Council of Constance

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

A (partly)ecumenical council held atConstance, now in the Grand Duchy of Baden, from 5 Nov., 1414, to 22 April, 1418. Its forty-five general sessions were devoted to three chief purposes:

(I) The Extinction of the So-CalledWestern Schism;
(II) The Reformation of Ecclesiastical Government and Life;
(III) The Repression of Heresy.
The article will also take up:
(IV) Attendance at the Council; General Considerations.

The extinction of the so-called Western Schism

In its attempt to restore to theChurch her immemorial unity of headship theCouncil of Pisa in 1409 had only added to the confusion andscandal that afflicted allChristendom since 1378 (seeWESTERN SCHISM). There were now threepopes, the two deposed by the council (Gregory XII andBenedict XIII) and its own creation,Alexander V; the latter soon died (3 May, 1410) and was succeeded by Cardinal Baldassare Cossa asJohn XXIII. Obedient to adecree of theCouncil of Pisa that ordered ageneral council every three years, thispope convoked such an assembly atRome for April, 1412, but with so little success that it was prorogued and again convoked for the beginning of 1413; its only importantdecree was a condemnation of the writings ofWyclif. In the meantime the treachery andviolence of Ladislaus of Naples madeJohn XXIII quite dependent politically on the new Emperor-elect Sigismund whose anxiety for ageneral council on German territory was finally satisfied by thepope, then an exile fromRome. He convoked it fromLodi, 9 December, 1413, for 1 November, 1414, atConstance, a free city of the empire, on Lake Constance. It wassolemnly opened 5 November in thecathedral ofConstance, where all the public sessions were held. The first public session took place 16 November under the presidency ofJohn XXIII, and for a while it considered itself a continuation of theCouncil of Pisa, andJohn XXIII the sole legitimatepope. It was soon evident, however, that many members of the new assembly (comparatively fewbishops, manydoctors oftheology and of canon andcivil law, procurators ofbishops, deputies ofuniversities,cathedral chapters, provosts, etc., agents and representatives of princes, etc.) favoured strongly thevoluntary abdication of all threepopes. This was also theidea of Emperor Sigismund (q. v;) present sinceChristmas Eve, 1414, and destined to exercise a profound and continuous influence on the course of the council in his character of imperial protector of theChurch; The French deputies especially urged this solution of the intolerable crisis, under the leadership of Pierre d'Ailly (Cardinal andBishop ofCambrai), Guillaume Fillastre (Cardinal andBishop of San Marco), andJean Charlier de Gerson, chancellor of theUniversity of Paris, representative of the French king, and known with d'Ailly, as "thesoul of the council". TheItalianbishops who had accompaniedJohn XXIII in large numbers and stood for his legitimacy were soon rendered helpless by new methods of discussion and voting. Early in January, 1415, envoys ofBenedict XIII appeared, but only to propose a personal meeting atNice of theirpope and the emperor. Towards the end of the monthGregory XII (Angelo Corrario) offered, through his representatives, to resign, on condition that the otherpopes did the same. The execution of this project, henceforth the main object of the council, was long delayed for reasons that will appear below. Pressure was at once brought to bear onJohn XXIII by Emperor Sigismund and by the non-Italian members. His resistance was finally broken by the resolution of the members to vote by "nations" and not bypersons. The legality of this measure, an imitation of the "nations" of theuniversities, was more than questionable, but during February, 1415, it was carried through and thenceforth accepted in practice, though never authorized by any formaldecree of the council (Finke, Forschungen, 31-33) and opposed by d'Ailly and Fillastre, who wanted, indeed, a considerable enlargement of the voting body, by the inclusion of professors (doctors) oftheology,parishpriests, etc., but not the abandonment of the traditional individual vote; the former was willing to compromise on a vote according to ecclesiastical provinces. The vote by nations was in great measure the work of the English, German, and French members, but theItalians did not long resist, and on this basis the council's work was organized and executed as follows: By each of the four nations represented at the council, i.e. Germans (with whom were counted the few Poles,Hungarians, Danes, and Scandinavians), English, French, andItalians, several deputies,ecclesiastical and lay, were appointed to represent the entire membership of the nation present at Constance. These national deputies met separately under a president of their own choice, but changed from month to month. Their decisions were reached by a majority vote, and were then communicated to the General Congregation of all four nations in which the vote of a majority (three) was decisive; There seems also to have been (Finke, Forschungen, 36-37) an important general committee appointed by the nations to prepare the subjects of discussion for the individual nations, and to act generally as intermediary. At the seventh session (2 May, 1415) theright to vote apart was withdrawn from thecardinals; henceforth they could only vote like other individuai deputies in the meetings of their respective nations. TheRoman Church, therefore, was not represented as such, while the small English nation (20 deputies, 3bishops) was equal in influence to the entire Italian representation, asindividuals about one-half the council. The decisions of the general congregations were presented at the public sessions of the council and therepromulgated, unanimously, asconciliar decrees.

