a crusade. The University of Prague responded, May 23,

with a public declaration, certifying to the unblemished orthodoxy and

supereminent merits of Huss. His whole life spent among them had been

without a flaw; his learning and eloquence had been equalled by his

charity and humility; he was in all things a man of surpassing sanctity,

who sought to restore the Church to its primitive virtue and simplicity.

Jerome, also, whom the university seems to have supposed already

executed, was similarly lauded for his learning and strict Catholic

orthodoxy, and was declared to have in death triumphed gloriously over

his enemies. In this the university represented with moderation the

prevailing opinion in Bohemia. The more earnest disciples did not

hesitate to declare that the Passion of Christ was the only martyrdom

fit to be compared with that of Huss.[548]

There was evidently no middle term which could reconcile conflicting

opinions so firmly entertained; and, as the Catholic nobles of Bohemia

could not be stimulated to undertake a devastating civil war, the

council naturally turned to Sigismund. In December, 1416, a doleful

epistle was addressed to him, complaining that the execution of Huss and

Jerome, in place of repressing heresy, had rendered it more violent than

ever. As though men condemned to Satan by the Church were the chosen of

God, the two heretics were venerated as saints and martyrs, their

pictures shrined in the churches, and their names invoked in masses. The

faithful clergy were driven out, and their lot rendered more miserable

than that of Jews. The barons and nobles refuse obedience to the

mandates of the council, and will not allow them to be published.

Communion in both elements is taught to be necessary to salvation, and

is everywhere practised. Sigismund is therefore requested to do his

duty, and reduce by force these rebellious heretics. Sigismund replied

that he had forwarded the document to Wenceslas, and that if the latter

had not power to suppress the heretics he would assist him with all his

force. Sigismund was in no position to undertake the task, but after

waiting for nine months he saw an opportunity of attacking his brother,

who had been utterly powerless to control the storm. In a circular

letter of September 3, 1417, addressed to the faithful in Bohemia, he

drew a moving picture of the excesses committed on the Bohemian clergy,

compelled by Neronian tortures to abjure their faith. His brother was

suspected of favoring the heretics, as no one could conceive that such

wickedness could be committed under so powerful a king without his

connivance, and the council had decided to proceed against him, but had

consented to delay at the instance of Sigismund, who for three years had

been strenuously endeavoring to avert the prosecution. He warns every

one, in conclusion, not to aid the heresy, but to exert themselves for

its suppression.[549]

Shortly after this, November 11, 1417, the weary schism was closed by

the election to the papacy of Martin V. Under the impulsion of a capable

and resolute pontiff, who, as Cardinal Ottone Colonna, had, in 1411,

condemned and excommunicated Huss, the reunited Church pressed eagerly

forward to render the conflict inevitable. In February, 1418, the

council published a series of twenty-four articles as its ultimatum.

King Wenceslas must swear to suppress the heresy of Wickliff and Huss.

Minute directions were given to restore the old order of things

throughout Bohemia; priests and Catholics who had been driven out were

to be reinstated and compensated; image and relic worship to be resumed,

and the rites of the Church observed. All infected with heresy were to

abjure it, while their leading doctors, John Jessenitz, Jacobel of Mies,

Simon of Rokyzana, and six others, were to betake themselves to Rome for

trial. Communion in both elements was to be specially abjured, and all

who held the doctrines of Wickliff and Huss, or regarded Huss and Jerome

as holy men, were to be burned as relapsed heretics; that is, without

opportunity of recantation or hope of pardon. Finally, every one was

required to lend assistance to the episcopal officials when called upon,

under pain of punishment as fautors of heresy. It was simply the

application of existing laws, as we have so many times already seen them

brought to bear on offending communities. To enforce it, Sigismund

promised to visit the rebellious region with four bishops and an

inquisitor, and to burn all who would not recant.[550]

This was speedily followed, February 22, 1418, by a bull of Martin V.,

addressed to the prelates and inquisitors, not only of Bohemia and

Moravia, but of the surrounding territories, Passau, Salzburg, Ratisbon,

Bamberg, Misnia, Silesia, and Poland. The pope expressed his grief and

surprise that the heretics had not been brought to repentance by the

miserable deaths of Huss and Jerome, but had been excited by the devil

to yet greater sins. The prelates and inquisitors were ordered to track

them out and deliver them to the secular arm; and such as proved

themselves remiss in the work were to be removed, and replaced with more

energetic successors. Secular potentates were commanded to seize and

hold in chains all heretics, and to punish them duly when convicted, and

a long series of instructions was given as to trials, penalties, and

confiscations, in strict accordance with the inquisitorial practice

which had so long been current. If this was intended to give countenance

to Sigismund's promised expedition it proved useless, for the royal

promise ended as Sigismund's were wont to do, and the next we hear of

him is a letter of December, 1418, to Wenceslas, threatening that

unlucky monarch with a crusade if he shall not suppress heresy.[551]

The glimpse into the condition of Bohemia afforded by these documents

is, perhaps, somewhat highly colored, yet on the whole not incorrect.

The kingdom was almost wholly withdrawn from obedience to the Church,

although the German miners in the mountains of Kuttenberg were already

slaying the native heretics. The Wickliffite doctrines adopted by Huss

were triumphant, and the pressure of central authority being removed,

men were naturally using the unaccustomed liberty to develop further and

further the ruling hostility to the sacerdotal system. Utraquism, or

communion in both elements, had been received with a frenzy of welcome

which seems almost inexplicable; it aroused universal enthusiasm, which

was only stimulated by the interdict pronounced on it by Archbishop

Conrad, November 1, 1415, and repeated February 1, 1416. When, in 1417,

the University of Prague issued a solemn declaration in its favor and

pronounced void any human ordinance modifying the command of Christ and

the custom of the early Church, it speedily became the distinguishing

mark which separated the Hussite from the Catholic. Other innovations

had already been introduced, and it was impossible that all should

agree on the bounds to be set between conservatism and progress. As

early as 1416 Christann of Prachatitz remonstrated with Wenceslas

Coranda for denying purgatory and the utility of prayers for the dead

and the suffrages of saints, for refusing adoration to the Virgin, for

casting out relics and images, for administering the Eucharist to

newly-baptized infants, for discarding all rites and ceremonies, and

reducing the Church to the simplicity of primitive times. Others taught

that divine service could be celebrated anywhere as well as in

consecrated churches; that baptism could be performed by laymen in ponds

and running streams. Already there was forming the sect which, in

carrying out the views of Wickliff, came to be known as Taborites. The

more conservative element, which adopted the name of Calixtins, or

Utraquists, satisfied with what had been acquired, endeavored to set

bounds to the zeal which threatened to remove all the ancient landmarks.

Parties were beginning to range themselves, and on January 25, 1417,

probably not long before its declaration in favor of Utraquism, the

University issued a letter reciting that there were frequent disputes as

to the existence of purgatory and the use of benedictions and other

church observances; to put an end to these it pronounced obligatory on

all to believe in purgatory and in the utility of suffrages, prayers,

and alms for the dead, of images of Christ and the saints, of incensing,

aspersions, bell-ringing, the kiss of peace, of benediction of the holy

font, salt, water, wax, fire, palms, eggs, cheese, and other eatables.

Any one teaching otherwise was not to be listened to until he should

prove the truth of his doctrine to the satisfaction of the University.

In September, 1418, it was obliged to renew the declaration, with the

addition of condemning the doctrines which pronounced against all oaths,

judicial executions, and sacraments administered by sinful priests,

showing that Waldensian tenets were making rapid progress among the

Taborites.[552]

All this indicates the questions which were occupying men's minds and

the differences which were establishing themselves. Opinions were too

strongly held, and mutual toleration was too little understood for

peaceful discussion, and excitement daily grew higher, leading to

tumults and bloodshed. In the spirit of unrest which was abroad, men and

women of the more advanced views from all parts of the kingdom began

assembling on a mountain near Bechin, to which they gave the name of

Tabor, where they received the sacrament in both kinds. These

assemblages were larger on feast days, and on the day of Mary Magdalen,

July 22, 1419, the multitude was computed at forty thousand. Numbers

gave courage, and there was even talk of deposing King Wenceslas and

replacing him with Nicholas Lord of Hussinetz, whose popularity had been

increased by his banishment for advocating their cause with the monarch.

From this they were dissuaded by their chief spiritual leader, the

priest Wenceslas Coranda, who pointed out that as the king was an

indolent drunkard, permitting them to do what they liked, they would

scarce benefit themselves by a change. The abandonment of this project,

however, did not assure peace. On July 30 there was a tumult in the

Neustadt of Prague; at command of the king, the authorities endeavored

to prevent the progress of a procession bearing the sacrament; the

people rose, and under the lead of John Ziska, whose fiery zeal and cool

audacity were rapidly bringing him to the front, they rushed into the

town-hall and cast out of the windows such of the magistrates as they

found there, who were promptly slain by the mob below. The agitation and

alarm caused by this affair brought on King Wenceslas an attack of

paralysis, of which he died August 15.[553]

Feeble as had been the royal authority, it yet had served as a restraint

upon the hostile sects eager to tear each other to pieces. With the

death of the king the untamable passions burst forth. Two days

afterwards the churches and convents were mobbed, the images and organs

were broken, and those in which the cup had been refused to the laity

were the objects of special vengeance. Priests and monks were taken

prisoners, and within a few days the Dominican and Carthusian convents

were burned. Queen Sophia endeavored, in vain, to maintain order with

such of the barons as remained loyal; civil war broke forth, until, on

November 13, the queen concluded with the cities of Prague a truce to

last until April 23, 1420, the queen promising to maintain the law of

God and communion in both elements, while the citizens pledged

themselves to refrain from image-breaking and the destruction of

convents. Mutual exasperation, however, was too great to be restrained.

