1415. Varill. ubi Council. He adds, That this fecond Safe-Conduct was different from the First, in that it was neither pure, nor fimple, nor without Restriction: On the contrary, it was there faid in exprefs Terms, That it was only to justify himself from the Crimes laid to his Charge, and to convince his Accufers of Calumny, whereas the Terms of the other were general, evident, abfolute and without Referve (1). For once let's fuppofe this Fact to be true: I maintain that fo far from juítifying the Council, it tends only to make it appear more guilty. Would it not have been a vile Imposition and a manifeft Contempt of the Emperor's Safe-Conduct to fet it afide by one that was more limited? Befides, if the Magiftrates of Conance granted John Hufs a Safe-Conduct at the Entreaty of the Council, he cou'd not be arrested without violating two SafeConducts at once, by a double Treachery, because a Man who is not at Liberty cannot make his Defence as he ought. In fine, how does the Safe-Conduct from the Magiftrates of Conftance, of which there is no Complaint, juftify the Violation of the Emperor's Safe-Conduct of which there is a Complaint, and of which the Council is accus'd? But we must examine the Fact itself. Varillas fays, 'tis as clear as the fupra, P. 91. Sun at Noon-Day, that there were two Safe-Conducts, without bringing any Proof of it, either printed or written, tho' he makes no Scruple upon other Occafions to quote Manufcripts which no Body ever faw. I will now make it as clear as the Day, that there was but one Safe-Conduct, as the Hiftorian has plainly alerted whom I have just now corrected in another Paffage. 1. Of all the Authors, ancient and modern, whom I have had Opportunity to confult upon it, Dubravius is the only one that seems to infinuate this Safe-Conduct of the Council: Fide publica a Concilio accepta. But 'tis highly probable that this Author, who is very often mistaken in other Things, took the Emperor's Safe-Conduct for that of the Council itself. 2. The Acts make no mention any where of this pretended Safe-Conduct of the Magiftrates of Conftance, or of the Council, which would be very ftrange, if there had been one. 3. As foon as John Hufs arrives, he caufes it to be notify'd to the Pope, that he is come with a Safe-Conduct from the Emperor, and alfo defires his Protection. If he had been to require any Act of Security from the Magistrates of Conftance, then was his Opportunity to have done it, and the Acts would have fpecified it, as they do the Demand which Jerome made of a Safe1. d. Hard, Conduct fome Time after. 4. If John Hufs had obtain❜d a Safe-Conduct from the Magistrates, could he poffibly have omitted the least mention of it in the Letters he wrote to his Friends, both before and during his Imprisonment, wherein he tells them fo many Particulars Maimb. ubi fupra, 212 Bob. 1. 23. p. 621. Edit. Francof. an. 1687. Dubras. Hif. T. IV. p. 103, 104. (1) M. De la Reque has thereupon corrected Varillas in his New Accufations against Varillas, p. 124, &c. of of his Condition, of much lefs Importance than that? 5. John de 1415. Chlum protefted against the Detaining of John Hufs, and the Bohemians V. d. Hardt complain'd of it feveral Times to the Council and to the Emperor, but ubi.fupra,28. d. Hardt, ibid p. 209, 212, 552 they never alledg'd more than one Safe-Conduct for the Foundation of their Complaints. 6. When a certain Bishop, in his Answer on the Part of the Council to their Complaints, falfly afferted that John Hufs had not his Safe-Conduct till a fortnight after his Imprisonment, that of Sigifmond was the only one ever thought of. In the mean Time, what could have been more natural for the Bohemians than to fay that, before that Time at least, he had obtain'd one from the Magiftrates of Conftance, at the Intreaty of the Council? 7. Laftly, When the Council explains itself as to the Validity or Invalidity of Safe-Conducts granted to Heretics by the Secular Powers, and as to that of John Hufs in particular, they never speak but of the Emperor, and not at all of the Magiftrates of Conftance, whom they would have been under the fame Obligation to vindicate, and the Council ought to have clear'd themselves too, by fome Explanation or other, if they had granted or procured a Safe-Conduct for John Hufs. But 'tis fo true that the Council neither gave nor procur'd any for him, that in order to remove Sigifmond's Scruple, (1) it was represented to him, that the Council, which is above the Emperor, having not granted any Safe-Conduct to John Hufs, he might without Breach of Faith let him lie in Prifon, as has been faid. Thus I think I have given entire Evidence of the Truth of this Fact, which the Cardinal de Perron thought of fuch Importance, that according to the Report of Varillas (a) he said to (a) Varil. ubi his Friends, That a Man cannot employ his Time to better Purpose upon supr. p. 93. any Hiftorical Affair, than that which relates to the proceeding of the Emperor and the Council of Conftance with regard to John Hufs and Jerome of Prague. We will now refume the Thread of the History. LX. WHEN