While these measures were being takenJohn XXIII grew daily more suspicious of the council. Nevertheless, and partly in consequence of a fierce anonymous attack, from an Italian source, on his life and character, he promised underoath (2 March, 1415) to resign. On 20 March, however, he secretly fled fromConstance and took refuge at Schaffhausen on territory of his friend Frederick, Duke of Austria-Tyrol. This step filled the council with consternation, for it threatened both its existence and its authority. Emperor Sigismund, however, held together the wavering assembly. Then followed the public sessions (third to fifth) of 26 and 30 March and 5 April out of which came the famous decrees "Articles of Constance", long a chief argument of Gallicanism. As finally adopted in the fifth session they were five in number and declared that the council, legitimately called in the Holy Spirit, is ageneral council, represents the whole Church Militant, has its authority directly fromGod; and that in all that pertains tofaith, the extinction of theschism and reformation in head and members, everyChristian, even thepope, is bound to obey it; that in case of refusal to obey the council all recalcitrantChristians (even thepope) are subject toecclesiastical punishment and in case of necessity to other (civil) sanctions; that without the consent of the councilPope John cannot call away fromConstance theRoman Curia and its officials, whose absence might compel the closing of the council or hinder its work; that all censures inflicted since his departure by thepope on members and supporters of the council are void, and thatPope John and the members of the council have hitherto enjoyed full liberty. In the meantime (29 March, 1415) the English, German, and French nations had agreed to four articles, in the first two of which was expressed the complete supremacy of the council over thepope; these two were incorporated in the aforesaid articles of the fifth session. It has been maintained that these decrees were meant only for the extraordinary situation which then faced the council; they express, nevertheless, the well-known persuasion of the majority of the peculiarecclesiastical representation at Constance that the council, independently of thepope, was the final depository of supremeecclesiastical authority; indeed, by virtue of these decrees they proceeded at once to judge and deposeJohn XXIII, hitherto for them the legitimatepope. It is to be noted that of the twelvecardinals present at Constance only seven or eight assisted at the fifth session, and they solely to avoidscandal (among the absent was d'Ailly). Nor would anycardinal announce these decrees; that office fell to abishop, Andrew of Posen. The emperor was present at theirpromulgation, also 200 members, mostlydoctors, etc. These decrees it must be remembered, though adopted at Basle and often quoted by the disciples of Gallicanism and other opponents ofpapal supremacy, were formulated and accepted at Constance amid quite unusual circumstances, in much haste, and in quasi despair at the threatened failure of the long-desired general council; they ran counter to the immemorial praxis of theChurch, and substituted for its Divine constitution the will of the multitude or at best a kind oftheological parliamentarism. They were never approved by theApostolic See (Funk, Kirchengeschichtliche Studien,Paderborn, 1897, I, 489-98) and were almost at once implicitly rejected byMartin V (Mansi, Coll. Conc., XXVIII, 200). The rest of March, and the months of April and May were consumed in a tragic conflict of the council withJohn XXIII. He did not withdraw his resignation, but posited conditions that the council refused; he called away from Constance severalcardinals and members of theCuria, who were soon, however,obliged to return; put forth a plea of lack of liberty; complained to the King ofFrance concerning the method of voting, as well as his treatment by the council and the emperor; and finally fled from Schaffhausen to Lauenburg, giving the council reason to fear either his final escape from imperial reach or the withdrawal of the Italian representatives. Thepope soon fled again, this time to Freiburg in the Breisgau, and thence to Breisach on the Rhine, but was soon compelled to return toFreiburg, whence eventually (17 May) he was brought by deputies of the council to the vicinity ofConstance, and there heldprisoner, while the council proceeded to his trial. He had exhausted all means of resistance, and was morally vanquished. Unwilling to undergo the ordeal of the impending trial he renounced all right of defence and threw himself on the mercy of the council. He was deposed in the twelfth session (29 Mar, 1415), not forheresy but fornotorioussimony, abetting ofschism, andscandalous life, having already been suspended by the council in the tenth session (14 May). Two days later he ratified underoath the action of the council and was condemned to indefiniteimprisonment in the custody of the emperor. He was held successively in the castles of Gottlieben, Heidelberg, and Mannheim, but was eventually released, for a heavy ransom, with the help ofMartin V, and in 1419 died at Florence asCardinal-Bishop of Tusculum. (For a fuller treatment of the charges against him, seeJOHN XXIII.) The promised resignation ofGregory XII was now in order, and was accomplished with the dignity to be expected from thepope usually considered byCatholic historians the legitimate occupant of the See of Peter, though at this time his obedience had practically vanished, being confined toRimini and a few Germandioceses. Through his protector and plenipotentiary, Carlo Malatesta, Lord ofRimini, he posited as conditions that the council should be reconvoked by himself, and that in the session which accepted his resignation neither Baldassare Cossa nor any representative of him should preside. The council agreed to these conditions. The fourteenth session (4 July, 1415) had, therefore, for its president the Emperor Sigismund, whereby it appeared, as the supporters ofGregory wished it to appear, that hitherto the council was an assembly convoked by thecivil authority. The famousDominicanCardinalJohn of Ragusa (Johannes Dominici), friend and adviser ofGregory XII, and since 19 Dec., 1414, thepope's representative atConstance, convoked anew the council in thepope's name and authorized its future acts. The reunion of both obediences (Gregory XII andJohn XXIII) was then proclaimed, whereupon theCardinal-Bishop ofOstia (Viviers) assumed the presidency, and Malatesta pronounced, in the name ofGregory, the latter's abdication of all right whatsoever to thepapacy.Gregory confirmed these acts in the seventeenth session (14 July) and was himself confirmed asCardinal-Bishop of Porto, Dean of theSacred College and perpetual Legate ofAncona, in which position he died (18 Oct., 1417) atRecanati, in his ninetieth year in the odour ofsanctity. From the fourteenth session, in which he convoked the council, it is considered by many with Phillips (Kirchenrecht, I, 256) a legitimate general council.

