accepted ‘The Articles of Prague,’ thus joining the national Church. The news was joyfully received by the citizens of Prague. The Te Deum Laudamus was sung and the bells of all the churches were rung. All swore to obey the archbishop and to defend him. Only a few of the preachers who were favourable to Tabor looked with displeasure on the ‘healing of the anti-Christian monster.’ On the other hand, Conrad was not unnaturally overwhelmed with abuse by the Romanists. Dr. Tomek writes: ‘Archbishop Conrad was neither better nor worse than the majority of the Bohemian ecclesiastics of high rank at that period.’ To the student of the times a certain amount of scepticism may, in an exalted Bohemian ecclesiastic of the period, appear, though unpardonable, hardly inexplicable. Shortly afterwards, in accordance with a decision of a meeting of the Estates at Caslav, a synod of the Bohemian clergy assembled at the Carolinum in Prague.
Archbishop Conrad was indeed not present, but he had. delegated as his representatives several Hussite clergymen, of whom Magisters Pribram and Jacobellus were the most eminent. The synod resulted in a failure, mainly in consequence of the obstinacy of the delegates of Tabor.
Internal discord broke out in Prague not jong after the failure of the synod. Under the leadership of John of Zelivo, the democratic party in the city acquired ever-increasing strength, and opposed the provisional government of comparatively moderate views, which had been established at the assembly of Caslav. The more moderate party firmly believed in the possibility of securing an agreement with Rome, if the Bohemians but limited their demands to ‘The Articles of Prague,’ and eschewed ultra-revolutionary tendencies both in Church and State. That
