Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"

66

Popery and ignorance. His doctrines (he goes on) were received "in Bohemia with avidity and zeal, by great numbers of people, but by none so particularly as by John Huss and his friend and fellow martyr, Jerome of Prague." In another place Fox writes, "In England, "the persecutions against the Protestants had been carried on for some "time with relentless cruelty. They now extended to Germany and "Bohemia, where Huss and Jerome of Prague were particularly singled I out to suffer in the cause of religion." By such false and impudent statements have the people of England been deluded and led astray from the real state of the case. That Huss and Jerome of Prague were particularly singled out" cannot be denied, nor would justice have been done, if they had not been so selected. They were the ringleaders, the fomenters of the disorders which ensued, in consequence of the promulgation of their seditious doctrines, cloathed with religious hypocrisy, and therefore to have punished the deluded instead of the deluders would have been an act of extreme injustice. Fox insinuates that they were "singled out to suffer in the cause of religion;" this we deny; for it was not in the cause of religion that they were engaged, but in the cause of irreligion. Their doctrines tended to the corruption of morals, to sow strife and crime, and therefore religion was not honoured by their preachings, but scandalized and disgraced. It is very easy to assert that Wickliff was a reformer, and that Huss and Jerome of Prague were martyrs; but as the goodness of the tree is only to be known by its fruits, so should the seeker of truth look to the fruits produced by these pretended reformers before he concludes that they. suffered in the cause of religion. By so doing he will find that the name of religion was never more grossly perverted than by Fox and his modern editors and adherents. As we have often observed, there can be but one true religion, because Truth being always the same, never varying nor changing, so religion, which was founded by God, who is Truth itself, can never change or be reformed, because the very idea of altering implies the existence of error and the want of truth, which is an utter impossibility.

We have in our preceding pages shewn how the Catholic church proceeds to preserve inviolate the true faith, and that Fox has admitted, in his account of the primitive martyrs, the right of the pope to call and preside in councils for the purpose of examining and detecting heresy, and pronouncing against erroneous doctrines. This was the case with the arch-heretic Arius, in the fourth century, with the heresy of the Eutychians and Monothelites, in the tenth century, and in all other cases that call for solemn deliberation. In every age the faith of the Catholic church has been preserved and continued under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, by the writings and preachings of learned doctors, the deliberations and decisions of councils selected from all parts of the world, or confined to a province or kingdom, but approved by the head and received by the members of the whole church. By this rule Catholics have a guarantee which those who differ from their church cannot claim; and no sooner is an attempt made to introduce error or innovation into the unerring creed of Catholicism, than the innovator is denounced, and the Catholic is put upon his guard to avoid the evil snares laid to entrap him. Thus it was with John Huss and

Jerome of Prague. When the former began to preach his erroneous and seditious doctrines openly, the archbishop of Prague denounced him as a teacher of error and an innovator, which it was his duty to do as a conservator of truth, and a guardian over the morals of the people committed to his care. Fox says this proceeding had a contrary effect, "for it stimulated the converts to greater zeal." That the ignorant multitude were unhappily deceived by these innovators is but too true, nevertheless it does not make the case more in favour of Huss, for if his doctrines were true, why did they not spread over the world and eradicate Popery, as Catholicism is called? Why were their doctrines confined to a local spot, and supported by rebellion, murder, and sacrilege? These outrages are carefully concealed by the author of the Book of Martyrs, but they are detailed at some length by the author of the Fanatic Martyrology. We have given Fox's account, and have thus dealed fairly by him; our next duty is to act with the same degree of fairness towards our readers, by letting them see the other side of the question. Mr. Earbery, the author of The Fanatic Martyrology, states that "John Huss, the more to incense his followers against pope "John XXIII, who had condemned him, FALSELY persuaded them "that the church of Rome held as an article of faith the necessity of believing in the pope, as well as that of believing in God; and to re“tain on his side all men of wicked lives, he taught that those sinners "who were punished in this world, would not be punished in the next." Amiable conduct truly! An excellent mode to serve the cause of religion; and well worthy the modern martyrs of John Fox! Here we see it stated, that to incite his followers to vengeance against the pope, he preached FALSEHOOD; and to oppose those good men who defended truth, he enlisted wicked men into his ranks, by deceiving them and hazarding their souls to eternal perdition. And this is the gentleman who is represented by Fox as the promulgator of truth. That his doctrines were received with avidity and zeal by those who led abandoned lives there cannot exist a doubt; but what are we to think of the morals of those writers who can hold such a character in estimation merely from his being opposed to Popery, as it is called?