There remained now to obtain the resignation ofBenedict XIII (Pedro de Luna). For this purpose, and because he insisted on personal dealings with himself, Emperor Sigismund and deputies of the council went toPerpignan, then Spanish territory, to confer with him, but the stubborn old man, despite his pretended willingness to resign, was not to be moved (Sept.-Oct., 1415) from the claims he had so persistently and amid so great vicissitudes defended. Soon, however, he was abandoned by the Rings ofAragon,Castile, and Navarre, hitherto his chief supporters. By the Treaty of Narbonne (13 Dec., 1415), they bound themselves to co-operate with the Council of Constance for the deposition of Benedict and the election of a newpope. St. Vincent Ferrer hitherto the main support of Benedict, and his confessor, now gave him up as aperjurer; the council confirmed (4 Feb., 1416) the articles of Narbonne, the immediate execution of which was retarded, among other causes, by the flight of Benedict (13 Nov., 1415) from the fortress of Perpignan to the inaccessible rock of Peñiscola on the sea-coast nearValencia, where he died in 1423, maintaining to the end his good right (seePEDRO DE LUNA).

Various causes, as just said, held back the appearance of the Spanish deputies at the council. Finally they arrived atConstance for the twenty-first session (15 Oct., 1416) and were thenceforth counted as the fifth nation (Fromme, Die spanische Nation und das Konzil von Konstanz, Münster, 1896). The next eight months were largely taken up with complicated canonical procedure destined to compel the abdication or justify the deposition ofBenedict XIII, who in the meantime hadexcommunicated solemnly his former royal adherents and with acourage worthy of a better cause maintained that Holy Church, theArk of Noah, was now on the wave-worn peak of Peñiscola, in the little group of a few thousandsouls who yet clung to his shadowy authority, and not atConstance. He was finally deposed in the thirty-seventh session (26 July, 1417) as guilty ofperjury, aschismatic, and aheretic; his private life andpriestly character, unlike those ofJohn XXIII, were never assailed. TheWestern Schism was thus at an end, after nearly forty years of disastrous life; onepope (Gregory XII) hadvoluntarily abdicated; another (John XXIII) had been suspended and then deposed, but had submitted in canonical form; the third claimant (Benedict XIII) was cut off from the body of theChurch, "apope without a Church, a shepherd without a flock" (Hergenröther-Kirsch). It had come about that, whichever of the three claimants of thepapacy was the legitimatesuccessor of Peter, there reigned throughout theChurch a universal uncertainty and an intolerable confusion, so thatsaints and scholars and uprightsouls were to be found in all three obediences. On the principle that adoubtfulpope is nopope, theApostolic See appeared really vacant, and under the circumstances could not possibly be otherwise filled than by the action of ageneral council.

The canonical irregularities of the council seem less blameworthy when to this practical vacancy of thepapal chair we add the universal disgust and weariness at the continuance of the so-calledschism, despite all imaginable efforts to restore to theChurch its unity of headship, the justified fear of new complications, the imminent peril ofCatholic doctrine and discipline amid the temporary wreckage of the traditional authority of theApostolic See, and the rapid growth offalse teachings equally ruinous toChurch and State.

