 |
BOOK III
THE COUNCIL OF BASEL
1419-1444.
CHAPTER V.
THE COUNCIL OF BASEL AND THE HUSSITES
1432-1434.
If the downfall of Eugenius IV was due to his
obstinacy, the prestige of the Council, which enabled it to reap the advantage
of his weakness, was due to the Bohemia hopes which were conceived of a
peaceable ending of the Bohemian revolt. It was much easier for a Council than
for a Pope to open negotiations with victorious heretics, and the Bohemians on
their side were not averse from an honorable peace. Bohemia, with a population
of four or five millions, had suffered much during its ten years' struggle
against the rest of Europe. Its victories were ruinous to the conquerors; its
plundering raids brought no real wealth. The commerce of Bohemia was
annihilated; its lands were uncultivated; the nation was at the mercy of the
Taborite army, which no longer consisted solely of the God-fearing peasants,
but was recruited by adventurers from the neighboring lands. The policy of
Procopius the Great was, by striking terror, to prepare the way for peace, that
so Bohemia, with its religious liberty assured, might again enter the
confederacy of European States. When the Council of Basel held out hopes of
peace he was ready to try what could be won; and Bohemia consented to send
representatives to Basel for the purpose of discussion.
Accordingly the Council proceeded to prepare for its
great undertaking. In November, 1432, it appointed four doctors, John of
Ragusa, a Slav; Giles Carlier, a Frenchman; Heinrich Kalteisen, a German; and
John of Palomar, a Spaniard, to undertake the defense of the Church doctrine
against the Four Articles of Prague. These doctors zealously studied their case
with the aid of all the theologians present at Basel. As the time of the advent
of the Bohemians drew near, strict orders were given to the citizens to abstain
from everything that might shock the Puritanism of their expected guests.
Prostitutes were not to walk the streets; gambling and dancing were forbidden;
the members of the Council were enjoined to maintain strict sobriety, and
beware of following the example of the Pharisees of old, who taught well and
lived ill. At the same time guards were set to see that the Bohemians did not
spread their errors in the seat of the Council. On the part of the Bohemians
seven nobles and eight priests, headed by Procopius the Great, were chosen by a
Diet as their representatives at Basel. They rode with their attendants through
Germany, a stately cavalcade of fifty horsemen, with a banner bearing their
device of a chalice, under which was the inscription, ‘Veritas omnia vincit’ (Truth conquers all). In alarm lest their
entry into Basel might seem like a demonstration and cause scandal, Cesarini
sent to beg them to lay aside their banner. Before his messenger reached them
they had taken boat at Schafthausen, and entered Basel, quietly and
unexpectedly, on the evening of January 4, 1433. The citizens flocked to gaze
on them, wondering at their strange dress, the resolute faces, and fierce eyes
of the men who had wrought such terrible deeds of valour. They were
conducted to their hotels, where several members of the Council visited them,
and Cesarini sent them presents of food. On January 6, the festival of the
Epiphany, they celebrated the Communion in their lodgings, and curiosity drew
many to attend their services.
They noticed that the Praguers used vestments and
observed the customary ritual, with the sole exception that they communicated
under both kinds. Procopius and the Taborites, on the other hand, used neither
vestments nor altar, and discarded the mass service. After consecration
of the elements they said the Lord’s Prayer and communicated round a
table. A sermon was preached in German, at which many Catholics were present.
This scandalized Cesarini, who sent for the Bohemians, and requested them to
discontinue preaching in German. They answered that many of their followers
were Germans, and the sermons were for their benefit; they had the right of
performing their services as they thought fit, and meant to use it; they
invited no one to come, but they were not bound to prevent them from doing so.
Cesarini sent to the magistrates of the city a request that they would prevent
the people from attending their preachings. The magistrates took no measures
for this end; but after a few days the crowd grew weary of the novelty, and
ceased of its own accord to attend. John of Ragusa makes a sage remark, which
the advocates of religious protection would do well to remember: “Freedom and
neglect succeeded where restraint and prohibition would have failed, for human
frailty is always eager after what is forbidden”. The Bohemians, on their side,
asked to be present at the sermons preached before the Council; permission was
given on condition that they entered the cathedral after the reading of the
Gospel, and left when the sermon was ended, so as not to be present at any
part of the mass service.
Next day, January 7, Procopius invited John of Ragusa
and others to dine; they had a general theological discussion, in which the
predestinarian views of the Hussites came prominently forward. Most skillful
among their controversialists was an Englishman, Peter Payne, an Oxford
Lollard, who had fled to Bohemia, whom John of Ragusa found to be as
slippery as a snake.
On January 9 the Council ordained that Wednesdays and
Fridays should be strictly kept as fast days and prayers for union be said
during the period of the negotiations with the Bohemians. A solemn procession
was made for success in this arduous matter; forty-nine mitred prelates and
about eight hundred other members of the Council took part in it. The Bohemians
asked when and where they were to have an audience. Cesarini fixed the next day
in the ordinary meeting-place of congregations, the Dominican monastery. The
Bohemians objected to the place as being too small and out of the way; but
Cesarini was firm in refusing to depart from the usage of the Council.
On January 10 the congregation assembled, and seats
were assigned to the Bohemians on two rows of benches opposite the Cardinals.