Ziska came to Prague and destroyed churches and monasteries in the city

and neighborhood; Queen Sophia laid siege to Pilsen; a neighborhood war

broke out in which shocking cruelties were perpetrated on both sides;

German miners of Caurzim and Kuttenberg threw into abandoned mines all

the Calixtins on whom they could lay their hands, and some Bavarians who

were coming to the assistance of Rackzo of Ryzmberg tied to a tree and

burned the priest Naakvasa, a zealous Calixtin. Ziska was not behindhand

in this, and in burning convents not infrequently allowed the monks to

share the fate of their buildings. In the desultory war which raged

everywhere both sides cut off the hands and feet of prisoners.[554]

Sigismund was now the lawful King of Bohemia, and he came to claim his

inheritance. As a preliminary step he sent envoys to Prague offering to

leave the use of the cup as it had been under Wenceslas, to call a

general assembly of the nation, and after consultation to refer any

questions to the Holy See. A meeting of the barons and clergy was held

which agreed to accept the terms. On Christmas Day, 1419, he came to

Brünn, and thither flocked the magnates and representatives of the

cities to tender their allegiance. The envoys of Prague, it is true,

persisted in using the cup, and there was an interdict in consequence

placed on Brünn during their stay, but when he ordered them to remove

the chains from the streets of Prague, and destroy the fortifications

which they had raised against the castle, there was no refusal, and on

their return, January 3, 1420, his commands were obeyed. His natural

faithlessness soon showed itself. He changed all the castellans and

officials who were favorable to the Hussites; the Catholics who had fled

or been expelled returned and commenced to triumph over their enemies;

and a royal edict was issued, in obedience to the decrees of Constance,

commanding all those in authority to exterminate the Wickliffites and

Hussites and those who used the sacramental cup. Still, the kingdom made

no sign of organized opposition to him, except that the provident Ziska

and his followers, seeing the wrath to come, diligently set to work to

fortify Mount Tabor. Strong by nature, it soon was made virtually

impregnable, and for a generation it remained the stronghold of the

extremists who became renowned throughout the world as Taborites. Mostly

peasant-folk, they showed to the chivalry of Europe what could be done

by freemen, animated by religious zeal and race hatred; their rustic

wagons made a rampart which the most valiant knights learned not to

assail; armed sometimes only with iron-shod flails, the hardy zealots

did not hesitate to throw themselves upon the best-appointed troops, and

often bore them down with the sheer weight of the attack. Wild and

undisciplined, they were often cruel, but their fanatic courage rendered

them a terror to all Germany.[555]

Nothing, probably, could have averted an eventual explosion; but, for

the moment, it seemed that Sigismund was about to enter on peaceable

possession of his kingdom, and any subsequent rebellion would have been

attempted under great disadvantages. Suddenly, however, an act of

inconsiderate and gratuitous fanaticism set all Bohemia aflame. Some

trouble in Silesia had called Sigismund to Breslau, where he was joined

by a papal legate armed by Martin V. with power to proclaim a crusade

with Holy Land indulgences. John Krasa, a merchant of Prague, who

chanced to be there, talked over boldly about the innocence of Huss; he

was arrested, persisted in his faith, and was condemned by the legate

and prelates who were with Sigismund to be dragged by the heels at a

horse's tail to the place of execution and burned. While lying in prison

he was joined by Nicholas of Bethlehem, a student of Prague, who had

been sent by the city to Sigismund to offer to receive him if he would

not interfere with the use of the cup to the laity. In place of

listening to him he was tried as a heretic and thrown into prison to

await the result. Krasa encouraged him to endure to the last, and both

were brought forth on March 15, 1420, to undergo the punishment. As the

feet of Nicholas were about to be attached to the horse, his courage

gave way and he recanted. Krasa was undaunted; the legate followed him,

as he was dragged to the place of execution, exhorting him to repent,

but in vain; he was attached half-dead to the stake and duly burned. Two

days later, March 17, the legate proclaimed the crusade. The die was

cast; the Church so willed it, and a new Albigensian war was

inevitable.[556]

There was wavering no longer in Bohemia. The events at Breslau united

all, with the exception of a few barons and such Germans as were left,

in resistance against Sigismund. The preachers thundered against him as

the Red Dragon of the Apocalypse. By April 3 the citizens of Utraquist

Prague had bound themselves by a solemn oath with the Taborites to

defend themselves against him to the last, and were busy in preparations

to sustain a siege. Sigismund's forces were wholly inadequate for the

conquest of a virtually united kingdom. After an advance to Kuttenberg

he was forced to withdraw and await the assembling of the crusade, which

took long to organize, and did not burst in its fury over Bohemia until

the following year, 1421. It was on a scale to crush all resistance. In

its mass of one hundred and fifty thousand men all Europe was

represented, from Russia to Spain and from Sicily to England. The

reunited Church aroused all Christendom to stamp out the revolt, and the

treasures of salvation were poured lavishly forth to exterminate those

who dared to maintain the innocence of Huss and Jerome, and to take the

Eucharist as all Christians had done until within two hundred years. The

war was waged with desperation. Five times during 1421 the crusaders

invaded Bohemia, and five times they were beaten back disastrously. The

gain to the faith was scarce perceptible, for Sigismund stripped the

churches of all their precious ornaments, declaring that he was not

impelled by lack of reverence, but by a prudent desire to prevent their

falling into the hands of the Hussites. Both sides perpetrated cruelties

happily unknown save in the ferocity of religious wars. During the siege

of Prague all Bohemians captured were burned as heretics whether they

used the cup or not; and on July 19 the besieged demanded of the

magistrates sixteen German prisoners, whom they took outside of the

walls and burned in hogsheads in full sight of the invading army. We can

estimate the mercilessness of the strife when it was reckoned among the

good deeds of George, Bishop of Passau, who accompanied Albert of

Austria, that by his intercession he saved the lives of many Bohemian

captives.[557]

It is not our province to follow in detail this bloody struggle, in

which for ten years the Hussites successfully defied all the forces that

Martin and Sigismund could raise against them. When the crusaders came

they presented a united front, but within the line of common defence

they were torn with dissensions, bitter in proportion to their

exaltation of religious feeling. The right of private judgment when once

established, by admitting the doctrines of Wickliff and Huss, was not

easily restrained, nor could it be expected that those who were

persecuted would learn from persecution the lesson of tolerance. In the

wild tumult, intellectual, moral, and social, which convulsed Bohemia,

no doctrines were too extravagant to lack believers.

In 1418 it is related that forty Pikardi with their wives and children

came to Prague, where they were hospitably received and cared for by

Queen Sophia and other persons of rank. They had no priest, but one of

their number used to read to them out of certain little books, and they

took communion in one element. They vanish from view without leaving a

trace of their influence, and were doubtless Beghards driven from their

homes and seeking a refuge beyond the reach of orthodoxy. Yet their name

remained, and was long used in Bohemia as a term of the bitterest

contempt for those who denied transubstantiation. Subsequently, however,

there was a more portentous demonstration of the Brethren of the Free

Spirit. A stranger, said to come from Flanders, whose name,

"Pichardus," shows evidently that he was a Beghard, disseminated the

doctrine of the Brethren, and among other things that nakedness was

essential to purity, which we have seen was one of the extravagances of

the sect. The practice was one which in a more settled state of society

could not have been ventured on, but in Bohemia he found little

difficulty in obtaining quite a large following of both sexes, with whom

he settled on an island in the river Luznic, and dignified them with the

name of Adamites. Perhaps they might have flourished undisturbed had not

fanaticism, or possibly retaliation for aggression, led them to make a

foray on the mainland and slay some two hundred peasants, whom they

styled children of the devil. Ziska's attention being thus drawn to

them, he captured the island and exterminated them. Fifty of them, men

and women, were burned at Klokot, and those who escaped were hunted down

and gradually shared the same fate, which they met with undaunted

cheerfulness, laughing and singing as they went to the stake.[558]

In the sudden removal of ecclesiastical repression of free thought it

was inevitable that unbalanced minds should riot in extravagant

speculation. Among the zealots who subsequently developed into the sect

of the Taborites there was at first a strong tendency to apocalyptic

prophecy suited to the times. First, there was to be a period of

unsparing vengeance, during which safety could be found only in five

specified cities of refuge, after which would follow the second advent

of Christ, and the reign of peace and love among the elect, and earth

would become a paradise. At first, the destruction of the wicked was to

be the work of God, but as passions became fiercer it was held to be the

duty of the righteous to cut them off without sparing. These Chiliasts

or Millenarians had for their leader Martin Huska, surnamed Loquis, on

account of his eloquence, and numbered among them Coranda and other

prominent Taborite priests. Waldensian influence is visible in some

features of their faith, and they rendered themselves peculiarly

obnoxious by the denial of transubstantiation. For this they were

exposed to pitiless persecution wherever their adversaries could

exercise it. One of their leading members, a cobbler of Prague, named

Wenceslas, was burned in a hogshead, July 23, 1421, for refusing to rise

at the elevation of the host, and soon afterwards three priests shared

the same fate because they refused to light candles before the

sacrament. Martin Loquis himself was arrested in February of the same

year, but was released at the intercession of the Taborites, and set out

with a companion to seek Procopius in Moravia. At Chrudim, however, the

travellers were arrested, and were burned at Hradisch after two months

of torture vainly inflicted to wean them from their errors and force

them to reveal the names of their associates. As a distinct sect the

Chiliasts speedily disappear from view, but their members remained a

portion of the Taborites, the development of whose opinions they

profoundly influenced. In the delegation sent to Basle, in 1433, Peter

of Zatce, who represented the Orphans, had been a Chiliast.[559]

Thus these minor sects vanished as parties organized themselves in a

permanent form, and the Bohemian reformers are found divided into two

camps--the moderates, known as Calixtins or Utraquists, from their chief

characteristic, the administration of the cup to the laity, and the

extremists, or Taborites.

The Calixtins virtually regarded the teachings of Huss and Jacobel of

Mies, as a finality. When, after the death of Wenceslas, the necessity

of some definite declaration of principles was felt, the University of

Prague, on August 1, 1420, adopted, with but one dissenting voice, four

articles which became for more than a century the distinguishing

platform of their sect. As concisely enunciated by the University they

appeared simple enough: I. Free preaching of the Word of God; II.

Communion in both elements for the laity; III. The clergy to be deprived

of all dominion over temporal possessions, and to be reduced to the

evangelical life of Christ and the apostles; IV. All offences against

divine law to be punished without exception of person or condition.

These four articles were speedily accepted by the strongly Calixtin

community of Prague, and were proclaimed to the world in various forms

which added to their completeness and rendered their purport definite.

Any one was declared a heretic who did not accept the Apostles',

Athanasian, and Nicene creeds, the seven sacraments of the Church, and

the existence of purgatory. Offences against the law of God were

declared to be worthy of death, both of the offender and those who

connived at them, and were defined to be, among the people, fornication,

banqueting, theft, homicide, perjury, lying, arts superfluous,

deceitful, and superstitious, avarice, usury, etc.: among the clergy,

simoniacal exactions, such as fees for administering the sacraments, for

preaching, burying, bell-ringing, consecration of churches and altars,

as well as the sale of preferment; also concubinage and fornication,

quarrels, vexing and spoiling the people with frivolous citations,

greedy exactions of tribute, etc.[560]

Upon this basis the Calixtin Church proceeded to organize itself in a

council held at Prague in 1421. Four leading doctors, John of Przibram,

Procopius of Pilsen, Jacobel of Mies, and John of Neuberg, were made

supreme governors of the clergy throughout the kingdom, with absolute

power of punishment. No one was to teach any new doctrine without first

submitting it to them or to a provincial synod. Transubstantiation was

emphatically affirmed as well as the seven sacraments. The daily use of

the Eucharist was recommended to all, including infants and the sick.