Election of Martin V

Under the circumstances the usual form of papal election by thecardinals alone (seeCONCLAVE) was impossible, if only for the strongly inimical feeling of the majority of the council, which held them responsible not only for the horrors of theschism, but also for many of the administrative abuses of theRoman Curia (see below), the immediate correction of which seemed to not a few of no less importance, to say the least, than the election of a pope. This object was not obscured by minor dissensions, e.g. concerning the rightful rank of the Spanish nation, the number of votes of theAragonese and Castilians, respectively, the right of the English to constitute a nation, etc. The French, Spanish, and Italian nations desired an immediate papal election; a Church without a head was a monstrosity, said d'Ailly. Under Bishop Robert ofSalisbury the English held stoutly for the reforms that seemed imperative in the administration of thepapacy and theCuria; Emperor Sigismund was foremost among theGermans for the same cause, and was ready to take violent measures in its interest. But Robert ofSalisbury died, and curiously enough, it was by anotherEnglishbishop, Henry ofWinchester, then on his way to Palestine, and a near relative of the King ofEngland, that the antagonistic measures of papal election and curial reform were reconciled in favour of the priority of the former, but with satisfactory assurance, among other points, that the newpope would at once undertake a serious reform of all abuses; that those reforms would be at once proclaimed by the council on which all the nations agreed; and that the manner of the imminent papal election should be left to a special commission. Among the five reform decrees passed at once by the council in its thirty-ninth session (9 Oct., 1417) was the famous "Frequens" which provided for ageneral council every ten years; the next two, however, were to be convoked by thepope after five and seven years respectively, the first of them at Pavia.

In the fortieth session finally (30 Oct.) was discussed the manner of the new papal election. The council decreed that for this occasion to the twenty-threecardinals should be added thirty deputies of the council (six from each nation) making a body of fifty-three electors. Anotherdecree of this session provided for the immediate and serious attention of the newpope to eighteen points concerningreformatio in capite etCuria Romana. The forty-first session (8 Nov.) provided for the details of the election and for this purpose had theBull ofClement VI (6 Dec., 1351) read. That afternoon the electors assembled inconclave and after three days chose for thepope theRoman Cardinal Odo Colonna, who took the name ofMartin V. He was only asubdeacon, and so was successively madedeacon,priest, andbishop (Fromme, "Die Wahl Martins V.", in "Röm. Quartalschrift", 1896). Hiscoronation took place 21 November, 1417. At its forty-fifth session he solemnly closed the council (22 April, 1418), whereupon, declining invitations toAvignon or to some German city, he returned toItaly and after a short stay inFlorence, enteredRome, 28 Sept., 1420, and took up his residence in the Vatican, thereby restoring to the See of Peter its ancientrights and prestige inChristendom.