Cesarini opened the proceedings with a long and eloquent oration, in which,
speaking in the person of the Church, he exhorted all to unity and peace, and
addressed the Bohemians as sons whom their mother yearned to welcome back to
her bosom. On the part of the Bohemians, John of Rokycana arose and took for
his text, “Where is He that is born King of the Jews? We have seen His star in
the east, and are come to worship Him”. He said that the Bohemians were seeking
after Christ, and, like their Master, had been evil spoken of; he asked the
Council not to be astonished if they said strange things, for truth was often
found in strange ways; he praised the primitive Church and denounced the vices
of the clergy of the present day. Finally, he thanked the Council for its
courtesy, and asked for a day to be fixed for a full hearing. Cesarini answered
that the Council was ready at any time; after a private conference the
Bohemians fixed the next Friday, January 16.
The Bohemians brought with them to the Council the
same spirit of reckless daring which had characterized them on the field of
battle. Only on January 13 did they arrange finally their spokesmen, whereas
the theologians of the Council had been for two months preparing their separate
points. Each day the Bohemians paid visits to the Cardinals and prelates; they
were received as a rule with great friendliness. At first some of the Cardinals
tended to be cold, if not discourteous: but Cesarini’s anxious efforts to
promote conciliatory conduct were in the end successful, and free social
intercourse was established between the two parties. In a few days’ time a
Cardinal discovered at least one bond of union between himself and the
Bohemians; he laughingly said to Procopius: “If the Pope had us in his
power he would hang us both”.
On January 16 the proceedings began with a
ratification of the safe-conduct, and a formal verification of the powers of
the Bohemian representatives. Then John of Rokycana began the controversy by a
defense of the First Article of Prague, concerning the Communion under both
kinds. He argued from the nature of the rite, from the words of the Gospel, the
custom of the primitive Church, the decrees of the General Councils and the
testimonies of the Fathers, that it was not only permissible but necessary. His
speech extended over three days, and was listened to with great attention.
When he ended Procopius sprang to his feet—a man of middle height, of stalwart
frame, with a swarthy face, large flashing eyes, and a fierce expression of
countenance. He passionately exhorted them to open their ears to the Gospel
truth; Communion was a heavenly banquet, to which all were invited; let them
beware lest they incurred punishment by despising it, for God could vindicate
His own. The Fathers heard with amazement these expressions of a fervent
conviction that right could be on the side opposed to the Church. Cesarini,
with his wonted tact, interposed to prevent an untimely outbreak of zeal on the
part of the Council. He suggested that the Bohemians should first speak, and
then submit their arguments in writing, so that they might be fully answered on
the side of the Council. This was agreed to, and the assembly dispersed.
On January 20 Nicolas of Pilgram began the defense
of the Second Article of Prague—the suppression of public sins. He spoke
for two days, but on the second day did not imitate the moderation of Rokycana.
He attacked the vices of the clergy, their simony, their hindrance of the Word
of God; he reproached them with the deaths of Hus and Jerome, whose saintly
lives he defended. A murmur arose in the Council; some laughed scornfully, others
gnashed their teeth; Cesarini, with folded hands, looked up to heaven. The
speaker asked if he was to have a fair hearing according to promise. Cesarini
ironically answered: “Yes, but pause sometimes to let us clear our throats”.
Nicolas went on with his speech. Afterwards Rokycana blamed him for the
bitterness of his invective, and expressed a wish to speak himself on the Third
Article. He was overruled by the other ambassadors, and only at the last moment
was it definitely settled that Ulrich of Zynaim was to be their spokesman.
On January 23 Ulrich began his arguments for the
freedom of preaching, and also spoke for two days, urging the supremacy of the
Word of God over the word of man, the danger of the substitution of the one for
the other, the dignity of the true priest, and his duty to preach God’s Word in
spite of all endeavours to prevent him. At the end of his first day's speech
Rokycana rose and said that he had heard that the Bohemians were accused of
throwing snow at a crucifix on the bridge; they wished to deny it, and if it
could be proved that any of their attendants had done so he should be punished.
Cesarini answered that many tales were told about their doings, which, however,
the Council had resolved to endure as well as their speeches. He wished,
however, that they would restrain their servants from going into the
neighboring villages to spread their doctrines. He was answered that the
servants only went to get fodder for the horses, and if the curious Germans
asked them questions, such as, whether they held the Virgin Mary to be a
virgin, no great harm was done if they answered, “Yes”. They
promised, however, to see to the matter.
On January 26 Peter Payne began a three
days’ speech on the temporal possessions of the clergy. He admitted that
worldly goods were not to be entirely denied them, but, in the words of S.
Paul, having food and raiment, therewith they should be content; all
superfluities should be cut off from them, and they should in no case exercise
temporal lordship. When he had finished his argument, he said that this
doctrine was commonly supposed to originate from Wycliffe; he referred the
Council, however, to the writings of Richard, Bishop of Armagh, and went on to
give an account of Wycliffe’s teaching at Oxford, his own struggles in defense
of Wycliffite opinions, and his flight into Bohemia. When he had ended,
Rokycana thanked the Council for their patient and kindly hearing: if anything
that they had said could be proved to be erroneous, they were willing to amend it.
He asked that those who answered in the Council’s behalf should follow their
example and reduce the heads of their arguments to writing. One of the Bohemian
nobles, speaking in German, thanked William of Bavaria for his presence at the
discussion. William assured them of his protection, and promised to procure for
them as free and complete a hearing as they wished. Cesarini then proceeded to
settle the preliminaries of the Council’s reply. First he asked if all the
Bohemians were unanimous in their adhesion to the arguments set forth by their
speakers: he was answered, “Yes”. Cesarini then commented on the various points
in the Bohemian speeches which gave him hopes of reconciliation. He said that
the Council was resolved not to be offended at anything which was said contrary
to the orthodox belief: but if any concord was to be obtained they must have
everything under discussion. Besides the Four Articles, which had been put
forward, he believed there were other points in which the Bohemians differed
from the Church. One of their speakers had called Wycliffe “the
evangelical doctor”; with a view to discover how far they held with Wycliffe he
handed to them twenty-eight propositions taken from Wycliffe’s writings and six
other questions, opposite to each of which he asked that they would write
whether they held it or no. The Bohemians asked to deliberate before answering.
