poraries to whom we have just alluded, such modern writers as Bonnechose make the picture a hundred fold darker, by disingenuously accumulating only those extracts from cotemporary writers which portray evils and scandals, and studiously leaving out those which speak of eminent virtues, of edifying examples, and of touching incidents. They put to the lips of their readers only the bitterest ingredients the very dregs- of the cup of history; they allow them to sip none of its cooling and refreshing waters. And they even cut up and garble the passages, which they profess to give entire and continuous! M. Bonnechose, as we have proved, makes a practice of doing this. If he wished to tell the whole truth, and to be a historian indeed, why not furnish his readers the facts on both sides of the question? Why not inform them that, if there were great vices, there were also signal virtues, during the Schism? Why not, at least, drop a hint that there were great, and good, and holy men and women, in great numbers too, and pre-eminent in merit and sanctity, during that whole unfortunate period? Why omit entirely the name of the great apostle of that era,- of the Paul, and the Francis Xavier of the fourteenth century,- of the great, the eloquent, the sainted thaumaturgus, St. Vincent Ferrer? Why not say a word of the holy Catharines and Bridgets? Why omit all mention of many others, similarly distinguished? The truth is, that the moral disorders which prevailed to à considerable extent during the Schism, instead of proving aught against the sanctity or infallibility of the Church, or against the authority and rightful prerogatives of the papacy, prove precisely the contrary. They may be fairly traced to the unnatural and anomalous condition of the Church, growing out of the distracted condition of the papacy, the great directing and conservative principle of the Christian religion. Had the papacy not been divided, had it remained untrammeled and unchecked in its influence, those disorders would, in all probability, never have occurred, or they would have occurred in a much milder and more mitigated form. If the Church was so much injured by the crippling of the papacy during not quite forty years, what would have been her condition had the papacy been entirely and permanently destroyed? And what would now be her state, without this great conservative element in her organization? We repeat it, the moral disorders consequent on the great Schism of the west present to our minds the strongest proof of the great utility, nay, of the absolute necessity, of the papacy, as an element of Church government ! This naturally leads us to notice a popular objection, or rather cavil, which is usually stated somewhat in this way: If the Church could do without the papacy for forty, why not for two thousand years? The answer is very plain. We deny both the antecedent and the conclusion,the fact assumed, and the inference thence drawn. During the Schism, the papacy existed, though the territory over which it held jurisdiction was divided. All maintained the necessity of a visible head of the Church, and of but one head, or chief executive; hence the struggles of the contending parties for the mastery; hence the continued efforts of all the good to find some way of escaping from the Schism. At no period of the Church's history was the importance and necessity of the papacy more clearly recognized or more deeply felt. All acknowledged the obligation of obedience to the Pope; all bowed down before the principle; the only difference was in regard to a matter of fact, which the passions of men had rendered for a time obscure. -- But even admit the antecedent, that the church did do without the papacy for forty years, the conclusion, that therefore it could do without it for two thousand, would not follow. This is a fallacy, which logicians call "reasoning from particulars to generals ;" and it has about as much weight as this parallel sophism: A man may do without food for one day; therefore he may do without it for forty years! The same fallacy lurks under another popular objection, which we may as well also briefly notice. It is this: If the council of Constance, convened and presided over by no undoubted Pope, could settle the affairs of the Church without papal authority, where is the need of tho papacy at all? -- We test the validity of this reasoning, by putting a parallel case. Suppose the contingency should arise, and it is certainly a possible case, that a presidential election in our republic should turn out to be of doubtful issue, and that each of the two great political parties should claim that its candidate was duly elected. After much political agitation, and various attempts at adjustment, the matter comes before congress for final adjudication. It is settled, we further suppose, by requiring both the claimants to resign, and ordering a new election. All parties acquiesce in this wise arrangement, and the political schism is at an end. Now suppose further that some political wiseacre should rise up, and cry out: "What is the use of having a president at all? If congress can regulate affairs without him, why not abolish his office altogether." No sensible man would deem anything more than a smile necessary as an answer to such reasoning. Why is it that men, usually so shrewd in temporal matters, become apparently almost bereft of the reasoning faculty, when it is a question of assailing the Catholic Church, and the papacy? The Church and tho papacy after having braved the storms and revolutions of eighteen centuries, can surely emerge triumphantly from the ordeal of such logic as this! The fact that the enemies of the Church are driven to use such arguments as these, furnishes a clear evidence, that, even in their own estimation, their cause is as weak as that of the Church is strong. If the Church and the papacy had not both been the work of God, they never could have passed through so many difficulties and vicissitudes unharmed. There can be no doubt, that, as we said above, the papacy came out of the Schism much stronger than it went into it. It went into it trammeled with political importance, and worldly grandeur, which impaired the energies and dimmed the splendors of its spiritual character. It came out of it in a great measure rid of these incumbrances: shorn of a great portion of these accidental trappings, but indued, more strongly than ever, with the impenetrable panoply of its own spiritual strength. Christendom now revered and loved it more than ever it was more in conformity with its primitive type; it had returned to its original position in the world. It was tried by the Schism, as by a fiery ordeal. It emerged unscathed, and more pure, radiant, and vigorous than ever. The "wood and stubble" of its earthly pomp and wordly-mindedness were consumed by the fire ; but "the gold, silver, and precious stones" of its spiritual power and heavenly strength yet remained. It suffered loss indeed, but itself "was saved yet so as by fire." 11 Corinth, iii, 12--15. X. JOHN HUSS AND THE HUSSITES. THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE.* New trials lead to new triumphs of the Church-Character of John Huss-A traitor in the campSeeking popularity-Wickliffe and his doctrines-These necessarily lead to civil commotionsTranslated into Bohemia-University of Prague-The German and Bohemian students-Carthagenian hatred of Rome-Writers on Huss and his disciples-Persecution no Catholic tenet-Imperial laws on the subject-What were the doctrines of Huss?-And what their influence on society? -What means did he adopt to spread them?-Was he consistent?-Had he a fair trial at Constance?-Was the council cruel towards him?-Were the fathers guilty of breach of faith?Keeping faith with heretics-Case of Jerome of Prague-Horrible excesses of the Hussites-Ziska "of the Cup"-Pillage, murder, and sacrilege—A horrid martial instrument of music-A dark and bloody monument to the memory of Huss. the ve ry In the very midst of the great western schism—when all Christendom was overspread with gloom and desolation, and when, humanly speaking, existence of the Church itself seemed to be menaced; - a dark and threatening cloud gathered in Bohemia, and soon burst upon her, in one of the most terrific storms that she had ever experienced during the long course of her history. Torn and distracted within, she was, at the same time, fiercely assailed by a bold and truculent heresy from without; as if Divine Providence, in permitting these dreadful evils to fall simultaneously upon her, hac meant to make trial of her strength, and to prove triumphantly to the world her innate stability and indestructibility. With every odds against her; with her energies divided and broken; with the papacy- the great controlling and conservative element of her government itself seemingly in jeopardy; she was still to behold her allconquering banner wave in triumph over all her enemies, both external and internal; and she was to witness, in this her signal triumph, one more conclusive proof, in addition to the thousand which her history had already afforded, that Christ was still faithful to His solemn pledge,-"the gates of hell SHALL NOT prevail against her." The annals of the world tell of few men more remarkable than John Huss. The forerunner of Martin Luther and John Calvin, he united the boldness and indomitable energy of the former, with the coolness and fierce malignity of the latter; while he, perhaps, surpassed both in firmness and obstinacy of purpose. Born of poor and obscure parentage, in the *An introduction to "D'Aubigné's History of the Reformation." The Reformers before the Reformation. The Fifteenth century. John Huss and the council of Constance. By Emile de Bonnechose, librarian of the king of France, author of "Histoire de France," "Histoire Sacrée," &c. Translated from the French by Campbell McKenzie, B. A., Trinity College, Dublin. Complete in one volume, 8vo., pp 199. New York: Harper & Brother, 1844. 191 small village of Hussinecz in Bohemia, in the year 1373, we find him, in his thirtieth year, a professor in the famous university of Prague, confessor of the queen of Bohemia, and preacher at the chapel of Bethlehem.' Bold, energetic, talented, and sprightly, he soon rose to distinction, and acquired an almost unbounded popularity. As professor, he fascinated the youth who flocked to his lectures by the boldness of his views, and the startling novelty of his theories. As confessor to the queen, he exercised great influence over her mind, and over that of her weak and imbecile husband, Wenceslaus; and he became all powerful at court. As a popular preacher, he had few rivals, and no superior, in all Bohemia. Such was the man who was soon to rear the standard of revolt again the Church, to maintain doctrines subversive of social order, both ci and religious, and to light up in Bohemia a flame, which was to be extinguished only in the blood of thousands of its citizens! Had he continued faithful to the truth; had he devoted his life and talents to the cause of religion and social order; had he studied to allay, instead of exciting, the elements of discord already fermenting in the minds of men, and especially in those of his fierce and semi-barbarous countrymen, he might he been one of the brightest ornaments of his age and nation, and one of the rongest pillars of the Church. As a priest of the Catholic Church, he holy altar, solemnly plighted his faith to become, and to advocate and faithful champion until death: her cause w her truth his truth; her joys were his joys; and her sorrows his sorrows. If ever she needed a champion, now was that time; if ever she needed a comforter in her grief, this was the season. d, at the inue her his cause; But alas ! instead of comforting her, and laboring to assure her grief, in this the most bitter hour of her affliction, this sworn ministe of her altars, who had broken bread with her in unity and in sweetness of communion, now basely deserted her, and treacherously lifted up his el against her holy sanctuary! He preferred the ephemeral popularity attending the advocacy of bold and startling novelties, to that less brilli and enticing, but more solid and permanent glory, which results from he humble and unostentatious championship of old and uninviting, but wholesome truths. Like many other men of great talent and genius, but seduced by secret pride, he preferred the fame which attaches to the founder of a new sect, to that which he might have acquired by pursuing the even tenor of his way, and doing much good, in a quiet manner, in the venerable old paths of truth, marked out and hallowed by the footsteps of his sainted forefathers in the faith. He wished, in a word, to become in Bohemia, what Wickliffe had so recently been in England. The bold English reformer-the redoubtable captain of the Lollards,- had died quietly and in peace2 in the year 1304, in his own rectory of Lutterworth; but, in dying, he had bequeathed a 1 Founded in the year 1391 by two wealthy citizens of Prague, Johann You Muhlheim and the merchant Kreuz; and destined especially for the preaching of the gospel to the poor. 2 In spite of all the alleged cruelty and persecuting spirit of the Catholic Church. |