The canon of the mass was simplified and restored to primitive usage.

Auricular confession was prescribed, as well as the use of the chrism

and of holy water in baptism. Clerks were to be distinguished by

tonsure, vestments, and conduct. Every priest was to possess a copy of

the Scriptures, or at least of the New Testament, and stringent

regulations were adopted for the preservation of priestly morality,

including the prohibition of their protection by any layman after

conviction.[561]

Thus the Calixtin Church kept as close as possible to the old lines. It

accepted all Catholic dogmas, even the power of the keys in sacramental

penance, and only was a protest and revolt against the abuses which had

grown out of the worldly aspirations of the clergy. It was a Puritan

reform, and it founded a Puritan society. When, after the reconciliation

effected at Basle, on the basis of the four articles, Sigismund, in

1436, held his court in Prague, the Bohemians speedily complained that

the city was becoming a Sodom with dicing, tavern-haunting, and public

women. It must have sounded strange to them to be coolly told by a

Christian prelate, the Bishop of Coutances, who was the legate of the

council empowered to enforce the settlement, that it would be well if

public sins could be eradicated, but that strumpets must be tolerated to

prevent greater evils.[562]

The Calixtins thus sought to keep themselves strictly within the pale of

orthodoxy, and deemed themselves greatly injured and insulted by the

appellation of heretic. After the reconciliation of 1436 one of their

most constant causes of complaint was that they were still stigmatized

as heretics, and that the Council of Basle would not issue letters

proclaiming to Christendom that they were regarded as faithful sons of

the Church. In 1464, after successive popes had repeatedly refused to

ratify the pacification of Basle and had excommunicated as hardened

heretics George Podiebrad and all who acknowledged him as king, when

George sent an embassy to Louis XI. of France, Kostka of Postubitz, the

envoy, and his attendants were more than once surprised and annoyed to

find that the people of the towns through which they passed were

disposed to regard them as heretics. The position of the Bohemian

Calixtins was an anomalous one which has no parallel in the history of

mediæval Christendom.[563]

In the intellectual and spiritual excitement which stirred Bohemia to

the depths, it was impossible that all earnest souls should thus pause

on the threshold. The old Waldensian heretics, who had hailed the

progress of Wickliffite and Hussite doctrines, would naturally seek to

prevent the arrested development of the Calixtins from prevailing, and,

as we have seen, there were plenty of zealots who were ready to throw

aside all the theology of sacerdotalism. Under the energetic leadership

of Ziska, Coranda, Nicholas of Pilgram, and other resolute men, the

progressive elements were rapidly moulded into a powerful party, which

after sloughing off impracticable enthusiasts presented itself with a

definite creed and purpose, and became known as the Taborites. Of late

years there has been an active controversy as to whether the Waldenses

were the teachers or the disciples of the Taborites. Without denying

that the fearless vigor of the latter lent added strength to the

development of the former, I cannot but think that the secret

Waldensianism of Bohemia had much to do both with the revolt of Huss and

with the carrying out of that revolt to its logical consequences.

Certain it is that there were close and friendly relations between

Waldensian and Taborite, while the very name of the former was regarded

by all other Bohemians as a term of reproach--in fact there was so much

in common between Wickliffite and Waldensian doctrine that this could

scarce be otherwise. I have already alluded to the contributions made to

the Hussites in 1432 by the Waldensian churches of Dauphiné, and to the

virtual coalescence of Hussitism and Waldensianism throughout Germany.

When Procopius the Great, in 1433, was taking leave of the Council of

Basle, he had the hardihood to inject into his address a good word for

the Waldenses, saying that he had heard them well spoken of for

chastity, modesty, and similar virtues. Persecution in 1430 so thinned

them out that they had neither bishop nor priests; Nicholas of Pilgram,

the Taborite bishop, had enjoyed consecration in the Roman Church, and

thus had the right to transmit the apostolic succession, and he, in

1433, in Prague consecrated for the Waldenses as bishops two of their

number, Frederic the German, and John the Italian. When, in 1451, Æneas

Sylvius passed a night in Mount Tabor, and wrote a picturesque

description of what he observed, he states that while all heresies had a

refuge there, the Waldenses were held in chief honor as the vicars of

Christ and enemies of the Holy See.[564]

When the Calixtins, in 1421, defined their position, the Taborites did

the same. Various special Waldensian errors were attracting attention

and obtaining currency among the people--the denial of purgatory, the

vitiation of the sacrament in sinful hands, the absolute rejection of

the death-punishment and of the oath--showing the influences at work.

The position assumed by the Taborites was so strikingly similar to the

beliefs ascribed in 1395 to the Waldenses in Austria by the Celestinian

inquisitor, Peter, that it is impossible not to recognize the connection

between them. While the Taborites accepted the four articles of the

Calixtins they reduced the Church to a state of the utmost apostolic

simplicity. Tradition was wholly thrown aside; all images were to be

burned; there was no outward sign of distinction between layman and

priest, the latter wearing beards, rejecting the tonsure, and using

ordinary garments; all priests, moreover, were bishops, and could

perform the rite of consecration; they baptized in running water,

without the chrism, celebrated mass anywhere, reciting the simple words

of consecration and the Paternoster in a loud voice and in the

vernacular, administering the body in fragments of bread and the blood

in any vessel which might be handy; all consecrations of sacred vessels,

oil, and water was forbidden; purgatory, which Huss had accepted, was

denied, and to manifest their contempt for the suffrages of the saints

they ate more than usual on fast-days and saints'-days; auricular

confession was derided--for venial sins confession to God sufficed, for

mortal ones, public confession before the brethren, when the priest

would assign a penalty commensurate with the offence. At the same time

the rude and uncultured vigor of the Taborites led them to regard all

human learning as a snare. Those who studied the liberal arts were

regarded as heathen and as sinning against the Gospel, and all writings

of the doctors, save what were expressly contained in the Bible, were to

be destroyed.[565]

What were their views with respect to the Lord's Supper cannot be stated

with precision. Laurence of Brezowa, a Calixtin bitterly hostile to

them, says that they consecrated the elements in a loud voice and in the

vulgar tongue, that the people might be assured that they were receiving

the real body and the real blood, which infers belief in

transubstantiation. In 1431 Procopius the Great and other leaders of the

Taborites issued a proclamation defining their position, in which they

asserted their disbelief in purgatory, in the intercessory power of the

Virgin and saints, in masses for the dead, in absolution through

indulgences, etc., but said nothing against transubstantiation. When, in

1436, the legates of the Council of Basle complained of the

non-observance of the Compactata, one of their grievances was that

Bohemia still sheltered Wickliffites who believed in the remanence of

the substance of the bread, but they said nothing about the existence of

any worse form of belief. On the other hand, the Taborite Bishop,

Nicholas of Pilgram, strongly asserted that Christ was only present

spiritually, that no veneration was due to the consecrated elements, and

that there was less idolatry in those who of old adored moles and bats

and snakes than in Christians who worshipped the host, for those things

at least had life. During the negotiations, in January, 1433, the

legates of the council presented a series of twenty-eight articles,

attributed to the Bohemians, and asked for definite answers, yea or nay.

One of these was a denial of transubstantiation, and the Bohemians could

never be induced to make the desired reply. Peter Chelcicky reproached

the Taborites with concealing their belief on the subject, but it is

probable that there was no absolute accord among them. The Chiliast

leaven doubtless spread the denial of transubstantiation; others

probably adopted the Wickliffite doctrine of remanence; others again may

have preserved the orthodox faith, and all resented the appellation of

Pikards, with which the Bohemians designated those who disbelieved in

the absolute conversion of the elements. Certain it is that the question

did not come up with any prominence in the negotiations with the

Council of Basle; and in the description which Æneas Sylvius gives, in

1451, of the Taborites of Mount Tabor he simply says that some of them

are so foolish that they hold the doctrine of Berenger, that the body of

Christ is only figuratively in the sacrament.[566]

It was impossible that harmony could be preserved between Taborite and

Calixtin when there was so marked a divergence of religious conviction.

They quarrelled and held conferences and persecuted each other, but they

presented a united front to the levies of crusaders which Europe

repeatedly sent against them, and Sigismund's hope of reconquering the

throne of his fathers grew more and more remote. The death of Ziska, in

1424, made little difference, save that his immediate followers

organized themselves into a separate party under the name of Orphans,

but continued in all things to co-operate with the Taborites. He was

succeeded in the leadership by the warrior-priest Procopius Rasa, or the

Great, whose military skill continued to hold banded Europe at bay.

Hussitism, moreover, was spreading into the neighboring lands,

especially to the south and east, requiring, as we shall see hereafter,

the strenuous efforts of the Inquisition to eradicate it from Hungary

and the Danubian provinces. In Poland its missionary efforts called

forth an edict from King Ladislas V., April 6, 1424, ordering all his

subjects to join in exterminating heretics; every Pole who returned from

a sojourn in Bohemia was subjected to examination by the inquisitors or

episcopal officials, and all who should not return by June 1 were

declared heretics, their estates confiscated, and their children

subjected to the customary disabilities.[567] The Church was completely

baffled. It had triumphed over a similar revolt in Languedoc, and had

shown the world, in characters of blood and fire, how it utilized its

triumphs. It now had a different problem to solve. Force having failed,

it was obliged to discover some formula of reconciliation which should

not too nearly peril its claim to infallibility.