they heard at Prague, that John Hufs was committed to Letter from the BobemiPrison, the Nobles of Bohemia were extremely enrag'd at it. They wrote ans to Sigif (2) fèveral Letters to the Emperor to defire his Liberty. In the first mond, Jan. (3) three of thofe Lords, fpeaking in the Name of the reft, tell him 3. Von der that at the Intreaty of John Hufs, they had demanded of Conrad their Hardt,T.IV. Archbishop, at one of their Affemblies, whether he had ever obferv'd P. 32, 33. that John Hufs had taught any Error, and that this Prelate had declar'd of his own Accord, and without any manner of Conftraint, (1) Refpondit ei Sacrofan&ta Synodus eum argui non poffe de fide mentita, quia Concilium non dederat ei Huo falvum Conductum, & Concilium majus eft Imperatore. Naucl. ubi fupra. (2) Dominica poft Francifci, i. e. the Sunday after St. Francis's Day. There are two Saints Day's of this Name in Decem- (3) They were Cenco de Wartenberg Bur- 1415. That he had never met with one fingle erroneous Word in his Writings, and that he had nothing to accuse him of. This Declaration they fend to the Emperor feal'd with their Seal, and befeech him to procure the Liberty of John Hufs, that he might be in a Capacity to confound his Accufers. 'Tis true, that this Teftimony might be liable to Sufpicion, if we were to be govern'd by the Report of Balbinus (1) who fays that the Archbishop who gave it declar'd openly in Favour of the Huffites, in a Synod which he affembled at Prague in 1421. and in which the Communion in both Kinds was enjoyn'd, the Hierarchy rejected, and all the Ecclefiaftical Authority committed to four Huffite Priefts, of which Number was James de Mife, of whom more hereafBut Balbinus (a) himself tells us that in 1413. Conrad was ftill (a) Bobufi, ter. Balb. p. 423. Orthodox, and that at the Sollicitation of John Gerfon, who wrote to him concerning it, he interdicted John Hufs from his Ministerial Functions while he continu'd at Prague. Besides, as we have feen in the History of the Council of Pifa, in 1418. Conrad affifted the Legate, whom Martin V. fent into Bohemia for the Suppreffion of Huffitifm. He was ftill Orthodox on the 30th of July 1420. because he crown'd Sigifmond King of Bohemia, tho' the Huffites were not willing to receive him. He was ftill the fame on the 23d of August that Year, by publishing (b) Hift. of Martin Vth's Bull of Excommunication against the Bohemians, (b) which the Council added to the authentic Teftimony given of John Hufs by the Bishop of Pifa, Part of Nazareth, Inquifitor of Bohemia, fecures Conrad's Evidence from II. p. 284, 285. Op.Hf all manner of Sufpicion. Mean Time this Letter of the Bohemians T. I. p. 1. had no other effect than to confine John Hufs more clofely. At the Sollicitation of Paletz and other Divines he was removed to the Convent of the Dominicans, where he fell fick of the Stench and other Annoyances of his Prifon. T, 3 January, Another Let ter from the Bohemians to LXI. THIS obliged the Bohemian Nobility to write another Letter to the Emperor, which was larger and more to the Purpose than the former. They reprefent to him with refpect, that John Hufs is gone of the Emperor his own Accord to the Council to confute the falle Accufations laid Op. Huf. T. I. against him and Bohemia: That he earnestly defires and infifts to be fol. 76... heard in full Council to evidence the Purity of his Doctrine, declarHardt, T.IV. ing that if he be convinc'd of any Error, he will readily retract it: P: 33. That tho' 'tis notorious that he went to Confiance with a Safe-Conduct · from his Imperial Majefty to protect him, yet he is confined to a loathfome Prifon. That People from the highest to the lowest are af tonifl'd and provok'd to fee that the Pope fhould prefume thus to commit an honeft Man to Prifon, contrary to the public Faith, and without affigning any Reafon for it. That an Enterprife of fo dan (1) This Author fays that he has the Acts of this Synod in MS. Balb. Epit. Rey. Bob. p. 423, 447. gerous 1415. gerous a Precedent may encourage all the World to depart from their refpect to public Faith, and to expofe the best of Men to the Infults of the Worft. They conclude with an earneft Supplication to the Emperor to procure the Liberty of John Hufs, to the end that he may be justify'd if innocent, or punish'd if guilty. God is our Witness, fay they, that we should be extremely forry to hear that any Thing fhould fall out to the Dishonour of your Majesty, much more that you fhould foul your Hands with fo enormous an Act of Injustice. 'Tis incumbent on your felf to repair, by your Prudence and Sagacity, all the Wrong that has been done hitherto, and to make your felf Master of this whole Affair. This Letter is fign'd by ten Lords in the Name of all the others. Notwithstanding this, John Hufs remained in the Dominicans Prifon for two Months, at the End of which he was remov'd to (a), (a) v. d. the Francifcans Prifon, where he stay'd till the Pope's Escape. Hardt.T.IV. P. 47. 