Page:The letters of John Hus.djvu/169

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
DURING THE EXILE
131

But not whatever the Pope along with the cardinals hath laid down or ordered universally.[1] For I have taken up the opposite position and abide by it: it is for this reason, as you know, that I am now under excommunication.

Hostiensis[2] in his gloss on the fifth chapter of the decretals (′A nobis[3]) holds that the Pope (as also the whole Roman Curia) can err in the way of morality, just as he often errs in his judgment of the truth. I hold boldly to his reading. For if the twelve apostles erred in their judgment of the truth and in the way of morality, how is it that the Pope and cardinals cannot fail in their judgment of the truth and in the way of morality? This actually happened when Pope John—the woman Agnes[4]— and all the cardinals, nay, those belonging to the Roman Church, were deceived in the judgment of the truth: for this same John, Agnes herself, said she was the

  1. This is really the central position of Wyclifism, and springs from the further position that character makes office. Cf. Wyclif, De Eccles. 34, and cf. Doc. 299, 301. At Constance Hus tried to defend it by a fine distinction between quoad meritum and quoad officium (infra, p. 217). The whole position, of course, was absolutely incompatible with Romanism.
  2. Henry de Segusia, cardinal of Ostia (d. 1271), was the greatest canonist of the Middle Ages. On his relations with England, see Matt. Paris, Chron. Maj. iv. 33 , 286, 351, 353. His work is entitled Summa aurea super titulis decretalium (ed. Basel 1573 or Venice 1605). See lib. v. De Penitentiis et Remissionibus, § 15, ‘Papa potest peccare.’
  3. The decretal ‘A nobis’ is dated May 6, 1199. See Richter-Friedberg, Corp. Jur. Canon, ii . 899 , and cf. Wyclif, De Xto et Adv. (Polem. Works, ii. 676). Hus’s attention to Hostiensis’ comment would be drawn by Wyclif’s De Ecclesia, 522.
  4. Wyclif in his Cruciata calls her ‘Anna’ (Polem. Works, ii. 619), nor does he mention ‘Cestrensis.’ This again adds weight to the supposition that in this matter Hus was not following Wyclif. See p. 125, n. 2.