Reformation of ecclesiastical government and life

The long absence of thepopes fromRome in the fourteenth century, entailing the economical and political ruin of the ancientPatrimony of Peter; the many grave abuses directly or indirectly connected with the administration ofFrenchpopes atAvignon; the general civil disorders of the time (Hundred Years War, Condottieri, etc.), and other causes, had created, long before the Council of Constance, an earnest demand for a reformation ofecclesiastical conditions. The writings oftheologians and canonists and the utterances of several popularsaints (St. Bridget of Sweden,St. Catherine of Siena) are alone enough to show how well justified was this universal demand (Rocquain). In the minds of many members of the council this reformation, as already stated, was of equal importance with the closing of theschism; and to some, especially to theGermans, it seemed to overshadow even the need of a head for theChurch. It was precisely thepope and thecardinals, they argued, whose administration most needed reform, and now, when both were weakest and for the first time in their history had felt the mastery of thetheologians and canonists, seemed to this party thepsychological moment to write these reforms into the common ecclesiastical law, whence they could not easily be expunged. Since July, 1415, there had been a reform commission of thirty-five members; a new one of twenty-five members had been appointed after the entry of the Spanish nation in October, 1416. During its long career many memorials were presented to the council concerning every imaginable abuse. In its general congregations and sessions bitter reproaches were often uttered on the same themes. The academic equality of many of the members, the prostrate condition ofecclesiastical headship, the peculiar freedom of discussion in the "nation" meetings, and other causes made this council a unique forum for the discussion of all points and methods of reformation. More would certainly have been accomplished had the learned men and thezealous preachers been able to reach some degree of unanimity as to the importance and order of the reforms called for, and had there been more general anxiety for personal reformation and less passion in denouncing the past abuses ofpapal and curial administration. The Germans (Avisamenta nationis germanicæ) and the English were ardent for a reformation of theRoman Curia, so that a new, holy, and justpope would find his way made straight before him. The former asserted that for 150 years thepopes had ceased to govern with thatjustice which for twelve centuries had characterized them. Thecardinals, they said, hadloved riches too much, andecclesiasticalsynods had been neglected. These were thetrue causes, according to them, of the corruption of theclergy, the decay of good studies, the ruin of churches andabbeys. Reforms had been promised atPisa, but what had become of these promises? As a matter of fact, however, the reforms most loudly called for meant the restoration to thebishops of their ancient freedom in the collation ofbenefices, also a notable diminution in the various dues and assessments payable toRome from theecclesiastical properties and revenues of the various nations, which for several reasons had been growing in number and size during the previous century, and were not always unjustified or inequitable. We have already seen that it was much against their will that theGermans agreed to a papal election before receiving full satisfaction in the matter of the aforesaid reforms. The day after hiscoronationMartin V appointed a (third) reform commission, but its members showed no more unanimity than their predecessors in the same office. The newpope declared that he was ready to accept any propositions that were unanimously agreed on. Eventually, after much discussion and various suggestions seven points were agreed to in the forty-third session (21 March, 1418). All exemptions granted during the synod were withdrawn, and in the future should be granted with difficulty; unions and incorporations ofbenefices were likewise to be diminished; thepope agreed to renounce the revenues of vacantbenefices; allsimony was forbidden, likewise the custom of dispensingbeneficedpersons from theobligation of taking orders; thepapal right to imposetithes onclergy and churches was sensibly restricted;ecclesiastics must henceforth wear the dress of their order (Mansi, Conc., XXVII, 1114-77). Other reforms were left to the initiative of each nation which provided for them by specialconcordats, a term said to have been here used for the first time. The German Concordat (includingPoland,Hungary, and Scandinavia) and that withFrance,Spain, andItaly, ran for five years; the English Concordat was indefinite (for the details seeMansi, op. cit., XXVII, 1189 sqq., and Hübler, Die Konstanzer Reform und die Konkordate von 1418, Leipzig, 1867). The number ofcardinals was fixed at twenty-four, and they were to be taken proportionately from the great nations. Stricter regulation was also agreed on forpapal reservations, annates, commendams,Indulgences, etc. Nevertheless, in apapal consistory (10 March, 1418),Martin V rejected any right of appeal from theApostolic See to a future council, and asserted the supreme authority of theRoman pontiff asVicar of Jesus Christ on earth in all questions ofCatholicFaith (Nulli fas est a supremo judice, videlicet Apostolicâ sede seu Rom. Pontif. Jesu Christi vicario in terris appellare aut illius judicium in causis fidei, quæ tamquam majores ad ipsum et sedem Apostolicam deferendæ sunt, declinare,Mansi, Conc., XXVIII, 200). Von Funk has shown (op. cit., 489 sqq.), that the oft-maintained confirmation of the decrees of Constance byMartin V, in the last session of the council (omnia et singula determinata et decreta in materiis fidei per præsens concilium conciliariter et non aliter nec alio modo) must be understood only of a specific case (Falkenberg, see below), and not of any notable part of, much less of all, the decrees of Constance. It istrue that in theBull "Inter Cunctas", 22 Feb., 1418, apropos of theWycliffites andHussites, he calls for a formal approval of the decrees of Constancein favorem fidei a salutem animarum, but these words are easily understood of the council's action against the aforesaidheresies and its efforts to restore to theChurch a certain head. In particular the famous five articles of the fifth session, establishing the supremacy of the council, never receivedpapal confirmation (Hergenröther-Kirsch, II, 862, and Baudrillart, in Dict. de théol. cath., II, 1219-23). For a refutation of the Gallican claim that these decrees possess a dogmatic character, seeGALLICANISM. Nevertheless, the Council of Constance is usually reckoned the Sixteenth General Council; some, as stated above, acknowledge it as such after the fourteenth session (reconvocation byGregory XII); others again (Salembier) after the thirty-fifth session (adherence of the Spanish nation); Hefele only in the final sessions (forty-second to forty-fifth) underMartin V. Nopapalapprobation of it was ever meant to confirm its anti-papal acts; thusEugene IV (22 July, 1446) approved the council, with due reserve of therights, dignity, and supremacy of theApostolic See (absque tamen præjudicio juris dignitatis et præeminentiæ Sedis Apostolicæ). SeeBouix, "De papa, ubi et de concilio oecumenico" (Paris, 1869), and Salembier (below), 313-23.