66

[ocr errors]

Fox further says; that Huss was so greatly favoured in Bohemia, "that king Winceslaus, the queen, the nobility, and the university, "desired the pope to dispense with such an appearance [namely, be"fore the court of Rome, to which he had been cited]; as also that "he would not suffer the kingdom to lie under the accusation of heresy, but permit them to preach the gospel with freedom in their places of worship." On consulting Mr. Earbery, we find tha the gives quite a different version of this fact. From his statement it appears that Wenceslaus had the rank of emperor, and was a character as infamous as Huss himself, wholly addicted to pleasures and averse to business. That on the death of the then archbishop of Prague, he appointed "one Arbile to succeed him, a debauched wretch, and as "vile in all respects (observes Mr. Earbery) as the emperor who ad"vanced him. Winceslaus (continues Mr. E.) being so brutal, was deposed by the Germans, and his brother Sigismund succeeded him, who, being a prince zealous for religion, with indefatigable industry "prevailed to have a council assembled, as it accordingly was, after

[ocr errors]

many difficulties, in the city of Constance." Thus then it appears that this Winceslaus, who was fond of Huss, according to Fox, was one of those wicked men whom that hieresiarch had retained on his side by his false doctrines. A worthy ruler to solicit the pope to let Huss preach the gospel with freedom. But what was there to prevent Huss from preaching the truth, if his doctrines were correct, when he had the king, and queen, and nobility, and university on his side? How was the pope to prevent him when he was thus backed? The apostles preached the gospel, they published the revealed truths of religion fearlessly and openly, without being supported by kings, or queens, or noblemen, nay,sin direct opposition to the temporal power, and the counsels of princes; and they and their successors fulfilled the words of their divine Master in every respect. Why, then, if Huss was a preacher of truth, did he not succeed? Why did he retract, and recant, and retract again; and his followers divide, as is the case with all who are in error, into various sects, all differing from each other, all claiming to be right, and condemning each other for being wrong? Fox and his editors may endeavour to gloss over these facts, and try to conceal these contradictions, but, it is our duty to bring them to the light, and leave the reader to decide on the merit of the case.

but

The account given by Fox of the proceedings entered into against Huss by his ecclesiastical judges, is of a piece with his other falsehoods and misrepresentations; therefore, to enable the reader to draw his own conclusions of the bungling and romancing method adopted in this Book of Martyrs to hoodwink and delude the ignorant and credulous, we will here insert the account given by Mr. Earbery of the acts of the council of prelates, and of the general council of Constance, and request a careful comparison between the two relations in order to come at the truth:

A council of prelates and learned men being assembled by order of the aforesaid pope John at Prague, John Huss appeared before them, behaved himself very modestly, declared his submission to the church, and publicly disowned all or most of the heresies he had so publicly preached and taught; whereupon that council restored him to the communion of the church, only suspending him for a short time from the exercise of the priestly function. He, as soon as the council was broke up, taught more insolently than ever the same propositions he had abjured, and to fulfil the measure of his impudence, endeavoured to depreciate amongst men the authority of the fathers of the church. Having thus insulted the authority of the church, and at the same time worked the whole kingdom into a rebellion, for all his open insolences could be called by no other name, at length, the general council met at Constance, and John Huss having obtained a pass from the emperor Sigismund, and another from that city, repaired thither, attended by some gentlemen of Bohemia. He visited pope John XXIII. and all the other prelates, and caused it to be affixed at all the church doors in that place, whilst his friends spoke the same throughout all Germany, that he had presented himself before the council to give an account of his faith, and that he invited all those who doubted of his religion, or who held him in suspicion to bring in their actions against him before that most august tribunal in Christendom. By this those fathers made out that he had recognized them and sued to them to be his judges, whereupon pope John aforeseid gave leave to John the patriarch of Constantinople, the bishop of Suree, and Bernard, bishop of Cita de Castello, to draw a breviate of the case of John Huss and to make their report thereof to the council; which done, he was acquainted that the witnesses had appeared against him, and that he was not to depart Constance till judgment had been pronounced against him, which struck a mighty terror upon him, and he began to question his safety. The witnesses were so numerous that they could not pos sibly be corrupted; and their agreement so perfect, that they could not be rejected. No

legal exception could be made against them, and their large and circumstantial depositions clearly proved, that John Huss had been the cause of all the disturbances, which for six years before had happened in Bohemia upon the account of religion, and that to him were principally owing the sacrilegious acts that had been there committed, the profaneness which had been there authorized, and that through him vows of chastity had been violated, and ecclesiastical revenues pillaged. To all these crimes proved upon him, he added another, which was exercising of his priestly function, after having been in Bohemia suspended by the archbishop of Prague, and again at Constance prohibited doing the same by the bishop of that place. John Huss began now not to think himself safe in Constance, and his friends advised him to fly. Accordingly, he disguised himself like a peasant, and buried himself in a cart laden with forage, but Henry de Salzembroc, who was his chief assistant in managing this affair, was at the same time the principal spy upon him, and discovered all the management, so that as soon as he was without the gate, the cart was stopped and he taken out. At first he pretended that he was not the person they looked for, and when that would not serve him, he pleaded the emperor's pass. In fine, he was conducted back, and shut up in a room after a stricter manner than he had been before. Jerome of Prague, the most considerable of his disciples, was also confined, and the 5th of April appointed for them to give an account of their doctrine. Then the council proceeded to condemn the forty-five articles of Wickliffe, and censured his memory, declaring him unworthy of Christian burial, which last was supposed to be done to intimidate John Huss and Jerome of Prague by so severe an example, by showing them what they must expect, unless they did retract their tenets; and the cardinals of Florence and Cambray made this severe act the foundation of their exhorting the two prisoners to make à surrender of themselves. This they consented to, and demanded of the council, that they would be pleased to present to them a form of abjuration. They persisted in this resolution a second time, and the emperor was desired to allow each of them a stipend capable of subsisting six persons to live on about the frontiers of Sweden, and never more to return into Bohemia. John Huss and Jerome of Prague made no scruple at the retractation and banishment; but the necessity of disavowing their doctrine in the language of their own country, shocked them more than fire and faggot. At length, to hinder the fathers from proceeding farther in the coudemnation, John Huss presented to them a writing, urging, that he could not resolve to retract all the articles in general wherewith he was charged, for that his conscience did not reproach him with having taught them: yet offering, after many more evasions, to retract whatsoever should be found contrary to religion in his books. The commissioners appointed for the affair of John Huss answered, that truth following the expression of holy writ was established in the mouth of two or three witnesses, that they had twenty against him; all of them without exception, and the most part of them doctors, who had deposed nothing but what they had seen or heard, and that their evidence did so agree together, that it was impossible to find therein the least contradiction, &c. Next Huss excepted against two of the commissioners, but his exceptions against them were found empty and frivolous. In the beginning of July, the cardinal of Cambray charitably pressed him to make his retractation in the form the council had appointed; but he after some formal submissions being urged to sign, pretended that it was the fear of lying that hindered him, He was twice again exhorted by the emperor himself to make his retractation, but in vain, and the 6th of July appointed to terminate this affair; before which four bishops and as many gentlemen of his own country were sent to persuade him, who brought back nothing but ambiguous reasons. When the day was come, he was brought forth into the cathedral church, where the council sat, and was required to pronounce an anathema against the errors of Wickliffe, from which he excused himself by a long discourse, which turned upon these two heads: the one, that it was against his conscience so to do; the other, that he did not hold as absolutely false all that Wickliffe had taught, and that he thought himself bound at least to except three propositions. The first of which was, that Constantine had offended God in granting to the church civil powers; the second, that a priest who had fallen into deadly sin was not a valid administrator of the sacraments; and the third was, that tithes were but mere alms; whereof he was then accused and convicted. Then was the sentence pronounced against John Huss by the bishop of Concord, in terms, whereof the sense was, that he had been duly attainted and convicted of the crime of heresy ; that his appeal was scandalous, injurious, and ridiculous, as calling in doubt the supreme jurisdiction of an ec