It was the first attempt of the Council to break the ranks of the Bohemians by
bringing to light the differences which existed amongst them.
On January 31 the reply on the part of the Council was
begun. First came a sermon from a Cistercian abbot, which gave offence to the
Bohemians by exhorting them to submit to the Council. Then John of Ragusa began
his proof that the reception of the Communion under both kinds was not
necessary and, when forbidden by the Church, was unlawful. His speech, which
was a tissue of scholastic explanations of texts and types and passages from
the Fathers, lasted till February 12. He angered the Bohemians by his tediousness
and by the assumptions, which underlaid his speech, that they were heretics.
Some stormy interruptions took place in consequence. On February 4 Procopius
rose and protested against the tone adopted by the Cistercian abbot and John of
Ragusa. “We are not heretics”, he exclaimed; “if you say that we ought to
return to the Church, I answer that we have not departed from it, but hope to
bring others to it, you amongst the rest”. There was a shout of laughter. “Is
the speaker going to continue rambling over impertinent matter? Does he speak
in his own name or in that of the Council? If in his own, let him be stopped:
we did not take the trouble to come here to listen to three or four doctors”.
The Cistercian abbot and John of Ragusa both excused themselves from any
intention of violating the compact under which the Bohemians had come to Basel.
Rokycana asked: “You talk of the Church: what is the Church? We know what Pope
Eugenius says about you; your head does not recognize you as the Universal
Church. But we care little for that and hope only for peace and concord”.
Cesarini exhorted both sides to patience; he reminded the Bohemians that if
they had answered the twenty-eight articles proposed to them there would be
less doubt about their opinions, and it would be easier to decide what was
pertinent and what was not.
On February 10 there was another outburst of feeling.
John of Ragusa, in pursuing his argument respecting the authority of the
Church, was examining the objections that might be raised to his positions. He
introduced them by such phrases as “a heretic might object”. This enraged the
Bohemians; Rokycana rose and exclaimed: “I abhor heresy, and if any one
suspects me of heresy let him prove it”. Procopius, his eyes flashing with
rage, cried out: “We are not heretics, nor has any one proved us to be
such; yet that monk has stood and called us so repeatedly. If I had known this
in Bohemia I would never have come here”. John of Ragusa excused himself,
saying, “May God show no mercy to me if I had any intention of casting a
slur on you”. Peter Payne ironically exclaimed: “We are not afraid of you;
even if you had been speaking for the Council your words would have had no
weight”. Again Cesarini cast oil on the waters, beseeching them to take
all things in good part. “There must be altercations”, he truly
said, “before we come to an agreement; a woman when she is in travail has
sorrow”. Next day the Archbishop of Lyons came to ask pardon for John of
Ragusa. The Bohemians demanded that the other three speakers should be more
brief and should speak in the name of the Council. During the remainder of
John’s address Procopius and another of the Bohemians refused to attend the
conference.
It was agreed by the Council that the other three
orators should speak in the Council's name, reserving, however, the right of
amending or adding to what they said. Matters now went more peaceably. The
speeches of Carlier, Kalteisen, and John of Palomar, which were studiously
moderate, extended till February 28. Meanwhile the Bohemians, on being pressed
to answer the twenty-eight articles submitted to them, showed signs of their
dissensions by standing on the treaty of Eger. They said that they had only
been commissioned to discuss the Four Articles of Prague, and they did not think
it right to complicate the business by introducing other topics.
The disputation had now come to an end; but Rokycana
claimed to be allowed to answer some of the statements of John of Ragusa, who
demanded that, in that case, he should also have the right of further reply. It
was obvious that this procedure might go on endlessly; and Cesarini suggested
that a committee of four on each side should be nominated for private
conference. However, on March 2, Rokycana began his reply, which lasted till March
10. When he had ended, John of Ragusa rose and urged that the Bohemians were
bound to hear him in reply. The Bohemians announced that they would hear him if
they thought fit, but they were not bound to do so. “
We will put you to shame throughout the world”, said
John angrily, “if you go away without hearing our answers”.
Rokycana sarcastically said that John of Ragusa
scarcely maintained the dignity of a doctor.
“And yet”, he added, “before we came here, we had
never heard that there was such a person in the world. Still, I have proved
that his sayings are erroneous; for is it not erroneous”, and he raised his
voice with passionate earnestness, “to say that either man or council can
change the precepts of Christ, who said: Heaven and earth shall pass away,
but ‘My words shall not pass away’?”
It was clear that such war of orators was preventing
rather than furthering the union which both parties professed to seek. William
of Bavaria interposed his mediation; and the Council deputed fifteen
members, chief of whom was Cesarini, to arrange matters in private with the
fifteen Bohemian representatives. Their meetings, which began on March 11, were
opened with prayer by Cesarini, whoexerted all his persuasive eloquence and
tact to induce the Bohemians to incorporate themselves with the Council, which
would then proceed to settle the differences existing between them. The
discussions on this point were at last summed up by Peter Payne:
“You say: ‘Be incorporated, return, be united’; we
answer: ‘Return with us to the primitive Church; be united with us in the
Gospel’. We know what power our voice has, so long as we are one party and you
another; what power it would have after our incorporation experience has
abundantly shown”.