To do it justice, it did not yield without compulsion. Tired of standing

on the defensive against assaults whose repetition seemed endless,

Procopius, in 1427, adopted the policy of aggression. He would win peace

by making the coterminous states feel the miseries of war, and in a

series of relentlessly destructive raids, continued till 1432, he

carried desolation into all the surrounding provinces. Thus in a foray

of 1429, which cut a swath through Franconia, Saxony, and the Vogtland,

over a hundred castles and fortified towns were captured, and an immense

booty was carried back to Bohemia. Misnia, Lusatia, Silesia, Bavaria,

Austria, and Hungary in turn felt the weight of the Hussite sword, while

the prompt retirement of the invaders in every case showed that

retaliation and not conquest was their object. It was no wonder that a

general cry for peace went up among those who bore the brunt of the

effort to reassert the papal supremacy.[568]

Meanwhile the Church was perplexed with another yet more vexatious

question. Christendom never ceased to clamor for the reform of which it

had been cheated at Constance. Skilful procrastination had wearied the

reforming fathers, and they had consented, in 1418, to the dissolution

of the council, hoping that the promises made in the election of Martin

V. would be fulfilled. They took the precaution, however, to provide for

an endless series of councils, which might be expected to resume and

complete their unfinished work, and the plan which they laid out shows

how deep-seated was the distrust entertained of the papacy. Another

general council was ordered to be held in five years, then one in seven

years thereafter, and finally a perpetual succession at intervals of ten

years, with careful provisions to nullify the expected evasions of the

popes.[569]

As far as relates to Germany, Martin endeavored to perform the two

duties for which he had been elected--the suppression of heresy and the

reformation of the Church--by sending, in 1422, Cardinal Branda thither

as legate. To accomplish the former object the legate was directed to

preach another crusade, that of 1421 having ended so disastrously. As

regards the latter feature of his mission, the papal commission and the

decree issued in conformity with it by Branda describe the vices of the

German clergy in terms quite as severe as those employed by Huss and his

followers, and furnish a complete justification of the Bohemian revolt.

The only wonder is that pope or kaiser could expect the populations to

rest satisfied with the ministrations of men who assumed to be gifted

with supernatural power and to speak in the name of the Redeemer, while

steeped to the lips in every form of greed, uncleanness, and lust. The

constitution which Branda issued to cure these evils only prescribed a

repetition of remedies which had vainly been applied for centuries. It

simply attacked the symptoms and not the cause of the disease, and it

consequently remained inoperative.[570]

Five years had elapsed since the ending of the Council of Constance.

Nothing had been accomplished to suppress heresy or reform the Church,

and when in due time the Council of Siena assembled, in 1423, it

remained to be seen whether the unfinished work of Constance could be

completed. Under the presidency of four papal legates it was held that

the attendance of prelates and princes was too small to permit the work

of reformation to be undertaken, but it was sufficient to justify the

council in confirming the promises made by Martin of forgiveness of sins

for all who should assist in exterminating the heretics. All Christian

princes were summoned to lend their aid in the good work without delay

if they wished to escape divine vengeance and the penalties provided by

law. All commerce of every kind with the heretics was forbidden,

especially in victuals, cloth, arms, gunpowder, and lead; every one

trading with them, or any prince permitting communication with them

over his lands was pronounced subject to the punishments decreed against

heresy. Bohemia was to be isolated and starved into submission by a

material blockade enforced by spiritual censures.[571]

As for reformation, it was found that all efforts seriously to consider

it were skilfully blocked by the legates. This is not surprising, as the

Church was to be reformed in its head as well as in its members, and the

head was recognized as the chief source of infection. A project

presented by the Gallican deputies described in indignant bitterness the

abuses of the curia--the sale of preferments and dignities to the

highest bidder, irrespective of fitness, with the consequent destruction

of benefices and plunder of the people; the papal dispensations which

enabled the most incongruous pluralities to be held by individuals, and

the other devices whereby Rome was enriched at the cost of religion; the

centralizing of all jurisdiction in Rome to the spoliation of the

indigent who dwelt at a distance; the papal decrees which set aside the

salutary regulations of general councils--showing how nugatory had been

the reformatory regulations wherewith Martin, when elected, had parried

the attacks of the Council of Constance. The disappointment of the

Council of Siena at the baffling of its efforts was leading to a tension

of feeling that grew dangerous. A French friar, Guillaume Joselme,

preached a sermon in which he demonstrated that the pope was the servant

and not the master of the Church. The legates denounced him as a

heretic, and ordered the magistrates of Siena to arrest him, but they,

unlike Sigismund, replied that they had given a safe-conduct to all the

members of the council, and could not go behind it. Finally, finding

that under the control of the papacy no reformatory action was possible,

the attempt was made to shorten to two or three years the seven years'

interval that was to elapse before the next council. All the several

nations had agreed to it when its enactment was prevented by the legates

suddenly dissolving the council, March 8, 1424, in spite of a protest

intimating very plainly that they had prevented all reformatory

legislation. The seven years' interval was preserved, and the next

council was indicated for Basle, in 1431. The reformers consoled

themselves by pointing out that, of the four papal representatives

concerned in thus strangling the council, three died within a year, of

terrible deaths, manifestly the divine vengeance on their wickedness.

Martin made a show of supplementing this lack of performance by

appointing a commission of three cardinals to carry on the work of

reform, and requested all complaints and suggestions to be sent to

them--a measure which was as profitless in result as it was intended to

be. Equally illusory was a constitution issued shortly after,

restraining the ostentation and extravagance of the cardinals, and

prohibiting them from assuming the "protection" of any prince or

potentate, or asking favors except for the poor or for their own

retainers and kindred, thus reducing the importance of the Sacred

College as a factor of the Holy See and exalting his own.[572]

The time fixed for the assembling of the Council of Basle, March, 1431,

was rapidly drawing nigh without any action on the part of Martin

looking to its convocation. He who owed his election to a general

council was notorious for abhorring the very name of council. At length,

on November 8, 1430, there appeared on the doors of the papal palace,

and in the most conspicuous places in Rome, an anonymous notice,

purporting to be issued by two Christian kings, reciting the necessity

of holding a council in obedience to the decrees of Constance, and

appending some conclusions of a threatening character, to the effect

that if the pope and cardinals impede it, or even evade promoting it,

they are to be held as fautors of heresy; that if the pope does not open

the council himself or by his deputies, those who may be present will be

compelled by divine law to withdraw obedience from him, and Christendom

will be bound to obey them, and that they will be forced to proceed

summarily to his deposition and that of the cardinals as fautors of

heresy. It was evident that Christendom was determined to have the

council, with the pope or without him, and Martin, after holding out

till the last moment, was compelled to yield. He had appointed, January

11, 1431, Cardinal Giuliano Cesarini as legate to preach another crusade

with plenary indulgences against the Hussites, and to him he issued,

February 1, a commission to open and preside at the council. One of

those most earnest in bringing this about was the Cardinal of Siena. Had

he been able to forecast the future he would have tempered his zeal.

Within three weeks Martin was dead, and on March 3 the Cardinal of Siena

was elected his successor, taking the name of Eugenius IV.[573]

Cardinal Giuliano went on his double mission and preached the fifth

crusade against the Hussites. The Bohemian forays had stimulated Germany

to an earnest effort to crush the troublesome rebels, and he found

himself at the head of an army variously estimated at from eighty

thousand to one hundred and thirty thousand men. The Bohemians applied

to the Emperor Sigismund for a safe-conduct to Basle, offering to submit

the questions at issue to debate on the basis of Scripture. This was

refused, and they were told that they must agree to stand to the

decisions of the council without limitation. They preferred the

arbitrament of arms, and issued a protest to the Christian world in

which, with coarse good sense, they defined their position, attacked the

temporal power of the papacy, and ridiculed the indulgences issued for

their subjugation. This document was received by the council on August

10, very nearly on the day on which, at Taas, the crusaders fled without

striking a blow, on hearing the battle-hymn of the dreaded Hussite

troops. As a military leader Cardinal Giuliano was evidently a failure,

and it only remained for him to try peaceful measures. The German

princes, alarmed and exhausted, showed evident signs of determination to

come to terms with their unconquerable neighbors. It was a hard

necessity, but there was no alternative, and on October 15 the council

resolved to invite the Bohemians to a conference and to give them a

safe-conduct, although the letters were not forwarded until November

26.[574]

Meanwhile the inevitable quarrels between pope and council had broken

out with bitterness. But three weeks after the invitation to the

Bohemians had been despatched, on December 18, Eugenius took the extreme

step of dissolving the council and calling another to be held in

eighteen months at Bologna, where he would preside in person. At this

action Germany was aghast. Sigismund remonstrated energetically, and the

council, assured of his support, refused to obey. Cardinal Giuliano was

won over and made himself its mouthpiece. He had had an opportunity of

observing the condition of men's minds north of the Alps, and he knew to

what a storm the bark of St. Peter would be exposed. It may safely be

said that since the papacy became dominant over the Church few popes

have received from a subordinate so vigorous a reproof as that in which

Giuliano gave his reasons for disobedience, and it contains so vivid a

picture of the times that a brief abstract of it cannot well be spared.

Clerical wickedness, he says, in Germany is such that the laity are

irritated to the last degree against the Church, wherefore it is greatly

to be feared that if there is no reformation they will execute their

public threats of rising, like the Hussites, against the clergy. This

turpitude has given great audacity to the Bohemians and lends color to

their heresy, and if the clergy cannot be reformed the suppression of

this heresy would lead only to the breaking-out of another. The

Bohemians have been invited to the council; they have replied and are

expected to come. If the council is dissolved, what will the heretics

say? Will not the Church confess herself defeated when she dares not

await those whom she has invited? Will not the hand of God be seen in

it? A host of warriors has fled before them, and now the Church

universal flies! Behold, they cannot be overcome either by arms or

arguments! Alas for the wretched clergy wherever they be! Will they not

be deemed incorrigible and determined to live in their filth? So many

councils have been held in our days from which no reformation has come!

From this one the nations have expected some fruit. If it be thus

dissolved, we shall be said to laugh at God and man, and when there is

no hope of our correction the laity will justly assail us, like the

Hussites. Already there are reports of it, already they begin to spit

forth the venom which is to destroy us. They will think to offer a

welcome sacrifice to God when they slay or despoil us, who will then be

odious both to God and man, and whereas now there is little respect for

us, there will then be none. The council was some restraint upon them,

but when they lose all hope they will persecute us publicly, and the

whole blame will be thrown upon the Roman curia, which breaks up the

assembly convened to effect reform. Latterly the city of Magdeburg has

expelled her archbishop and clergy; the citizens march with wagons like

the Bohemians, and are said to have sent for a Hussite captain, and they

have, moreover, a league with many other communities of those parts. The

people of Passau have driven out their bishop and are besieging one of

his castles. Both cities are near to Bohemia, and if, as is to be

feared, they unite they will have a following of many other towns. At

Bamberg there is fierce discord between the citizens on the one side and

the bishop and chapter on the other, which is especially dangerous by

reason of the neighborhood of the heretics. If the council is dissolved

these quarrels will increase, and many other communities will be drawn

in.[575]

Making due allowance for inevitable rhetorical exaggeration this picture

is a true one. Hussite ideas were rapidly spreading through Germany, and

finding a congenial soil in the aversion born of incurable clerical

corruption. About this time Felix Hemmerlin complains of the countless

souls seduced to heresy by the emissaries who, every year, come from

Bohemia to Berne and Soleure. Numerous executions of heretics are

recorded at this period in Flanders, where persecution had been for

centuries almost unknown, and we may be sure that Hussite missionaries

were busily carrying on an equally successful propaganda elsewhere. If

the hopes which were built on the council were destroyed, the Church

might well expect a general revolt. Sustained by the united support of

Cismontane Christendom, the council resolutely went its way. Sigismund

urged it to stand firm, and in November, 1432, he issued an imperial

declaration that he would sustain it against all assailants. Eugenius

held out until February, 1433, when he assented to its continuance, but

in July he again dissolved it, and in September repeated the command.