The repression of heresy

At various times the council dealt with currentheresies, among them those ofJohn Wyclif andJohn Hus.

Condemnation of forty-five Wycliffite propositions

In the eighth session it was question ofWyclif, whose writings had already been condemned at the Council ofRome (1412-13) underJohn XXIII. In this session forty-five propositions ofWyclif, already condemned by theuniversities ofParis and Prague, were censured asheretical, and in a later session another long list of 260errors. All his writings were ordered to be burned and his body was condemned to be dug up and cast out ofconsecrated ground (this was not done until 1428 under Bishop Robert Fleming of Lincoln). In 1418Martin V, by the aforesaidBull "Inter Cunctas", approved the action of the council (Mansi, op. cit., XXVII, 1210 sq.; see WYCLIFFITES).

Condemnation and execution of John Hus

Since 1408John Hus, an eloquent preacher of Prague, had openly taught theWycliffiteheresies. By his ardentzeal forecclesiastical reforms on the basis ofWyclif's teachings, his patriotic insistence on the purity ofBohemianfaith and his assertion ofBohemian nationalism, he had gone rapidly to the front as a leader of his nation, then deeply embittered against theGermans dominant in the political and academic life ofBohemia. Since 1412 he had been banished from Prague, but was only the more dangerous, by his fiery discourse and his writings, among the highly excitedBohemians, who mostly saw in him the flower of their national genius, and were otherwise embittered against aclergy which then offered too many elements of weakness to the attacks of such reformers asJohn Hus and his friend and admirer Jerome (Hieronymus) of Prague. Theerrors ofHus concerned chiefly the nature of theChurch (only thepredestined), thepapal headship, therule of faith (Scripture and thelaw of Christ), Communion under both kinds (q.v. alsoHUSSITES), auricular confession (unnecessary),civil authority (dependent amongChristians on state of grace). More than once (e.g. 1411)Hus had appealed to ageneral council, and when at the opening of the Council of Constance Emperor Sigismund andKing Wenceslaus of Bohemia urged him to present himself, he was not unwilling; it was made up, heknew, of ardent reformers, and he could hope by his eloquence to convert them to his own intensefaith in theideas ofWyclif. He left Prague, 11 October, 1414, in the company of threeBohemian nobles and assured of a safe-conduct (salvus conductus) from Emperor Sigismund. They enteredConstance 3 November, whereHus took up his residence in a private house, and where (5 November) the safe-conduct was delivered to him. The day after his arrival he appeared beforeJohn XXIII, who treated him courteously, removed the censures ofexcommunication andinterdict, but forbade him to sayMass or to preach, also to appear at publicecclesiastical functions (his thoroughlyheretical and even revolutionary doctrines were longnotorious and, as said above, had already been condemned atRome). He appeared again before thepope and thecardinals, 28 November, declared himself innocent of a singleerror, and said he was ready to retract and do penance if convicted of any. He had continued, however, to violate thepapal prohibition, saidMass daily and preached to the people present. Consequently he was the same day arrested, by order of theBishop ofConstance, and a little later (6 December) placed in theDominicanconvent. On complaining of the unsanitary condition of his place of confinement he was transferred to the castle of Gottlieben, and later to theFranciscanconvent atConstance (June, 1415). His examination went on during April and May, and was conducted by d'Ailly and Fillastre; in the meantime he carried on an extensive correspondence, wrote various treatises, and replied to the charges of his opponents. HisBohemian friends protested against the arrest ofHus, and exhibited the emperor's safe-conduct (but only after the arrest). Sigismund was at first wroth over the arrest, but later (1 Jan., 1415) declared that he would not prevent the council from dealing according to law withpersons accused ofheresy. The aforesaid condemnation (4 May) of the forty-five propositions ofWyclif fore-shadowed the fate ofHus, despite the protests ofBohemians and Poles against his severe incarceration, theslanders againstBohemianfaith, the delay ofjustice, secrecy of the proceedings, and the violation of the imperial safe-conduct (Raynaldus, ad an. 1414, no. 10). The public trial took place on 5, 7, and 8 June, 1415; extracts from his works were read, witnesses were heard. He denied some of the teachings attributed to him, defended others, notably opinions ofWyclif, declared that noBohemian was aheretic, etc. He refused all formulæ of submission, again declared himself conscious of noerror, nor, as he said, had any beenproved against him from the Scriptures. He declared that he would not condemn thetruth, norperjure himself. His books were burned by order of the council (24 June). New efforts to obtain a retractationproved fruitless. He was brought for final sentence before the fifteenth session (6 July, 1415), at which the emperor assisted, and on which occasion thirty propositions, taken mostly from the work ofHus "On the Church" (De Ecclesiâ), were read publicly. He refused to retract anything and so was condemned as aheretic, deposed, and degraded, and handed over to the secular arm, which in turn condemned him to perish at the stake, at that time the usual legal punishment of convictedheretics. He suffered that cruel death with self-possession andcourage and when about to expire cried out, it is said: "Christ,Son of the living God, have mercy on us!" His ashes were thrown into the Rhine. Owing largely to the dramatic circumstances of his death, he became at once the hero ofBohemian patriotism and the martyr-saint of multitudes inBohemia and elsewhere who shared his demagogic and revolutionary principles. They were surely incompatible with either theecclesiastical or the civil order of the time, and would at any period have bred both religious and civilanarchy, had they been put into practice. As to the safe-conduct of the emperor, we must distinguish, saysDr. von Funk (Kirchengeschichte, 3d ed., Freiburg, 1902, p. 495, and the more recent literature there quoted; also "Der Katholik", 1898, LXXVIII, 186-90, and K. Müller, non-Catholic, in the "Hist. Vierteljahrschrift", 1898, 41-86) between the arrest ofHus atConstance and his execution. The former act was always accounted inBohemia a violation of the safe-conduct and a breach offaith on the emperor's part; on the other hand theyknew well, and so didHus, that the safe-conduct was only a guarantee against illegalviolence and could not protect him from the sentence of his legitimate judges. (On thedeath penalty forheresy, seeFicker, "Die gesetzliche Einführung der Todestrafe für Häresie" in "Mittheil. d. Inst. f. oest. Geschichtsforschung", 1888, 177 sqq., and Havet, "L'hérésie et le bras séculier au moyen âge jusqu'au XIIIe siècle", Paris, 1881; see also Gosselin, "Temporal Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages", I, 85-89). In themedieval German codes known as the Sachsenspiegel (about 1225) and the Schwabenspiegel (about 1275),heresy is already punishable with the stake. It is nottrue that the council declared that nofaith should be kept with aheretic (see Pallavicino, "Hist. Conc. Trid.", XII, 15, 8;Höfler in "Hist. polit. Blätter", IV, 421, and Hefele, "Conciliengesch.", VII, 227, also Baudrillart, op. cit., II, 1217). In the following year Jerome (Hieronymus) of Prague, the friend ofHus, suffered the same fate atConstance. He had comevoluntarily to the council in April, 1415, but soon fled the city; afterwards, mindful of the fate ofHus, he obtained from the council a safe-conduct to return for his defence. He did not appear, however, and was soon seized inBavaria and brought in chains toConstance. In September, 1415, heabjured the forty-five propositions ofWyclif and the thirty ofHus, but did not regain his freedom, as his sincerity was suspected, and new charges were made against him. Finally, he was brought before the council, 23 May, 1416, one year after his arrest. This time he solemnly withdrew hisabjuration as asinful act and compelled by fear, and proclaimedHus aholy and upright man. He was forthwith condemned as aheretic in the twenty-first session (30 May, 1416) and perished at the stake with no lesscourage thanHus. Thehumanist Poggio was an eyewitness of his death, and his letter to Leonardo ofArezzo, describing the scene, may be seen in Hefele, "Conciliengesch.", VII, 280 sqq. The death of bothHus and Jerome of Prague affected strongly otherhumanists of the time; Æneas Sylvius (laterPius II) said that they went to their deaths as men invited to a banquet. The immediate consequences were grave enough, i.e. the long Utraquistwars. For an equitable criticism of the defects in the trials of bothHus and Jerome see Baudrillart in "Dict. de théol. cath.", II, 1216-17. (See alsoHUSSITES.)

