the house of Venceslas the cupmaker, that Prague might be placed under interdict, Hus had said that there was no reason why the religious services in the whole kingdom should cease because of one man. The skill of the informer appears here. Hus had actually stated that neither because of the imprisonment of murder of himself or of any other man was it fitting that the whole kingdom of Bohemia should be deprived of the spiritual consolation of the sacraments. Hus was well aware of the terror which the word interdict inspired in the minds of mediæval citizens. He later left Prague voluntarily, to save the citizens from the consequences of the interdict.
It would be wearisome and indeed somewhat sickening to record the various other accusations, all of which, like those already mentioned, were founded on distorted remarks of Hus. One of the last points is, however, of interest. Hus was accused of having by his preaching caused discord between the Bohemians and the Germans. In reply he declared that he denied this, unless Bohemians and Germans had sought offence from an unjust cause; then it might be true. “Christ,” he continued, “was the stumbling-block for those who believed not. He (Christ) knows that I love a good German better than a bad Bohemian, even if he be my own brother.” Besides the principal denunciator Protiva, other priests had taken part in the drawing up of these accusations; among them was Michael, surnamed “de causis,” whom Professor Tomek describes as a consummate liar. The denunciators were, however, successful. Hus was summoned to appear before the court of the archbishop. Though the proceedings were secret, we may safely conclude that his defence was in accordance with the notes, mentioned above, which he had made in answer to his accusers. When examined, he no doubt, as in the notes, appealed to his congregation with regard to what he had said on the then ever-recurring question of the validity of the sacraments when administered by a priest who was in a state of mortal sin.