Then the council commenced active proceedings to arraign and try him,

and in December he revoked these bulls. In the subsequent quarrel the

council decreed his suspension in January, 1439, and his deposition in

June, while the election of Amedeo of Savoy as Felix V. was confirmed in

November of the same year.[576]

Into the details of the interminable negotiations which followed between

the council and the Hussites it is not worth while to enter. The latter

carried their point, and, in a conference held at Eger, May 18, 1439, it

was agreed that the questions should be debated on the basis of the

Scriptures and the writings of the early fathers. The four articles

which were the common ground of Calixtins and Taborites were put forward

as their demands, and to these they steadily adhered through all the

dreary discussions in Basle, Prague, Brünn, Stuhlweissenberg, to the

final conference of Iglau in July, 1436. The discussions were ofttimes

hot and angry, and the good fathers of Basle were sometimes scandalized

at the freedom of speech of the Bohemian delegates. When John of Ragusa

alluded to the Hussites as heretics, John Rokyzana, one of the Calixtin

delegates, indignantly denied it, and demanded that if any one accused

them of heresy he should offer the _talio_ and prove it. Procopius, who

represented the Taborites, joined in and declared that he would not have

come to Basle had he known that he would be thus insulted. Time and

skill were required to pacify the Bohemians, and John of Ragusa and the

Archbishop of Lyons were forced to apologize formally. On another

occasion the Inquisitor Henry of Coblentz, a Dominican doctor,

complained that Ulric of Znaim, a deputy of the Orphans, had said that

monks were introduced by the devil. Ulric denied it, and Procopius

intervened, saying that he had remarked to the legate that if the

bishops came from the apostles, and priests from the seventy-two

disciples, the others could have had no other source but the devil. This

sally raised a general laugh, which was increased when Rokyzana called

to the inquisitor, "Doctor, make Dom Procopius provincial of your

order." These trifles have their significance when compared with the

shouts of "Burn him! Burn him!" which assailed Huss at Constance. In

fact the Hussites were urged to incorporate themselves with the council,

but they were too shrewd to fall into the snare.[577]

By unbending firmness the Bohemians carried their point, and secured the

recognition of the four articles, which became celebrated in history as

the Compactata--the Magna Charta of the Bohemian Church until swept away

by the counter-Reformation. This was agreed to in Prague, November 26,

1433, and confirmed by mutual clasp of hands between the legates of the

council and the deputies of the three Bohemian sects, but matters were

by no means settled. The four articles were brief and simple

declarations which admitted of unlimited diversity of construction. The

dialecticians of the council had no difficulty in explaining them away,

until they practically amounted to nothing; the Hussites, on the other

side, with equal facility, expanded them to cover all that they could

possibly wish to claim. Hardly was the handclasping over when it was

found that the Bohemians asserted that the permission of communion in

both elements meant that they were to continue to administer it to

infants, and to force it proscriptively on every one--positions to which

the council could by no means assent. This will serve as an illustration

of the innumerable questions which kept the negotiators busy during yet

thirty dreary months. So far, indeed, was the matter as yet from being

settled, that, in April, 1434, the council levied a half-tithe on

Christendom for a crusade against the Hussites, which enabled it to

stimulate with liberal payments the zeal of the Bohemian Catholic

nobles.[578]

It is not likely that any results would have been reached but for events

which at first seemed to threaten the continuance of the negotiations.

The Taborites could only have consented to treat on the basis, so

inadequate to them, of the four articles, in the confidence that the

practical application would cover a vastly wider sphere. After the

preliminary agreement of November 26, the construction assumed by the

legates of the council made them draw back. The affair was reaching a

conclusion, and it was necessary to have a definite understanding of

that to which they were binding themselves. After the departure of the

legates from Prague, in January, 1434, hot discussions arose between

them and the Calixtins as to the continuance of the negotiations. There

were political as well as religious differences between them. The

Taborites were mostly peasants and poor folk; they wanted no nobles or

gentlemen in their ranks, and seem to have had republican tendencies, as

they desired to add to the four articles two others, providing for the

independence of Bohemia and for the retention of all confiscated

property. Both parties became exasperated, and flew to arms for a

contest decisive as to their respective mastery. The Taborites had for

some time been besieging Pilsen, a city which held out for Sigismund.

Learning that their friends in the Neustadt of Prague had been

slaughtered without distinction of age or sex, to the number, it is

said, of twenty-two thousand, they raised the siege, May 9, to take

vengeance on the city, but after a demonstration before it, they

withdrew towards Moravia. Meanwhile the Calixtins had formed an alliance

with the Catholic barons, who had been liberally subsidized by the

council, and followed them with a formidable force. The shock came at

Lipan, on Sunday, May 30. All day and night the battle raged, and until

the third hour of Monday morning. When it was over, Procopius, Lupus,

and thirteen thousand of the bravest Taborites lay dead upon the field,

and the murderous nature of the strife is seen in the fact that but

seven hundred prisoners were taken, though we may question the claim of

the victors that the battle cost them but two hundred men, and we may

hope that there is exaggeration in the boast that they burned several

thousand of those whom they subsequently captured. The power of the

Taborites was utterly broken. It is true that they continued to hold

Mount Tabor until finally crushed by George Podiebrad, in 1452; and that

in the December following the battle their unconquerable spirit was

again contemplating an appeal to arms, but after Lipan they were only a

troublesome element of insubordination, and not a factor in the

political situation. The congratulatory letters sent by some of the

victors to Sigismund, and the effusive joy with which he communicated

the news to the council, show that the victory was one for the

Catholics.[579]

Even after the virtual elimination of the Taborites there were ample

subjects of dispute, and at one time the prospect seemed so unpromising

that preliminary arrangements were set on foot, in August, 1434, for

organizing a new crusade on the proceeds of the half-tithe levied

shortly before. One source of endless trouble sprang from the personal

ambition of Rokyzana. Learned, able, a hardy disputant, and a skilled

man of affairs, he had determined to be Archbishop of Prague, and this

object he pursued with unalterable constancy. He bore a leading part in

the negotiations, and made himself as conspicuous as possible, shifting

his ground with dexterity, interposing objections and smoothing them as

the interest of the moment might dictate. At first he endeavored to have

a clause inserted that the people and the clergy should be empowered to

elect an archbishop, who should be acknowledged and confirmed by the

emperor and the pope. This being rejected, he procured of Sigismund a

secret agreement that the election should be held, and that the emperor

would do all in his power to secure the confirmation by the pope,

without cost for pallium, confirmation, or notarial fees. Although this,

when discovered, was protested against by the legates of the council and

refused by the council itself, he proceeded, in 1435, to obtain an

election by the national assembly of Bohemia, to the great disgust of

the orthodox, who reasonably dreaded this example of a return of the

primitive methods of selecting prelates. Again Sigismund secretly

accepted this, while the legates declared it to be invalid, and that, as

an infraction of the Compactata, it must be annulled. On this question

the whole negotiation was nearly wrecked, and it was only settled by

Sigismund and his son-in-law and heir, Albert of Austria, promising to

issue letters recognizing Rokyzana as archbishop, and to compel

obedience to him as such. After this it required but a fortnight more of

quarrelling to bring the matter to a termination, and signatures to the

Compactata were duly exchanged July 5, 1436, amid general rejoicings.

Sigismund, restored to the throne of his fathers, made a show of

complying with his promise, by writing to the council a letter asking

Rokyzana's confirmation, at the same time explaining to the legates that

he considered the council ought to refuse, but that he did not wish to

break with his new subjects too suddenly. Of course the confirmation

never came, and although Rokyzana called God to witness that he did not

wish the archbishopric, the policy of his long life was devoted to

obtaining it. With all convenient speed Sigismund forgot the pledge to

enforce obedience to him. His position became so dangerous that he

secretly fled from Prague, June 16, 1437, and remained in exile until

after the deaths of Sigismund and Albert, when he returned in 1440, and

speedily became the most powerful man in Bohemia. This position he

retained until his death, in 1471, administering the archbishopric,

constantly seeking confirmation at the hands of successive popes, and

subordinating the policy of the kingdom, internal and external, so far

as he dared, to that object--not the least anomalous feature of the

anomalous Calixtin Church.[580]

A peace in which all parties distrusted each other and placed radically

different interpretations on its conditions was not likely to heal

dissensions so profound. The very day after the solemn ratification of

the Compactata an ominous disturbance showed how superficial was the

reconciliation. In the presence of an immense crowd, at the high altar

of the church of Iglau, where the final conferences were held, the

Bishop of Coutances, chief of the legation of the council, celebrated

mass and returned thanks to God. After this the letters of agreement

were read in Bohemian, and Rokyzana commented upon them in the same

language, much to the discomfort of the legates. He had been celebrating

mass at a side altar, and when the reading was finished he called out,

"If any one wishes communion in both elements let him come to this

altar and it will be given to him." The legates rushed over to him and

twice forbade him, but he quietly disregarded them and administered the

sacrament to eight or ten persons. The incident excited intense feeling

on both sides. The Bohemians demanded that a church be assigned to them

in Iglau where during their stay they could receive the sacrament in

both kinds; the legates refused the request, although urged by the

emperor, and finally, after threats of departure, the Bohemians were

forced to content themselves with celebrating, as they had previously

done, in private houses.[581]

When Sigismund was fairly seated on the throne, there followed an

endless series of bickerings, as the rites and ceremonies and usages of

the Roman Church were restored, supplanting the simpler worship which

had prevailed for twenty years. Consecrations, confirmations, images,

relics, holy water, benedictions, were one by one introduced--even the

hated religious orders were surreptitiously smuggled in. The canonical

hours and chants were renewed in the churches, and every effort was made

to accustom the people to a resurrection of the old order of things. On

Corpus Christi day, May 30, 1437, a gorgeous procession swept through

the streets of Prague bearing the host on high; the legate, the

Archbishop of Kalocsa, and the Bishop of Segnia headed it, and were

dutifully followed by the emperor and empress, the nobles and a mass of

citizens. As a mute protest, Rokyzana met the splendid array, attended

only by three priests, and bearing both host and cup. To the stern

puritans who had so long struggled against the Scarlet Woman the

imposing ceremony must have seemed a bitter mockery, for the Empress

Barbara, who occupied a conspicuous position in the ranks, was a woman

notorious for shameless licentiousness, and, moreover, was an avowed

atheist, who disbelieved in the immortality of the soul.[582]

Within three weeks of this celebration, Rokyzana was a fugitive, seeking

the protection of George Podiebrad at Hradecz, not without reason, if

Æneas Sylvius is correct in saying that Sigismund was about to arrest

him and punish him condignly. Then the process of reaction went on

apace. Had Sigismund lived, he might have overcome all resistance, and

reduced the land to obedience to Rome. His power was constantly growing.