Jean Petit (Johannes Parvus) and Johann von Folkenberg

The question of the licity oftyrannicide occupied the attention of the council. TheFranciscan Jean Petit (Parvus) had publicly defended (in nine theses) the Duke ofBurgundy for his share in themurder of Louis d'Orléans (23 Nov., 1407), on the ground that any subject might kill or cause to be killed a tyrannical ruler (Kervyn de Lettenhove, Jean sans peur et l'apologie du tyrannicide, Brussels, 1861). After several years of discussion this thesis was condemned atParis in 1414 by thebishop, the inquisitor, and theuniversity. The Duke ofBurgundy appealed to theRoman See. AtConstance the matter was discussed in the fifteenth session (6 July, 1415); many Frenchdoctors were eager for the formal condemnation of Petit and his theses, but hisFranciscan brethren defended him in a common memorial; the council finally was content with condemning in a general way the proposition that, regardless of hisoath and without awaiting a judicial sentence, any vassal or subject might licitly kill, or cause to be killed, a tyrant. Quite similar was the case of Johann von Falkenberg, a GermanDominican, who had maintained in a violent work against the King ofPoland that it was allowed to kill him and all other Poles (Mansi, Conc., XXVII, 765). Many demanded with much earnestness the condemnation of Falkenberg, but no definite sentence was pronounced, despite the ardent discussions (seeTYRANNICIDE), not even in the forty-fifth (last) session when the Poles urged it onMartin V; he declared that in matters offaith he would approve only what had been decided by the holy general councilconciliariter, i.e. by the whole council and not by one or more nations. As noted above, these words of thepope refer only to the particular (Falkenberg) matter before him and not to all the decrees of the council, even in matters offaith.