The Bohemians began to speak of departing; but a
learned German theologian, Nicolas of Cusa, raised the question—if the Council
allowed the Bohemians the Communion under both kinds, which they regarded as a
matter of faith, would they agree to incorporation? if so, the other questions,
which only concerned morals, might be subjected to discussion. At first the
Bohemians suspected a snare; but William of Bavaria assured them of his
sincerity. After deliberating, the Bohemians refused incorporation, as being
beyond the powers given them as representatives; moreover, if they were
incorporated and the Council decided against them, they could not accept its
decision. An attempt was made to advance further by means of a smaller
committee of four on each side; but it only became obvious that nothing more
could be done in Basel, that the Bohemian representatives were not disposed to
take any decided step, and that, if the Council intended to proceed with the
negotiations, they must send envoys to Bohemia to treat with the Diet and
the people.
Meanwhile disputations continued before the Council,
in which Rokycana, Peter Payne, and Procopius showed themselves formidable
controversialists. They had been formed in a ruder and more outspoken school
than that of the theological professors who were pitted against them. John of
Ragusa especially met with no mercy. One day he was so pedantic as to say that
he did not wish to derogate from the dignity of his university.
“How so?” asked Rokycana.
“According to the statutes”, said John of
Ragusa, “a doctor is not bound to answer a master; nevertheless, as it
concerns the faith, I will answer you”.
“Certainly”, was the retort; “John of Ragusa is
not better than Christ; nor John of Rokycana worse than the devil; yet Christ
answered the devil”.
Another time, when John of Ragusa had been speaking at
great length, Rokycana remarked: “He is one of the preaching friars, and
is bound to say a great deal”.
Kalteisen, in his reply to Ulrich of Zynaim, reproved
him for having said that monks were introduced by the devil.
“I never said so”, interrupted Ulrich.
Procopius rose: “I said one day to the President:
If bishops have succeeded to the place of the Apostles, and priests to the
place of the seventy-two disciples, to whom except the devil have the rest succeeded?”.
There was loud laughter, amid which Rokycana called
out: “Doctor, you should make Procopius Provincial of your Order”.
It was at length arranged that on April 14 the
Bohemians should return to their own land, whither the Council undertook to send
ten ambassadors who should treat with the Diet in Prague. Procopius wrote to
inform the Bohemians of this, and urged them to assemble in numbers at the Diet
on June 7, for great things might be done. On April 13 the Bohemians took
farewell of the Council. Rokycana in the name of all expressed their thanks for
the kindness they had received. Then Procopius rose and said that he had often
wished to speak, but had never had an opportunity. He spoke earnestly about the
great work before the Council, the reformation of the Church, which all men
longed for with sighs and groans. He spoke of the worldliness of the clergy,
the vices of the people, the intrusion into the Church of the traditions of
men, the general neglect of preaching. Cesarini, on the part of the Council,
recapitulated all that had been done, and begged them to continue in Bohemia
the work that he trusted had been begun in Basel. He thanked Rokycana for his
kindly words: turning to Procopius, he called him his personal friend and
thanked him for what he had said about the reformation of the Church, which the
Council would have been engaged in, if they had not been employed in conference
with the Bohemians. Finally he gave them his benediction and shook them each by
the hand. Rokycana also raised his hand, and in a loud voice said: “May the
Lord bless and preserve this place in peace and quiet”. Then they took their
leave; as they were going, a fat Italian archbishop ran after them and with
tears in his eyes shook them by the hand. On April 14 they left Basel,
accompanied by the ambassadors of the Council.
The conference at Basel was most honorable to all who
were concerned in it; it showed a spirit of straightforwardness, charity and
mutual forbearance. It was no slight matter in those days for a Council of
theologians to endure to listen to the arguments of heretics already condemned
by the Church. It was no small thing for the Bohemians, who were already
masters in the field, to curb their high spirit to a war of words. Yet, in
spite of occasional outbursts, the general result of the conference at Basel
was to promote a good feeling between the two parties. Free and friendly
intercourse existed between the Bohemians and the leading members of the
Council, chiefly owing to the exertions of Cesarini, whose nobility and
generosity of character produced a deep impression on all around him. But in
spite of the friendliness with which they were received, and the personal
affection which in some cases they inspired, the Bohemians could not help
being a little disappointed at the general results of their visit to Basel.
They had been somewhat disillusioned. They came with the same moral earnestness
and childlike simplicity which had marked Hus at Constance. They hoped that
their words would prevail, that their arguments would convince the Council that
they were not heretics, but rested on the Gospel of Christ. They were chilled
by the attitude of superiority which showed itself in all the Council’s
proceedings, and which was the more irritating because they could not formulate
it in any definitely offensive words or acts. The assumption of an infallible
Church, to which all the faithful were bound to be united, was one which the
Bohemians could neither deny nor accept. In Bohemia the preachers had been wont
to denounce those who departed from the Gospel; in Basel they found themselves
the objects of kindly reprobation because they had departed from the Church. It
gradually became clear that they were not likely to induce the Council to
reform the Church in accordance with their principles: the utmost that would be
granted was a Concordat with Bohemia which would allow it to retain some of its
peculiar usages and opinions without separation from the Catholic Church. The
Bohemian representatives had failed to convince the Council; it remained to be
seen if the good feeling which had grown up between the two contending parties
would enable the Council to extend, and the Bohemian people to accept, a
sufficient measure of toleration to prevent the breach of the outward unity of
the Church.