In March the surrender of the Taborite stronghold of Konigingrätz filled

the Hussites with consternation. Not long after siege was laid to Zion,

the fastness of John Rohacz, a powerful baron who had refused

submission. He was finally captured in it, brought to Prague, and hanged

in the presence of the emperor with sixty of his followers and a priest.

Tradition relates that on that very day Sigismund was attacked with an

ulcer which grew constantly worse and ended his days in December. Almost

simultaneous with this was the decision by the Council of Basle on the

question of communion in both elements, in which it skilfully evaded the

inconsistency of the prohibition of the cup, and pronounced it to be the

law of the Church, not to be modified without authority. As Albert of

Austria, the son-in-law and successor of Sigismund, was a zealous

Catholic prince, the council was emboldened in January, 1438, to issue

an edict reciting and ordering the strict enforcement of the implacable

bull of February 22, 1418, by Martin V., directed against the errors of

Wickliff, Huss, and Jerome. This evidence of what they were to expect as

the outcome of the Compactata gave the Taborites and the disaffected

parties in Bohemia new energy. After a fruitless appeal to the council

an alliance was made with Poland, whose boy-king, Casimir, was elected

as a competitor. Thus strengthened they offered effective resistance to

Albert, who up to his sudden death, October 27, 1439, was unable to

occupy the whole of his kingdom. Four months later, Ladislas, his

posthumous son, was born, and a long minority, with its accompanying

turbulence, enabled the Calixtins again to get the upper hand, over both

the Taborites and the Catholics. In 1441 a council held at Kuttenberg

organized the national Church on a Calixtin basis. Several conferences

were held with the Taborites, and the points at issue were referred to

the national diet held in January, 1444. Its emphatic decision in favor

of the Calixtin doctrine broke up the Taborite organization. The cities

still held by them surrendered one by one, and the members were

scattered, for the most part joining the Calixtins. As a separate sect

they may be said to have disappeared when, in 1452, George Podiebrad

captured Mount Tabor and dispersed their remains.[583]

After the death of Albert what central authority there was in Bohemia

was lodged in the hands of two governors, Ptacek representing the

Calixtins, and Mainhard of Rosenberg, the victor of Lipan, the

Catholics. In October, 1443, we hear of the Emperor Frederic III. as

about starting for Bohemia where he expected to receive the regency, but

his hopes were frustrated. Ptacek died in 1445, when the choice for his

succession fell upon George Podiebrad, a powerful baron, who, though

only twenty-four, had acquired a high reputation for military ability

and sagacity. He was largely under the influence of Rokyzana, to whom

doubtless his election was due. After a long interval, Rome again

appeared upon the scene. Nicholas V., who ascended the papal throne in

1447, sent, in 1448, John, Cardinal of Sant' Angelo, to Prague as

legate. The Bohemians earnestly urged him to ratify the Compactata and

confirm Rokyzana as archbishop. He promised an answer, but finding the

situation embarrassing, he secretly left Prague with Mainhard of

Rosenberg. Popular indignation enabled George by a _coup d'état_, in

which there was considerable bloodshed, to render himself master of

Prague and to cast Mainhard into prison, where he died soon after.

George thus became the undisputed master of Bohemia. When Ladislas, in

1452, was recognized as king, George secured the regency, and when the

young monarch died towards the close of 1457, at the early age of

eighteen, George's coronation as king soon followed. Under him, until

just before his death in 1471, Rokyzana's influence was almost

unbounded.[584]

The situation of Bohemia, as a member of the Latin Church, was

unprecedented. After the first break between Eugenius IV. and the

Council of Basle the name of the pope disappears in the negotiations for

the restoration of unity. These were carried on by both sides as though

the conciliar authority was supreme, and the papal assent or

confirmation was a matter of no moment, although a papal legate was

present in January, 1436, at the conference at Stuhlweissenberg, where

the matter was virtually settled. As the council drew to its weary end,

powerless and discredited, the triumphant Eugenius was not disposed to

recognize the validity of its acts or to ratify them gratuitously. The

Bohemians alleged that he had confirmed the Compactata, but no positive

evidence was forthcoming. To purchase the submission of Germany, in

1447, he had ratified a portion of the acts of the council, but the

Compactata could not be included in his carefully. guarded decrees. On

the accession of Nicholas V., in 1447, the Bohemians sent to him a

deputation offering him their allegiance, but we have seen how wary was

the legate whom he despatched in return to Prague. It is true that to

obtain the abdication of Felix V., Nicholas issued a bull, June 28,

1449, approving all the acts of the council which might strictly be held

to confirm the Compactata, but the character of the bull shows that it

had in view rather the material interests involved in benefices and

preferment. Whatever doubt the Bohemians may have had as to the papal

intentions towards them was speedily dissipated.[585]

Rome, in fact, had never proposed to recognize the compromise made by

the council. While the latter was busy in endeavoring to win back the

Hussites, Eugenius IV. was laboring for their extermination by the usual

methods, in such regions as he could reach. The relations between

Bohemia and Hungary had long been close, and Hussitism had spread widely

throughout the latter kingdom as well as in the Slavic territories to

the south. As early as 1413 we hear complaints of Wickliffite doctrines

carried into Croatia by students returning from the University of

Prague. As Sigismund was King of Hungary, the Compactata were supposed

to cover the Hungarian Hussites, and were published in Hungarian as well

as in Bohemian, German, and Latin. We have seen, however, how false he

was to his Bohemian subjects, and those of Hungary he cheerfully

abandoned to Rome. Six weeks after the signature of the Compactata at

Iglau, on August 22, 1436, Eugenius commissioned the indefatigable

persecutor, Frà Giacomo della Marca, as Inquisitor of Hungary and

Austria. He was already on the ground, for in January of that year we

catch a glimpse of him as present in the conference at Stuhlweissenberg.

Frà Giacomo lost no time. Before the close of the year he had traversed

Hungary from end to end, with merciless severity. The Archbishop of

Gran, the Chapter of Kalocsa, the Bishop of Waradein, were loud in his

praises. Their dioceses, they said, had been infected with heretics so

numerous that a rising was anticipated which would have exceeded in

horror the Bohemian wars, but this holy man had exterminated them. The

numbers whom he put to death are not enumerated, but they must have been

considerable from the expressions employed, and from the terror

inspired, for his associates declared that in this expedition he had

received the submission of fifty-five thousand converts. As the Bishop

of Waradein rapturously declared, had the Apostle Paul accompanied him

he could not have effected more. Earnestly the Bishops of Csanad and

Transylvania appealed to him to visit their dioceses, which abounded in

heretics; and as the latter prelate speaks of the Hussites having

penetrated to his bishopric from Moldavia, it shows how widely the

heresy had been diffused through southeastern Europe.[586]

Suddenly, in 1437, Frà Giacomo's career was interrupted. He had crushed

the Fraticelli of Italy, the wild Cathari of Bosnia, and the fiercer

Hussites of Hungary, but when he attacked the orthodox concubinary

priests of Fünfkirchen, and strove to force them to abandon the illicit

partners who were universally kept, they proved too strong for even his

iron will and seasoned nerves, backed though he was by the power of pope

and kaiser and the awful authority of the Inquisition. They raised such

a storm at this attempted invasion of their accustomed privileges that

he was obliged to abandon his work and fly for his life. He appealed to

Eugenius, and Eugenius to Sigismund. The latter wrote to Henry, the

Bishop of Fünfkirchen, peremptorily ordering him to recall Giacomo and

give him every aid, and also to Giacomo, assuring him of support. Thus

assailed, Bishop Henry gave instructions that Giacomo should be supplied

with all necessaries, but the attempt to enforce chastity on the

priesthood seems to have been abandoned. The customary penalty in

Hungary for such offences was five marks, and the synods of Gran in 1450

and 1480 complain that the archdeacons not only keep these fines for

themselves, but encourage the criminals in order to derive profit from

them; in fact, they issued in Hungary, as in many other places, licenses

to sin, which may, perhaps, explain the indignation caused by Giacomo's

interference and its lack of success.[587]

He appears to have meddled no longer with the private lives of the

orthodox clergy, but to have devoted his energies to the easier work of

exterminating heretics. Early in 1437 we hear of him south of the

Danube, where the Bishop of Sreim praised his effective work; by putting

to death all who could not be converted, he had saved the diocese from a

rising of the Hussites, in which all the clergy would have been slain.

Eugenius rewarded him by describing him as "a vigorous and most

ruthless extirpator of heresy," and granting him the power of

appointing subordinate inquisitors, thus rendering him an

inquisitor-general in all the wide region confided to him. It was

probably a result of the quarrel over the priestly concubines that led,

in 1438, Simon of Bacska, Archdeacon of Fünfkirchen, to excommunicate

him; but that official was speedily forced to withdraw the anathema by

the Emperor Albert and the Archbishop of Gran. For a while his labors

were interrupted by a call to attend the Council of Ferrara, held in

1438 by Eugenius IV., to offset the hostile assemblage at Basle, but he

speedily returned to Hungary. It was doubtless owing to his efforts that

in Poland the barons and cities entered into a solemn league and

covenant to suppress heresy, April 25, 1438--just before Poland

intervened in Bohemia to protect the Hussites from the Emperor Albert.

In 1439 Giacomo's zeal received a check on the more immediate fields of

his labors. In Sreim he delivered to the secular arm, as convicted

heretics, a priest and three associates; their friends assembled in

force, broke open the prison and carried off the culprits, and, what is

difficult to understand, unless the heresy was merely concubinage, the

Archbishop of Kalocsa, when appealed to, protected the criminals.