clesiastical tribunal; that he had seduced by his sermons and books the Christian people of Bohemia, and that he was not willing to remedy those evils of which he had been the au thor by an authentic disavowal of them. Wherefore the holy council decreed, that he should be degraded from the order of priesthood, of which he was unworthy, and gave it in charge to the bishops of Milan, Montefalco, Ast, Alexandria, Prague and Venice, to see the sentence of degradation executed upon him in the form prescribed in the canon law, and that the criminal should be delivered over to the secular arms. John Huss heard the sentence pronounced against him without ever attempting to interrupt the person that pronounced it; for that he imagined it would have been permitted him afterwards to harangue the whole assembly in such manner as he had proposed to himself, in order to move their compassion; but he was enjoined silence the very moment he began to speak: he was by force taken down from the place where he had got up, and they hastened to put upon him the sacerdotal vestments, that they might with shame strip them off again. The ceremony was concluded with putting upon his head a bonnet of paper with this inscription: Lo this is the Heresiarch. Then the duke of Bavaria, on the 6th of July, 1415, delivered him into the hands of the magistrate, who caused him to be led, after he had been shaven all over, as sorcerers are used in Germany, to the market place, where was prepared a pile of wood about a stake. Before he was fastened to the stake, it was demanded of him whether or no he would retract; but this he refused to do with greater resolution than when he was before the council."

This account differs materially from that given by John Fox, and, as the reader will have observed, is devoid of the high-colouring and romancing style which marks the statement in the Book of Martyrs.— By answering the summons of the council, Huss admitted the right of the assembly to interrogate him, and judge of his doctrines. The story of the safe-conduct is a stale one, so often refuted, that it is not necessary to notice it here, and beside it is incorrectly stated by Fox. As to the maxim of the council, that "Faith is not to be kept with heretics," the account of the proceedings of that council towards Huss, as given by Mr. Earbery, shews that the assembly acted with the most scrupulous nicety and justice. Notwithstanding Huss had repeatedly broken his faith with the council, the fathers proceeded according to the regular form, and produced witnesses so perfect in their evidence, and so many in number, that they could not be disputed nor corrupted. Hence it is clear that truth and justice was on the side of the council, and as Huss was determined to remain obstinate, he drew the consequences upon his own head. How unfair is it then to cast blame or reproach on the council for doing their duty, and extol the conduct of a man who acted in defiance of both law and justice. It was clearly proved, Mr. Earbery states, that John Huss had been "the cause of all the disturbances, which, "for six years before, had happened in Bohemia on account of religion, " and that to him were principally owing all the sacrilegious acts that "had been there committed, the profaneness which had been there au"thorized, and that through him vows of chastity had been violated, " and ecclesiastical revenues pillaged." And is a man so loaded with crimes, unanswerably proved upon him, to be looked upon as a martyr to religion because he received the punishment imposed by the laws of his country for such crimes? What strange perversion is this! Huss could not be ignorant of the punishment that awaited him in the event of his being found guilty, and unable to escape from the hand of justice. That he was sensible of his situation is shewn by his attempt to elude his keepers, and we cannot help here remarking, how singular are the designs of Providence, that he who had acted treacherously towards

« ForrigeFortsæt »