The ten ambassadors of the Council, chief amongst whom
were the Bishops of Coutances and Augsburg, Giles Carlier, John of Palomar,
Thomas Ebendorfer of Haselbach, Canon of Vienna, John of Geilhausen, and
Alexander, an Englishman, Archdeacon of Salisbury, travelled peaceably to
Prague, where they were received with every show of respect and rejoicing on
May 8. They spent the time till the assembling of the Diet in interchanging
courtesies with the Bohemian leaders. On May 24 a Bohemian preacher, Jacob Ulk,
inveighed in a sermon against the Council’s envoys, and bade the people beware
of Basel as of a basilisk which endeavored to shed its venom on every side. He
attempted to raise a riot, but it was put down by Procopius, and the
magistrates issued an edict that no one under pain of death was to offend
the Council’s ambassadors. On June 13 the Diet assembled, and after preliminary
addresses John of Palomar submitted the Council’s proposal for the
incorporation of the Bohemians and the common settlement of their differences
in the Council. He was answered that the Council of Constance was the origin of
all the wars and troubles that had beset Bohemia; the Bohemians had always
wished for peace, but they were firm in their adhesion to the Four Articles of
Prague:
1.- Freedom to preach the Word of God.
2.- Celebration of the Lord’s Supper in both
kinds, bread and wine to priests and laity alike.
3.- No secular power for the clergy.
4.- Punishment for the mortal sins,
and they wished to hear the Council’s decision
respecting them. John of Palomar at once answered that the Four Articles seemed
to be held in different senses by different parties among the Bohemians; before
he could give the Council’s opinion, he wished them to be defined in writing in
the sense in which they were universally believed. It was the first step
towards bringing to light the dissensions of the Bohemian parties. A definition
drawn up by the University of Prague was repudiated by the Taborites as
containing treacherous concessions. Rokycana gave a verbal answer, and a
committee of eight deputies of the Diet was appointed to confer on this point
with the ambassadors of the Council. A definition was then drawn up in which
the Council's side gained nothing. They saw that by this procedure they would
merely drift back to the disputation which they had in Basel.
Accordingly on June 25 the Council’s ambassadors took
the decided step of negotiating secretly with some of the Calixtin nobles, to
whom they said that the Council would most probably allow to the Bohemians the
Communion under both kinds, if they would incorporate themselves for the
discussion of the other points. This was received with joy by some of the
nobles, amongst whom a party in favour of this course was gradually organized.
The Diet inquired under what form such privilege would be granted, and a
proposed form was presented by the ambassadors. The Diet, in answer, drew up on
January 29 a form of their own, which, if the Council accepted, they were
willing to unite with it. As the form contained the full acceptance of the Four
Articles of Prague, the ambassadors refused to entertain it. On July 1
they again had a meeting in Rokycana’s house with some of the Calixtin
nobles, who agreed to moderate the form into such a shape that another Bohemian
deputation might take it to Basel. In the discussion that ensued in the Diet
some sharp things were said. When the Council's ambassadors begged the
Bohemians to forget the past and be as they had been twenty years ago,
Procopius scornfully exclaimed, “In the same way you might argue that we ought
to be as we were a thousand years ago when we were pagans”. A statement,
however, was drawn up that the Bohemians agreed to unite with the Council and
obey “according to God’s Word”. Three ambassadors, Mathias Landa,
Procopius of Bilsen, and Martin Lupak, were appointed to take this, together
with an exposition of the Four Articles, to the Council. They, with the
Council’s envoys, left Prague on July 11 and reached Basel on August
2, where they were received with joy.
The object of this first embassy of the Council was to
survey the ground and report the position of affairs in Bohemia. On July 31 one
of the envoys, who was sent on before, announced to the Council that everywhere
in Bohemia they had found a great desire for peace, and had been listened to by
the Diet with a courtesy and decorum which the Council would do well to
imitate. He urged that conciliation be tried to the utmost. The other envoys on
their arrival gave a full report of their proceedings to the Council, which
appointed a committee of six to be elected from each deputation who, together
with the Cardinals, were to confer on future proceedings. Before this committee
John of Palomar on August 13 made a secret report of the general aspect of
affairs in Bohemia. He said that neither the nobles nor the people were free,
but were tyrannized over by a small but vigorous party, which feared to lose
its power if any reconciliation with the Church took place; the strength of
this party lay in the hatred of the Bohemians to German domination, and their
willingness to carry on war to escape it. He sketched the position of the three
chief sects, the Calixtins, Orphans, and Taborites; the only point on which
they all agreed was the reception of the Communion under both kinds. The first
party wished to obtain the use of f their rite by peaceable means and desired
union with the Church; the second party desired to be in the bosom of the
Church, but would take up arms and fight desperately to defend what they
believed to be necessary; the third party was entirely opposed to the Church,
and was not to be won over by any concessions, for the confiscation of the
goods of the clergy was their chief desire
The commission then proceeded to deliberate whether
the Communion under both kinds could be conceded to the Bohemians, and what
answer the Council should return to the other three articles, of which the
Bohemian envoys brought a definition to the Council. The discussions lasted for
a fortnight, and on August 26 an extraordinary congregation was held, which was
attended by the prelates at Basel and 160 doctors, who were all bound by oath
of secrecy. John of Palomar put before them, on behalf of the commission,
the pressing need of settling the Bohemian question, and the desirability of
making some concession for that purpose. He argued that the Church might
lawfully do so, and follow the example of Paul in his dealings with the
Corinthians; for he “caught them by guile”. The Bohemian people was intractable
and would not enter the fold of the Church like other Christians; they must
treat it gently as one treats a mule or horse to induce it to submit to the
halter. When once the Bohemians had returned to union with the Church, their
experience of the miseries of a separation from it would lead them to submit to
the common rites of Christendom rather than run new risks in the future.