Giacomo had recourse to the Emperor Albert, who wrote sharply to the

archbishop in June; and this proving ineffectual, again in August. What

was the result of the affair is not known, but Albert, as we have seen,

died in October, to the great detriment of religion; and in 1440 Giacomo

left Hungary on account of ill-health. He seems not to have been

immediately replaced, and, in the absence of organized persecution, the

tares speedily began to multiply again among the wheat. In January,

1444, Eugenius IV., deploring the spread of Hussitism throughout the

Danubian regions, appointed the Observantine Vicar Fabiano of Bacs as

inquisitor for the whole Slavonian vicariate, which included Hungary,

with power to appoint inquisitors under him. These were authorized to

act in complete independence of the local prelates; Holy Land

indulgences were promised to all who would aid them, and

excommunication, removable only by pope or inquisitor, against all

withholding assistance. In July, 1446, Eugenius again alludes to the

flourishing condition of Hussitism in Hungary and Moldavia, in spite of

the labors of the friars, and he recurs to the question which baffled

Giacomo della Marca. Many parish priests, he says, in these regions not

only keep concubines publicly, but teach that there is no sin in

intercourse between unmarried persons; the question has been asked him

whether this is heresy, justiciable by the Inquisition; this he answers

in the affirmative, and authorizes Fabiano and his deputies to treat it

as such. Apparently it was not the practice itself, but the

justification of it, which was so heinous.[588]

If Rome was thus active in repressing Hussitism, and thus regardless of

the Compactata while crippled by the quarrel with the fathers of Basle,

it may readily be imagined that, after the abdication of Felix V. and

the restoration of unquestioned supremacy, Nicholas V. was not disposed

to respect the bargain made by the council or to regard the Calixtins in

any light but that of heretics. It was in vain that the Bohemians

proffered obedience if only the Compactata were confirmed, with a tacit

condition that Rokyzana's claims to the archbishopric should be

recognized. Ostensibly the sole difficulty in the way of reunion lay in

the use of the cup by the laity and the communion of infants; save this

there was by this time but little to distinguish the Calixtins from the

rest of the Latin churches, although occasionally the question of the

sequestrated church lands emerged into view. The papacy had taken its

position, however, and it would have plunged all Christendom into war,

as, in fact, it more than once attempted, rather than admit that the

Council of Basle had been justified in purchasing peace by conceding

communion in both elements. Behind this, however, was the question of

Rokyzana's confirmation. Æneas Sylvius informs us that in 1451 he

convinced George Podiebrad of the impossibility of effecting this, and

secured a promise that the attempt should be abandoned, he pledging

himself that if George would present the names of several suitable

persons the pope would select one, and peace would then be established.

This treated the Compactata as of minor importance, and was doubtless

wholly unauthorized. Neither George nor Rokyzana gave up their hopes;

the effort was renewed again and again, now with the pope, now with the

Emperor Frederic III., and now with the German Diet, but all to no

purpose. Occasionally when there was an object to be gained hopes would

be held out, only to be withdrawn. The papal emissaries represented

Rokyzana to Rome as the most wicked and perfidious of heresiarchs, whose

recognition would be the destruction of what remained of Catholicism in

Bohemia, and there never was the slightest idea of confirming him.[589]

When the overthrow of Mainhard of Rosenberg and the concentration of

power in the hands of George Podiebrad showed that no further hopes were

to be built on the Catholic party in Bohemia, Nicholas V. fell back upon

the old methods and resolved to try what could be done by a missionary

inquisitor. He had at hand an instrument admirably fitted for the work.

Giovanni da Capistrano, vicar-general of the Observantine Franciscans,

had commenced his career as an inquisitor in 1417; he was now in his

sixty-sixth year, vigorous and implacable as ever. Small and

insignificant in appearance, shrivelled by austerities until he seemed

to consist only of skin and bone and nerves, he rarely tasted meat and

allowed himself but four hours of sleep out of the twenty-four, the

remainder being all too few for his restless and indefatigable activity.

His saintly and self-denying life had gained him enviable powers as a

thaumaturge, and his reputation as a preacher drew crowds to listen to

his eloquence. In 1451 he was busy in exterminating the Fraticelli, but

he suspended his bloody work at the call of Nicholas to undertake the

conversion of the Hussites. Nothing was omitted that could contribute to

the dramatic effect of his mission. Before assuming it he sought the

divine assent by consulting the Virgin at Assisi, when the heavenly

light diffused around him was a sign that his apostolate was confirmed;

he accepted the enlarged powers which extended his inquisitorial

commission to the Bohemian territories, and set forth. Everywhere on his

road multitudes assembled to see and listen to the man of God, and

everywhere his miraculous powers manifested the authenticity of his

mission. At Brescia he addressed an assembly computed at one hundred and

twenty thousand souls, and, though walls and trees were broken down by

the masses of men gathered thickly upon them, not a human being was

injured. At the crossing of the River Sile, near Treviso, the party,

with true Observantine austerity, had no money to pay ferriage, and the

surly ferryman refused free transportation; but Capistrano quietly took

the habit of San Bernardino, which he carried with him, laid it upon the

waters, and they shrank away till all had passed dry-shod, when they

resumed their former volume. Thus heralded, his way through Venice and

Vienna was a triumphal progress; crowds of sixty thousand or one hundred

thousand to hear him preach were common; men came from a distance of

five hundred miles to listen to him; at Vienna three hundred thousand

were reckoned present; the sick were brought before him in thousands,

and the miraculous cures which he wrought were computed by hundreds. The

ecclesiastical machinery was evidently well-devised and effectively

worked, and the desired impression was produced.[590]

In vain the emperor asked permission for him to visit Prague. Podiebrad

and Rokyzana refused it peremptorily, and Capistrano's zeal for

martyrdom was not sufficient to prompt him to disregard their wishes.

Furnished with imperial letters to the Catholic nobles and to their

leader, Ulric Mainhard of Rosenberg, he turned in July to the safer

region of Moravia, where presumably the influence of Podiebrad and

Rokyzana was not so strong. Here his career indicates how little

foundation there was for the persistent Catholic complaints of the

proscriptive intolerance of the Calixtins. Though on Bohemian territory,

Catholic and Hussite seem to have been dwelling together in mutual

harmony; the Bishop of Olmütz was a Catholic, and no hindrance seems to

have been experienced by Capistrano in his labors for the conversion of

the so-called heretics. Beginning at Brünn, August 1, 1451, there is a

register containing names and dates of more than eleven thousand

conversions made by him up to May, 1452. Yet at the same time he was

restricted to persuasion, and was not allowed to use inquisitorial

methods. As his converts were voluntary, he smoothed the path of the

repentant heretic, reconciling him to the Church with only the

infliction of a salutary penance, and allowing him to retain all his

possessions and dignities. Where the heretic was hardened, he was

powerless, except through such miraculous power as he could wield. The

situation was an anomalous one--unexampled, in fact, in the Middle

Ages--of heretic and Catholic dwelling together in peace, the heretic in

the ascendant, yet not only tolerating the Catholic, but allowing a man

like Capistrano to wander through the land denouncing heretics and

making conversions unmolested. To Capistrano the position was irritating

in the extreme, insomuch as he was limited to the arts of persuasion,

and was unable to enforce his arguments with the dungeon and the stake.

This peculiar state of things is well illustrated by an adventure

related of him at Breslau. Though Silesia had a Catholic bishop, it

belonged to Bohemia, and mutual tolerance was established. In the summer

of 1453 Capistrano came there and labored to convert the Hussites, but

these sons of Belial, to ridicule his miraculous powers, placed a young

man in a bier, carried him to where the inquisitor was preaching, and

asked the latter to resuscitate the dead. Capistrano sternly replied,

"Let him have his portion with the dead in eternity!" and went his

way. Then the heretics said to the crowd, "We have holier men among

us;" and one of them went to the coffin, calling to its inmate,

"Peter, arise!" and then whispering, "It is time to get up;" but

there was no response, and the unfortunate youth was found to be really

dead. Yet at this very time Capistrano had no difficulty in exercising

his inquisitorial office pitilessly when the victims were unfortunate

Jews. A country priest was said to have sold them eight consecrated

hosts for use in their infernal rites. Capistrano seized those

implicated, tortured them to confession, and burned them, while a woman

who was implicated was torn with red-hot pincers. An old Jewess embraced

Christianity, and soon afterwards was slain. The Jews were accused of

the murder, and also of that of a Christian boy. Capistrano made another

onslaught on them, and this time burned no less than forty-one. It is

easy to gather from this incident what would have been the fate of the

Hussites had he been able to wreak his will on them. Those of Moldavia

and Poland, whither he despatched three of his associate inquisitors

under Ladislas the Hungarian, probably felt the full rigor of the

canons.[591]

During all this the Calixtin leaders had not been wholly indifferent. At

the commencement of Capistrano's mission Rokyzana wrote to him in a

friendly tone, remonstrating with him for condemning as a heresy the

communion in both elements, which the Council of Basle had permitted to

the Bohemians. Some correspondence ensued, in which Capistrano took high

ground as to the use of the cup and the papal supremacy; there were

negotiations for a conference, and at one time hopes were entertained of

an accommodation. Capistrano, however, skilfully eluded a disputation on

various pretexts, but really, as we learn from his confidential letter

to the cardinal-legate, Nicholas of Cusa, because he knew that the

Calixtins had on their side the weight of authority and tradition. Both

parties gradually lost their temper and published against each other

letters filled with scurrility. Having thus rendered amicable

negotiations impossible, Capistrano could safely, in 1452, ask Podiebrad

for a safe-conduct to Prague, and on its refusal summon him to render

the aid and service due to him as apostolic commissioner and

inquisitor.[592]

When the German princes assembled in the Diet of 1452 the Bohemians

addressed them, complaining that although they were living in peace and

obedience to the Holy See, the provisions of the Compactata, which

declared that no one should be stigmatized as a heretic for partaking in

both elements, were violated by a friar named Capistrano, who, under the

guise of an apostolic commissioner and inquisitor, was traversing their

territories proclaiming that all Utraquists were heretics. The agreement

which had cost so much blood was thus plainly infringed, and,

notwithstanding their desire for peace, a persistence in this would

revive all the old troubles. This was significant of strife, and

Capistrano, on his side, was eagerly engaged in stimulating it. He wrote

to the pope that certain propositions of accommodation entertained by

the cardinal-legate were disgraceful, and spoke hopefully of

negotiations which he was carrying on with the German princes for a new

crusade against the Hussites. Nicholas of Cusa was effectually snubbed

for daring to talk of conferences and terms of accommodation. He

promptly threw himself on the other side and contributed his share

towards provoking a fresh conflict, by issuing, in June, 1452, an

encyclical to the Bohemians, in which he plainly told them that those

who were not with the Church must be against it; that the Compactata

must be thrown aside, as they had not effected the union for which they

were designed, and that nothing save pure and simple obedience to the

Holy See could be entertained. To render the irritation complete needed

only the exquisite insolence with which he assured them that the Church

was too pious a mother to concede to her children what she knew to be

injurious.[593]

Capistrano's busy mischief-making was bearing its fruits. The breach

between Rome and Bohemia was constantly widening, and if the zeal of the

German princes could be brought to correspond to the ardor of the

missionary of strife, the horrors of the old Hussite wars might be

hopefully looked for again. During the remainder of the year 1452 we

find him travelling through Germany, probably with this charitable

object, though at Leipsic he paused long enough for his eloquence to win

for his rigid Order sixty professors and students.[594] His efforts to

raise a crusade against Bohemia, however, were frustrated by the

capture of Constantinople in May, 1453. The immense impression which

this produced throughout Christendom, the universal alarm at the

progress of the Turk, and the necessity of defending Europe against his

approach, speedily threw into the shade all minor questions. A new

crusade was imperatively wanted, but it could not be wasted upon Bohemia

and the Utraquists.