1576. LXII. John Hufs being confined from the 28th of November, when 'Whether J. he was arrested, to the Time of his Condemnation, I know not how Hus made an fome Authors could pretend that he made an Attempt to escape. an Attempt Ulrich Reichenthal a Canon of Conftance, and one who was prefent from Cen to escape at the Council, is the firft that has afferted this Fact in his German fiance. History (1) of this Council; and he tells it after this Manner (b): (b) Reich. p. John Hufs feeing that he was narrowly watch'd, refolv'd in March 1415 203, 204. to make his Elcape (2). In order to put this Defign in Execution, Francf. Edit. ' he took a Loaf and a Bottle of Wine, and went in the Morning to hide himself in a Waggon belonging to Henry de Latzenbock, which was prepared to go in the Afternoon to fome neighbouring Village to fetch Hay: At Dinner Time Latzenbock, to whose Cuftody John Hufs was committed, not feeing him, made Enquiry after him, but to no Purpose, for no Body could tell any Tidings of him. Being alarmed at his Abfence, he ran to acquaint the Council with it, who immediately caufed the City Gates to be fhut, and commanded the Archers to go in Queft of the Fugitive: As they were preparing to fet out, John Hufs being found conceal'd in the Waggon, was conducted by Latzenbock himself to the Pope's Palace, together with his Chaplain and feveral Bohemians all on Horfcback. John Hufs perceiving, that they talk'd of putting him in Prison, alighted from his Horfe, in hopes of getting off by favour of the vaft Crowd of Spectators (3); but the Pope's Guards perceiving his Defign, he was fhut up under a ftrong Guard in the 'Pontifical Palace.' Reichenthal adds, that Sigifmond would fain have procur'd him his Liberty at that time, as well for his own Honour, be (1) The first Edition of this History was printed at Augsburg in 1483. (2) March 23. the first Sunday in Lent, when they fing Oculi mei. (3) Reichenthal fays, that there were fourfcore thoufand Perfons; which feems to be an Error of the Impreffion. X 2 cause 1415. cause he had granted him a fafe Conduct, as for fear of incenfing his Brother Wenceslaus and his Bohemians; but that the Doctors having given him to understand, that 'twas not lawful to grant a fafe Conduct to a Heretick, be fubmitted to that Decifion. I learn from Dr. Von der Hardt, that Gebhard Dacher, another contemporary Author, who was of Conftance too, and present at the Council, reports the Escape of John Hufs in his German Hiftory, after the fame manner as Reichenthal. But we must not be furpriz'd at it, because they compos'd their Hiftory together, and communicated their Memoirs Nauch. p. to each other. Nauclerus and the Abbat Trithemius, who wrote about 1045. Trith. the latter End of the 15th Century, or the Beginning of the 16th, rfpeak likewife of the Escape of John Hufs, but don't mention the P. 338. Cochi. Hift. time of it. Nor is it omitted by John Cochleus in his Hiftory of the Huites. L. Huffites, wherein he quotes Reichenthal's Authority, tho' he differs from II. p. 73.. him in one Circumftance. For he fays, that John Hufs actually left Conftance on the 23d of March, whereas Reichenthal only fays he atMaimb. ub. tempted to do it. 'Tis from Cochleus, that Maimbourg, Varillas, fupr. p. 221. and other modern Authors, have taken the fame Story, without exVarill. ub. cepting Joachim Camerarius a Proteftant Author, and otherwife a vefupr. 103, ry exact Hiftorian. But as the Evidence of all these modern Histo104, 105. Camer. Hift. rians ftands only upon the Account given by Ulric Reichenthal and Narr. de Fr. Gebhard Dacher, who wrote their History in concert, we must see Boh. & Mo. how far it may be depended on. I own that the Teftimony of these two Hiftorians is of great weight, and that never did Pyrrhonism feem more reasonable in Hiftory than in this Fa&. Befides their being both present, they are of a Character not to be fufpected of Ignorance or Falfhood. Gebhard Dacher was a Counsellor of the Elector of Saxony, in great Efteem with him, as well as with many other Princes, who were all at Conftance. Moreover his Preface fhews him an honeft Man, mighty zealous for the Reformation of the Church, as may be feen by looking back to our Preface. Nor can he be fufpected of Prejudice against John Hufs, of whom in the fame Preface V. d. Hardt, he fpeaks very favourably. Finally, as he had Orders to make an exT. I. Part at Lift of all the Foreigners who were at Conftance, he could hardbe ignorant of any thing that pafs'd in the City, was it ever fo trifling, much lefs an Affair of fuch Importance. Reichenthal appears to be an Author as much to be rely'd on as Dacher. He was a Canon of the Cathedral of Conflance, a Man of great Reputation, and a Favourite with Sigifmond and feveral other Princes. He was prefent at the Council from firft to laft, and was employ'd in it in feveral Affairs. He had the Honour to regale Sigifmond and his whole Reich. fol.. Court at a Seat of his near the City.. He accompany'd the Princes who conducted John Hufs to the Stake, and it was he who fent for a Confeffor to attend him in that Cataftrophe. One would not eafily P. 40. V. d. Hardt T. V. Proleg p. 19, 20. II. Pref. 21.. believe. |