Cesarini followed in the same strain; and next day William of Bavaria, on
behalf of Sigismund, urged the interest of the Emperor in securing his
recognition, by means of the Council, as King of Bohemia. After three
days’ deliberation it was agreed to concede the reception of the Communion
under both kinds, and an answer to the other three articles was framed. But the
secret was still kept from the Bohemian envoys, as the Council did not wish
their decision to be known too soon in Bohemia, and they were also afraid lest
Eugenius IV might interpose. On September 2 the Bohemians were dismissed with
kindly words and the assurance of the dispatch of four envoys from the Council
to Prague. Four of the previous embassy—the Bishop of Coutances, John of
Palomar, Henry Toh, and Martin Verruer—set out on September 11.
The second embassy from Basel did not meet with such a
peaceable entrance into Bohemia as had the first. War had again broken out, a
war in which were involved the contending interests of the Council and the
Hussites. In the very middle of Bohemia there still remained a city which held
fast by the cause of Catholicism and Sigismund. In the reaction which ensued
after the first successes of the commencement of the Hussite movement, the
strong city of Pilsen in the south-west of Bohemia had swung back to
Catholicism, and from its numerous outlying fortresses had defied all efforts
to reduce it. Year by year their sufferings from Hussite attacks made the
inhabitants grow firmer in their resistance; and when the Council’s envoys
first came as spies into the land the Bohemians keenly felt the disadvantage
under which they lay in their negotiations when they could not offer a decided
front to their foe. Messengers from Pilsen visited the Basel ambassadors and
prayed for help from the Council. As the Bohemians began to see that all that
the Council would grant them was a recognition of their exceptional position,
they felt the need of absolute internal unity if they were to secure or
maintain it. The Diet decreed a vigorous siege of Pilsen; the Council’s
ambassadors protracted their negotiations to allow the men of Pilsen to gather
in their harvest; and later the Fathers of Basel sent a contribution of money
to the aid of Pilsen, and used their influence to prevail on Nurnberg to do the
same. On July 14 the Bohemian army began the siege of Pilsen, and in the
beginning of September the besieging host had grown to 36,000 men. The might of
the Hussites was directed to secure religious unity within their land.
Pilsen was strongly defended, and the besiegers began
to suffer from hunger. Foraging parties were sent to greater distances, and on
September 16 a detachment of 1400 foot and 500 horse was sent byProcopius under
the command of John Pardus to harry Bavaria. As Pardus was returning laden with
spoil, he was suddenly attacked by the Bavarians; his troops were almost
entirely cut to pieces, and he himself, with a few followers, made his escape
with difficulty to the camp at Pilsen. Great was the wrath of the Bohemian
warriors at this disgrace to their arms. They rushed upon Pardus as a traitor,
and even hurled a stool at Procopius, who tried to protect him; the stool hit
Procopius on the head with such violence that the blood streamed down his face.
The wrath of the chiefs was turned against him; he was imprisoned, and the man
who had thrown the stool was made general in his stead. This excitement lasted
only a few days. Procopius was released and restored to his former position,
but his proud spirit had been deeply wounded by the sense of his powerlessness
in an emergency. He refused the command, and left the camp never to
return.
This was the news which greeted the Council's envoys
when they reached Eger on September 27. They feared to advance farther in the
present excited condition of men's minds. The Bohemians in vain tried to
discover what message they brought from the Council. The leaders of the army before
Pilsen at length sent two of their number to conduct them safely to
Prague, where they said that the Diet could not assemble: before S. Martin's
Day, November 11. The fears of the envoys were entirely dispelled by the
cordial welcome which they received in Prague on their arrival, October
22. A plague was ravaging the city, and the physicians vied with one another in
precautions for ensuring the safety of their city's guests. The preacher still
raised his voice against them; they had honey on their lips but venom in their
heart, they wished to bring back Sigismund, who would cut off the people’s
heads for their rebellion.
The proceedings of the Diet, which opened on November
17 resolved themselves into a diplomatic contest between the Council’s envoys
and the Bohemians. The Council was trying to make the smallest concessions
possible, the Bohemians were anxious to get all they could. But the four envoys
of Basel had the advantage in contending with an assembly like the Diet. They
could gauge the effect produced by each concession; they could see when they
had gone far enough to have hopes of success. Moreover, they knew definitely
the limits of concession which the Council would grant, while the Bohemians
were too much at variance amongst themselves to know definitely what they were
prepared to accept. Accordingly, after the preliminary formalities were over,
the Council’s envoys began to practise economy in their concessions. John of
Palomar, after a speech in which he lauded General Councils and recapitulated
all that the Fathers at Basel had done to promote unity, proceeded to give the
limitations under which the Council was prepared to admit three of the
Articles; about the fourth, the Communion under both kinds, he said that the
envoys had powers to treat if the declaration which he had made about the other
three was satisfactory to the Bohemians. The Diet demanded to have the
Council's decision on this also put before them. The envoys pressed to have an
answer on the three Articles first. For two days the struggle on this point
continued; then the envoys asked, before speaking about the Communion, for an
answer to the question whether, if an agreement could be come to on the Four
Articles, the Bohemians would consent to union. John of Rokycana answered on
behalf of all, “We would consent”; and all the Diet cried “Yes, yes”. Only
Peter Payne rose and said: “We understand by a good end one in which we
are all agreed”; but those around him admonished him to hold his tongue, and he
was not allowed to continue. Then John of Palomar read a declaration setting
forth that the Communion under one kind had been introduced into the Church,
partly to correct the Nestorian error that in the bread was contained only the
body of Christ, and in the wine only His blood, partly to guard against
irreverence and mishap in the reception of the elements; nevertheless, as the
Bohemian use was to administer under both kinds, the Council was willing that
they should continue to do so till the matter had been fully discussed. If they
still continued in their belief, permission would be given to their priests so
to administer it to those who, having reached years of discretion, asked for
it. The Bohemians were dissatisfied with this. They complained that the Council
said nothing which could satisfy the honor of Bohemia. They demanded that their
words, that the reception under both kinds was“useful and wholesome”, should be
adopted, and that the permission be extended to children.