During the summer of 1453, as we have seen, Capistrano was tranquilly

employing his enforced leisure in burning Jews at Breslau. Thence he

went to Poland, where we find him at Cracow throwing into prison a

physician, Master Paul, whom he suspected of being an emissary of

Rokyzana. He applied again to Podiebrad for a safe-conduct to Prague,

which was curtly refused on the ground that when it had been previously

offered it had not been accepted, and that Ladislas did not want the

peace of his kingdom disturbed. He left Cracow May 15, 1454, for Breslau

and Olmütz, whence he still hoped to accomplish something within the

charmed circle of Bohemia, into which he had not been allowed to

penetrate. Rokyzana at this time was inspired with hopes that the terror

of the Turk and the need for Christian unity would enable him to realize

his dream of the archbishopric. He made the large concessions alluded to

above on many of the points of dissidence, and used every effort with

the emperor to procure through him the papal confirmation. A letter from

Ladislas, of June 13, to the Bishop of Olmütz, asking him to restrain

Capistrano from using such violent terms in denouncing Bohemians, as he

was doing more harm than good, was evidently a move in the same game.

Yet even the paramount interests of Christendom could not win for

Rokyzana the coveted confirmation, although those interests soon

diverted Capistrano's fiery energies from the heretic to the

infidel.[595]

A brief and clear-cut letter of Æneas Sylvius to Capistrano, dated July

26, 1454, tells him to give up the dream of getting to Prague and go to

Frankfort, where he will be useful. An assembly of princes had been held

in Ratisbon, where a crusade had been agreed upon, and Philip of

Burgundy had consented to lead it. Final arrangements were to be made in

Frankfort in October, and there Æneas Sylvius wanted the aid of

Capistrano's tireless ardor. Their correspondence at this juncture shows

the terror which existed lest Europe should be overrun; the confusion

and uncertainty which prevailed, and the selfish differences which

threatened to neutralize effort. At Frankfort their worst fears were

realized. The zeal of the princes had cooled, and they declared the

purpose of the pope and emperor was to steal their money and not to

fight. They demanded that the business should be conducted by a general

council which should at the same time repress the Holy See--in fact,

both parties were selfishly endeavoring to turn the agony of Europe to

account; the pope to raise money, and the princes to recover their

independence. All that Æneas and Capistrano could obtain was a promise

that at the Pentecost of 1455 they would meet the emperor and determine

what could be done. In February and March, 1455, they began to assemble

at Neuburg, near Vienna, where Podiebrad again used every effort to

procure Rokyzana's confirmation. As for the crusade, the energies of

Christendom seemed paralyzed by the petty jealousies and ambitions of

its rulers. At last, under the unflagging eloquence of Æneas and

Capistrano, things appeared to be taking shape, when the news was

received of the death of Nicholas V. on March 22. Everything fell to

pieces, and the princes departed, postponing action until the next year.

It was a forcible example of the utility of the papacy, which supplied a

common head to the discordant forces of the time.[596]

Capistrano's impetuous energies were now fairly enlisted in the strife

with the Turk, and the Hussites had a respite. In fact, the situation

was too alarming to permit of their persecution, and it is a remarkable

instance of the unbending rigidity of Rome, that even in this perilous

juncture the overtures and concessions of Podiebrad and Rokyzana availed

them nothing.

Calixtus III. was elected April 8, with a speed which showed how

dangerous a papal interregnum was considered. He at once sent legates

to preach the crusade throughout Europe, and commenced to build

war-ships on the Tiber. The Hungarians, who were justly excited at the

impending invasion of Mahomet II. begged Capistrano to come to them and

use his eloquence. Calixtus gave him permission, confirmed all the

powers conferred on him by Nicholas, and he undertook the task which was

to complete his life's work. Yet even these new duties, which wrought

his fiery soul to a higher tension than ever, did not wholly distract

his attention from the hated Hussites. The juncture seemed favorable for

a reconciliation, which every motive of policy dictated. Besides, Æneas

Sylvius had just been promoted to the cardinalate, and that crafty

diplomat had succeeded in making the Bohemians look upon him as their

friend. They not only hoped to obtain the confirmation of the

Compactata, but the cardinal's hat for Rokyzana. Hearing of this,

Capistrano wrote, March 24, 1456, from Buda to Calixtus dissuading him

in the most vigorous terms. The Hussites are the worst of mankind,

fearing neither God nor man; the heart can scarce conceive the errors

which they believe, or the abominations which they practise in secret.

The Compactata are their sole bulwark; if these are confirmed, the

Hussites, who abound secretly, not only in Bohemia but in Hungary,

Transylvania, Moldavia, and the neighboring regions, will rise and

declare themselves. The warning was sufficient and the overtures were

rejected.[597]

Suddenly the news came that the dreaded Mahomet II. was advancing, and

had laid siege to Belgrade. Ladislas, who was King of Hungary as well as

of Bohemia, was at Buda-Pesth, and with his uncle, the Count of Cillei,

on pretext of a hunting-excursion, basely fled to Austria. John Hunyady,

Count of Transylvania, who had been regent of the kingdom, organized the

Hungarian forces, with some German crusaders who had come to his

assistance, while Capistrano marched with him as papal commander of the

crusade. Glorious in the annals of Hungary is the victory of Belgrade.

"With a flotilla of boats on the Danube, Hunyady, on July 14, 1456, cut

his way into the town through the beleaguering forces. Furious were the

attack and the defence until the 22d, when a fierce assault by the Turks

was repulsed, and the besieged followed the retreating enemy, burned

one of their camps, spiking some of their cannon and carrying the rest

back into the town, where they did good service during the rest of that

memorable day. Mahomet gathered together his forces for a last desperate

attempt, which was a failure, and during the night he fled, leaving

twenty-four thousand men upon the field, and three hundred cannon. His

army was utterly dispersed, and this disaster, aided by the heroic

resistance of Scanderbeg in Albania, arrested the Turkish invasion and

gave Europe a breathing-spell. It cost, however, the lives of the two

heroes to whom it was due. The stench of the dead bodies sickened the

army of the victors, and John Hunyady fell a victim, August 11, to the

epidemic, which prevented the following up of the advantage. Capistrano

had thrown himself into the work with all his self-forgetful enthusiasm.

His eloquence had wrought the Christians up to the highest pitch of

religious exaltation; the crusaders would obey no one but him, and his

labors were incessant. He passed days without time for food, and nights

without rest; for seventeen days, it is said, before the victory, he

slept but seven hours in all. He was in his seventy-first year, with a

frame weakened by habitual austerities, and when the strain was past

exhausted nature paid the penalty. A slow fever set in, August 6, under

which he wasted away, and died, October 23. He was perhaps the most

perfect type which the age produced of the ideal son of the Church; a

purely artificial creation, in which the weakness of humanity

disappeared with some of its virtues, and the whole nature, with its

rare powers, was concentrated in unselfish devotion to a mistaken

purpose. Such men are the tools of the worldly and unscrupulous who know

how to use them, and for forty years Capistrano had been thus employed

to bring misery on his fellow-beings, unconscious of the evil which he

wrought. Yet, as Æneas Sylvius shrewdly points out, there was one weak

spot left in his nature. In the letters in which he and Hunyady

described the victory of Belgrade neither chief gave credit to the

other. As Æneas says, "Capistrano had despised the pomps of the world,

he had fled from its delights, he had trampled down avarice, he had

overcome lust, but he could not contemn glory."[598]

No one could be found worthy to replace Capistrano but his friendly

rival, Giacomo della Marca, who was accordingly despatched, in 1457, to

the scene of his labors of twenty years previous, armed with the same

powers, as inquisitor and crusader. The danger from the Turk was still

too pressing for him to waste thought on the former function, and he

devoted himself to stimulating and organizing the war against the Moslem

until his health gave way, and he returned to Italy, where, as we have

seen, he not long afterwards had to defend himself from a charge of

heresy brought by his zealous Dominican brethren. He was replaced by his

disciples, Giovanni da Tagliacozza and Michele da Tussicino, who were

followed in 1461 by Frà Gabriele da Verona; but though Franciscans still

continued for a generation to labor for the conversion of the Calixtins,

they had little success in the absence of power to employ the customary

inquisitorial methods, of which more hereafter.[599]

In fact, the prospects of reducing Bohemia to obedience were steadily

diminishing. In the wildest uproar of the Hussite wars there were

powerful barons and cities who steadily held out for the pope and

kaiser, and under the interregnum there had at first been a dual

government, shared equally by Catholic and Calixtin. Under the firm hand

of George Podiebrad the orthodox communities submitted one by one, and

in spiritual matters Rokyzana was supreme. It is true that there was now

little to distinguish the churches in doctrine or practice save the use

of the cup; but independence served as a protection against the greed of

the Roman curia, and there was small encouragement for a surrender of

this independence in the clamor which was now going up from Germany. The

Basilian regulations, confirmed by Eugenius, had for a time served as a

safeguard to some extent, but now these were coolly treated as obsolete,

and complaints were loud that all the old abuses were flourishing as

vigorously as ever. Elections were set aside, or heavy sums were

extorted for their confirmation, while the country was drained of money

by the exaction of tenths and the sale of indulgences. Secure in their

isolation, the Bohemians might well submit to some inconvenience to be

spared the costly blessing of apostolic paternal care. The only hope of

Rome lay in the approaching majority of the Catholic youth Ladislas; but

when, on the eve of his marriage with the daughter of Charles VII. of

France, he suddenly died, towards the close of 1457, not without

suspicions of foul play, and George Podiebrad soon afterwards was

elected and crowned, it might well seem that, short of Divine

interposition, the peaceful return of Bohemia was not to be looked

for.[600]