Attendance at the council; general considerations

Owing to its long duration the attendance at the council varied much. The highest figures reached were: 29cardinals, 3patriarchs, 33archbishops, 150bishops, 100abbots, 50 provosts, 300doctors (mostly oftheology). It was calculated that some 5000monks andfriars were present and in all about 18,000ecclesiastics. The visitors are variously reckoned from 50,000 to 100,000 or more. ManyEuropean sovereigns and princes were present, invited by the emperor, among them (besides Emperor Sigismund and his suite) the Electors Ludwig von der Pfalz and Rudolph of Saxony, the Dukes ofBavaria,Austria,Saxony,Schleswig,Mecklenburg,Lorraine, and Teck, the Margrave of Brandenburg, also the ambassadors of the Kings ofFrance,England,Scotland,Denmark,Poland,Naples, and the Spanish kingdoms. Towards the end the Greek emperor, Michael Palæologus, was also present (19 Feb., 1418, with 19 Greekbishops). In some respects the council resembled more a modernCatholic congress than a traditionalecclesiastical synod. The numerous princes and nobles by their tournaments and splendid amusements; the merchants by their rich and curious wares; the travellers by their number and importance; the fringe of fakirs and mountebanks found at all popular gatherings, madeConstance for the time the cynosure of allEurope and even of the Greek world. There is, of course, no reason to wonder that in so motley a throng, suddenly gathered from all quarters, moral disorders and loose living should have manifested themselves. Quite apart from the reliability or animus of some gossipy chroniclers, the council was directly responsible only for its own acts and not for the life of the city ofConstance. It must also be remembered that in one way or another unforeseen events and situations protracted the council beyond all ordinary prevision. Among these were: the flight ofJohn XXIII; the lengthy process ofBenedict XIII; the general jealousy and dislike of thecardinals, and in turn, the natural efforts of the latter to save the ecclesiastical constitution from thorough ruin at the unhappiest moment for thepapal authority, hitherto itscorner-stone; the passionate longing for a public canonical purification ofCatholicism from its acknowledged abuses and excrescences (in the head and in theRoman Curia). We need not wonder that at the end of his remarkable diary of the council, Cardinal Guillaume Fillastre wrote as follows (Finke ed., Forschungen und Quellen, p. 242): "Hoc Constantiense concilium ... omnibus quæ precesserunt generalibus conciliis fuit in congregando difficilius, in progressu singularius, mirabilius et periculosius, et tempore diuturnius", i.e. no previous council was gotten together with so much difficulty, or ran a career so unique, marvellous and perilous, or lasted so long. From anecclesiastical point of view, the Council of Constance may truly be said to close themedieval and to open the modern period. It was an anti-climax for the all-dominantmedievalpapacy, while in Sigismund (Emperor-elect, King ofHungary, heir ofBohemia, etc.) for the last time appears a pale image of the ideal office of themedieval empire. The language of its orators and its "Acta" exhibits a certain dawn ofHumanism (Finke) while there for the first time modern nationalism, quite different from itsmedieval prototype, comes to the front, dominates the entire situation, menaces even the immemorialunity of the Church, and begins its long career of discordant relations with the central administration ofCatholicism (seeGALLICANISM;JOHANN HONTHEIM). Not a few elements of the laterecclesiastical revolution underLuther are already visibly present at Constance. The German nation in particular remained grievously discontented with the local results of the second of the great reform councils (Pisa,Constance, Basle), and throughout the fifteenth century sought variously, but with little success, to realize the demands put forth at the Council of Constance. [See EUGENE IV;MARTIN V; EMPEROR SIGISMUND; F. Rocquain, "La cour de Rome et l'esprit de réforme avant Luther" (Paris, 1900), also Pastor (see below), andJanssen, "Hist. of the German People", etc.POPE;PRIMACY;REFORMATION;CHURCH;COUNCIL OF TRENT;COUNCIL OF THE VATICAN.]

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT