might have been considered king after this act of disobedience, yet in reality he was not.
At that moment Sigismund, who happened to be standing at the window of the refectory, was remarking to the count palatine and the burgrave of Nürnberg, who stood outside, that in all Christendom there was no such heretic as John Huss. The members of the council followed Huss’s statement by crying out: “Call in the king.” As the king did not hear, those on the platform cried out over the heads of those standing near the king: “Bring him, that he may hear, for what is being said concerns him.” Upon request, Huss repeated what he had said, and when he had concluded, Sigismund remarked: “John Huss, there is no man who doesn’t sin—nemo sine crimine vivit.” And, as reported by Mladenowicz, d’Ailly, wishing to excite the secular princes still more against the accused, asked whether it was not enough for him to have attempted in his writings to revile and humble the spiritual estate. Did he now wish to cast down the royal office also? Palecz then went on to explain that king and pope were names of offices, and the name Christian was intended to express merit, so that a pope could be a real pope, or a king a legitimate king, even if they were not true Christians. Hesitating a little, Huss retorted that, if that exposition was well made, it might be applied to Balthasar Cossa, John XXIII, who had been deposed. If he was a true pope, why had he been deposed? To this Sigismund made the remark that until recently members of the council had held to Balthasar on the ground that he was the true pope, and he was deposed from the papacy because of his notorious wickednesses, which had scandalized the church of God, and because he had plundered the church’s goods.
The 2d, 3d and 4th articles concerned predestination, and stated that a reprobate pope was not a member of the militant church and consequently not head of the church militant, and that such a pope or prelate was no