On November 26 an amended form was submitted to the
Diet, which became the basis of an agreement. Bohemia and Moravia were to make
peace with all men. The Council would accept this declaration and release them
from all ecclesiastical censures. As regarded the Four Articles:—
1.-If in all other points the Bohemians and Moravians
received the faith and ritual of the Universal Church, those who had the use of
communicating under both kinds should continue to do so, “with the authority of
Jesus Christ and the Church His true spouse”. The question as a whole should be
further discussed in the Council; but the priests of Bohemia and Moravia should
have permission to administerunder both kinds to those who, being of the age of
discretion, reverently demanded it, at the same time telling them that under
each kind was the whole body of Christ.
2.- As regarded the correction and punishment of open
sins, the Council agreed that, as far as could reasonably be done, they should
be repressed according to the law of God and the institutes of the Fathers.
The phrase used by the Bohemians, “by those whose duty it was”, was too
vague; the duty did not devolve on private persons, but on those who had
jurisdiction in such matters.
3.- About freedom of preaching, the word of God ought
to be freely preached by priests who were commissioned by their superiors:
“freely” did not mean indiscriminately, for order was necessary.
4.- As regarded the temporalities of the clergy,
individual priests, who were not bound by a vow of poverty, might inherit or
receive gifts; and similarly the Church might possess temporalities and
exercise over them civil lordship. But the clergy ought to administer
faithfully the goods of the Church according to the institutes of the Fathers;
and the goods of the Church cannot be occupied by others.
As abuses may have gathered round these last three
points, the Diet could send deputies to the Council, which intended to proceed
with the question of reform, and the envoys promised to aid them in all
possible ways.
The basis of an agreement was now prepared, and a
large party in Prague was willing to accept it. Procopius, however, rose
in the Diet and read proposals of his own, which John of Palomar dismissed,
observing that their object was concord, and it was better to clear away
difficulties than to raise them. On November 28 the legates judged it prudent
to lay before the Diet an explanation of some points in the previous document.
The rites of the Church, which the Bohemians were to accept, they explained to
mean those rites which were commonly observed throughout Christendom. If all
the Bohemians did not at once follow them, that would not be a hindrance to the
peace; those who dissented on any points should have a full and fair hearing in
the Council. The law of God and the practice of Christ and the Apostles would be
recognized by the Council, according to the treaty of Eger, as the judge in all
such matters. Finally, on November 30, after a long discussion and many verbal
explanations given by the envoys, the moderate party among the Bohemians
succeeded in extorting from the Diet a reluctant acceptance of the proposed
agreement.
The success of the Council was due chiefly to the fact
that the negotiations, once begun, awakened hopes among the moderate party in
Bohemia and so widened the differences between them and the extreme party.
There were both plague and famine in the land. More than 100,000 are said to
have died in Bohemia during the year, and men had good grounds for feeling
sadly the desolate condition of their country and counting the cost of their
prolonged resistance. Moreover, the appearance of the Council’s envoys had emboldened
those who wished for a restoration of the old state of things to lift up their
heads. There were still some adherents of Sigismund, chief of whom was Meinhard
of Neuhaus; there were still formidable adherents of Catholicism, as the
continued ill-success of the siege of Pilsen showed. As soon as doubt and
wavering was apparent among the Hussites the party of the restoration declared
itself more openly. Further, the events of the siege of Pilsen brought to light
the disorganization that had spread among the army. The old religious real had
waxed dim; adventurers abounded in the ranks of the Lord's soldiers; the
sternness of Zizka’s discipline had been relaxed, and the mutiny against
Procopius bowed the spirit of the great leader and made him doubtful of the
future. The Bohemian nobles were weary of the ascendency of the Taborites,
whose democratic ideas they had always borne with difficulty. The country was
weary of military rule; and the party which was aiming at Sigismund's
restoration determined to use the conciliatory spirit of the Diet for their own
purposes. On December 1 a Bohemian noble, Ales of Riesenberg, was elected
governor of the land, with a council of twelve to assist him; he took oath to
promote the welfare of the people and defend the Four Articles. The moderate
party, which had sought to find a constitutional king in Korybut in 1427, now
succeeded in setting up a president over the Bohemian republic. The peace
negotiations with the Council had already led to a political reaction.
The Compact had been agreed to, but the difficulties
in the way of its full acceptance were by no means removed. The envoys demanded
that, as Bohemia had agreed to a general peace, the siege of Pilsen should
cease. The Bohemians demanded that the men of Pilsen should first unite with
the Bohemian government, and that all Bohemians should be required by the
Council to accept the Communion under both kinds. Other questions also arose.
The Bohemians complained that, in treating of the temporalities of the clergy, the
Council used language which seemed to accuse them of sacrilege. They demanded
also that the Communion under both kinds should be declared 'useful and
wholesome' for the whole of Christendom, and that their custom of
administering the Communion to infants should be recognized. The discussion on
these points only led to further disagreement. The envoys had convinced
themselves that a large party in Bohemia was prepared to accept peace on the
terms which they had already offered. As nothing more was to be done, they
asked to be told definitely whether the Compact was accepted or not; otherwise
they wished to depart on January 15, 1434. The Diet answered that it would be
more convenient if they went on January 14; a Bohemian envoy would be sent to
Basel to announce their intentions. Accordingly the Council's ambassadors left
Prague on January 15, and arrived at Basel on February 15.
The result of this second embassy had been to rally
the moderate party in Bohemia, and break the bond that had hitherto held the
Bohemians together. The envoys had laid the foundations of a league in favour
of the Church. Ten of the masters of the University of Prague subscribed a
statement that they were willing to stand by the Compacts and had been
reconciled to the Church; even when the envoys were at Eger two nobles followed
them seeking reconciliation. When the ambassador of the Diet, Martin Lupak,
joined them at Eger, it is not wonderful that they warned him that it was
useless for him to journey to Basel if he went with fresh demands. The Council,
after hearing the report of their envoys, gave Martin audience at once on
February 16. He asked that the Council should order all the inhabitants of
Bohemia to receive the Communion under both kinds; if all did not conform,
there would be different churches and different rites, and no real peace in the
land, for each party would claim to be better than the other, the terms
“catholic” and “heretic” would again be bandied about, and there
would be perpetual dissension. This was no doubt true; but the Council listened
to Martin with murmurs of dissent. It was clearly impossible for them to
abandon the Bohemian Catholics, and to turn the concession which they had
granted to the Hussites into an order to those who had remained faithful to the
Church. Still Sigismund besought them to take time over their answer and to
avoid any threats. The answer was drawn up in concert with Sigismund, and on
February 26 Cesarini addressed Martin Lupak, saying that the Council wondered
the Bohemians did not keep their promises, as even Jews and heathens respected
good faith. He besought him to urge his countrymen to fulfill the Compacts;
then the Council would consider their new demands, and would do all they could
consistently with the glory of God and the dignity of the Church. Martin
defended his demands, and there was some altercation. At last he taunted
Cesarini with the remark that the Church had not always wished for peace, but
had preached a crusade against Bohemia. “Peace is now in your hands, if you will
stand by the agreement”, said Cesarini. “Rather it is in the hands of the
Council, if they will grant what is asked”, retorted Martin. He refused to
receive a letter from the Council unless he were informed of its contents, and
after briefly thanking the Fathers for hearing him, he left the congregation
and departed.
A breach seemed again imminent; but the Council knew
that it would not be with Bohemia, but only with a party in it, which they
trusted to overcome by the help of their fellow-countrymen. The first envoys
had reported that there was a number of irreconcilables who must be subdued by
force; the second negotiations had brought to light internal dissensions and
had founded a strong party in Bohemia in favour of union with the Council.
Everything was done to strengthen that party and gain the means of putting down
the radicals. On February 8 the Council ordered a tax of 5 per cent, on
ecclesiastical revenues to be levied throughout Christendom for their needs in
the matter of Bohemia. John of Palomar was sent to carry supplies from the
Council and from Sigismund to aid the besieged in Pilsen, where the besieging
army was suffering from plague, hunger and despondency. In Bohemia Meinhard of
Neuhaus was indefatigable in carrying on the work of the restoration. In April
a league was formed by the barons of Bohemia and Moravia and the Old Town of
Prague for the purpose of securing peace and order in the land; all armed
bands were ordered to disperse and an amnesty was promised if they obeyed.
Procopius was roused from his retirement in the New
Town of Prague by these machinations, and once more put himself at the
head of the Taborites and the Orphans. But the barons had already gathered
their forces. The New Town of Prague was summoned to enter the league, and
on its refusal was stormed; on May 6 Procopius and a few others succeeded with
difficulty in escaping. At this news the army before Pilsen raised the siege
and retired. Bohemia merged its minor religious differences, and prepared to
settle by the sword a political question that was bound to press some day for
solution. On one side were the nobles ready to fight for their ancient
privileges; on the other side stood the towns as champions of democracy. On May
30 was fought the decisive battle at Lipan. The nobles, under the command of
Borek of Militinek, a companion-in-arms of Zizka, had an army of 25,000 men;
against them stood Procopius with 18.000. Both armies were entrenched behind
their waggons, and for some time fired at one another. The Taborites had the
better artillery, but their adversaries turned their superiority to their ruin.
One wing feigned to be greatly distressed by their fire; then, as if goaded to
exasperation, rushed from behind its entrenchment, and charged. When they
thought that the foe had exhausted their fire, they feigned to flee, and the
Taborites, thinking their ranks were broken, rushed from their waggons in
pursuit. But the seeming broken ranks skillfully reformed and faced their
pursuers, who had meanwhile been cut off from their waggons by the other wing
of the nobles' army. Shut in on every side, Procopius and his men prepared to
die like heroes. All day and night the battle raged, till in the morning 13,000
of the warriors who had been so long the terror of Europe lay dead on the
ground. Procopius and all the chief men of the extreme party were among the
slain. The military power of Bohemia, which had so long defied the invader,
fell because it was divided against itself.
The fight of Lipan was a decided victory for the Council.
It is true that among the conquerors the large majority was Hussite, and would
require some management before it could be safely penned within the fold of the
Church. But the Taborites had lost the control of affairs. The irreconcilables
were swept away, and the Council would henceforth have to deal with men of more
moderate opinions
|
