Cu. VI.] THE COUNCIL EVADES A DECISION. 191 8 urge the condemnation of Petit's propositions.1 It was in vain that the university reiterated its complaints. It was in vain that the emperor himself wrote once and again expressing his indignant abhorrence of principles that exposed his own life to the stroke of the assassin. The advocates of the Duke of Burgundy became more bold and earnest in their opposition. A majority of more than twothirds of the eighty-four doctors, who were directed to give in their written opinions on the subject, were against Gerson and France. These last appealed to The discussions were the council in full session. violent and protracted. The difficulties in the way of proceeding were continually aggravated. Day after day the nations assembled to discuss the subject, but no advance was made. Nothing could be concluded. The council declared expressly that no condemnation of the propositions should prejudice person or honor of individuals. the The intelligence of the articles of "The Capitulation of Narbonne," meanwhile, (Feb. 4, 1416,) reached Constance. The council assembled to hear them read, and to swear to their solemn observance. They did this, not as a council, but as an assembly of cardinals, bishops, etc. Instead of the Cardinal de Viviers, the president of the council, the Archbishop of Tours was the moderator of the assembly. Sixteen cardinals, more than fifty bishops, more than twenty abbots, and more than one hundred ambassadors and deputies took oath to observe the articles the capitulation." Some, however, protested of แ 2 'L'Enfant, 312. * Ib., 368. ' Ib., 354. • Ib., 373. against portions of them, or against their being understood in a sense prejudicial to what they claimed as their right.1 It was while these matters and those of John Petit were occupying the public attention of the council, that Theodoric of Munster (Feb. 16, 1416) preached a sermon, in part with reference to Benedict XIII., but mainly bearing upon the vices of the clergy and the abuses of the church. It serves to show the feelings and opinions of at least a respectable minority of the council, and how strongly some of them must have sympathized in a portion of the views of the man whom they had sent to the stake. He took for his text the words, "Go ye also into my vineyard," and improved the occasion, naturally, to condemn the indolence of the ecclesiastics, and the abuses and disorders in which it resulted. By the vineyard he understands, first, the Holy Scriptures, which the bishops and priests are to cultivate by study; and, in the second place, the church, which is confided to their care. The negligence, idleness, and vicious life of the clergy are severely rebuked, and their conduct in leaving their flocks to indulge in luxury is sharply arraigned. "Yet," says the preacher, "it would be something tolerable if, in their dislike to labor in the vineyard, they would at least serve as scarecrows, to drive away the birds; but since they merely spread around them the stench of their vices, they can only be regarded as carrion, to attract ravenous beasts to trample and ravage the vineyard of the Lord. Such prelates deserve to be 'L'Enfant, 365. * Ib., 370. CH. VI.] A SCATHING SERMON. 193 deposed, not only as useless servants, but as nuisances that make others breathe their pestilent corrup tion.. It is a great error to believe, as some do, that a pope should be deposed only for heresy, if by this we are not to understand sins public, scandalous, and maintained with shamelessness and obstinacy." In these words he refers to the grounds on which Benedict might be proceeded against. He then goes on to condemn other faults of the ecclesiastics: their neglecting the study of Holy Scripture, to apply themselves to canon law and the decretals, for purposes of gain. Not that he would have the latter absolutely neglected; but the principal study of prelates and pastors should be the word of God, in order to preach, inasmuch as this is the original authority by which all positive law-which, moreover, is necessarily faulty and subject to change-must be tried. Enforcing his position by examples, he remarks, in language little respectful to the papacy, "That the convocation of the council and the deposition of one of the rival pontiffs would have been impossible, if it had been required to follow the new canon law which gives to the popes alone the right of assembling councils, and which lays down the principle that the pope cannot be judged except for heresy alone." Again the preacher remarks, "Now we see positive laws, that is, the canon law, the decretals, and constitutions of the popes, exalted above the law of God and the commandments of Jesus Christ. This is the case even in this council, where the prelates fear more to disregard the authority of the Clementines, than that of the decalogue. They take more pains to see that court rules are observed, than to prevent propositions being advanced opposed to faith and to gospel morals." Such language was bold enough, and could scarcely have been acceptable to the majority of the council. But many of its positions had fully been illustrated in the proceedings that had taken place, especially in the case of Huss. The speaker's reference to the scriptures as above all the authority of what he called positive law, fully coincided with the position taken by Huss upon his trial. It seems difficult to explain how such language could have been used, so much in the spirit of invective employed by the Bohemians, and so fully justifying what the council had branded as heresy. But it is evident that there were those at the council-and if united, forming a powerful minority-who were yet anxious and earnest on the subject of reform. It was impossible to silence them altogether, and it might have been a politic measure to allow them the satisfaction of having their views expressed. The statements which they presented were, moreover, so indisputably true, that the only answer they could receive was a silent acquiescence. CHAPTER VII. JEROME BEFORE THE COUNCIL. CITATION OF THE BOHEMIANS. THE DECREE. — DISPOSITION OF THE COUNCIL TOWARD JEROME. - HIS CONDITION AND STATE OF MIND IN PRISON. REFUSES TO RECOGNIZE HIS NEW JUDGES. THE LIST OF CHARGES AGAINST HIM. HIS REPLIES. ON WICKLIFFE.ON CONTUMACY. VARIOUS CHARGES.-PHILOSOPHICAL SUBTLETIES. TRANSUBSTANTIATION. SONGS WRITTEN AND SUNG. ALL MAY PREACH. - UNJUST EXCOMMUNICATION INVALID.INDULGENCES. TREATMENT OF THEM THAT SOLD THEM. - PAPAL BULLS. - PICTURES OF THE SAINTS. RELICS. MARTYRS OF PRAGUE. FAVOR TO THE GREEK CHURCH.-JEROME'S RECANTATION HYPOCRITICAL. - HIS LETTER TO VIENNA. - DISHONEST PURPOSE IN COMING TO CONSTANCE. WILL NOT ACKNOWLEDGE HIS ERRORS. -REFUSES TO FAST.-DEMAND THAT HE SHOULD ANSWER ON OATH. - EXTENDED PERIOD OF JEROME'S LIFE COVERED BY THE CHARGES. JEROME'S REPLIES. - ADMISSIONS, EXPLANATIONS, AND DENIALS. - JEROME ALLOWED A GENERAL DEFENCE, HIS VIEWS AND FEELINGS. HIS SPEECH. REFERS TO ANCIENT MARTYRS. — UNIVERSITY OF PRAGUE. - EULOGY OF HUSS. HIS COURSE.-JEROME'S VISIT TO CONSTANCE. HIS TREATMENT. HIS RECANTATION DISAVOWED. HIS VIEWS OF WICKLIFFE. HIS SUBSTANTIAL ORTHODOXY. HIS FATE SEALED BY HIS APPROVAL OF HUSS.-HEROISM OF JEROME. POGGIO BRACCIOLINI. HIS LEtter in PRAISE OF JEROME.ABLE DEFENCE OF THE LATTER. HIS MANLY BEARING.HIS RETORTS.-WONDERFUL POWERS. HIS MEMORABLE ELOQUENCE. FEB. 16, 1416-MAY 26, 1416. THE Condition of things in Bohemia had now become such as to excite the well-founded alarm of the council. Their proceedings were boldly arraigned, and their authority contemned. The Bishop of Leitomischel, bearing their commission, found himself unable to execute it. His person, and even his life, were considered as endangered in the attempt. The |