g. Had he insisted
on the liberation of Huss, the danger was imminent that the council, for
which he had labored so earnestly, would be broken up on the plea that
its rightful freedom was denied it. He did not choose to run this risk,
preferring to leave an everlasting blot upon his name.

Some modern sophists assure us that this safe-conduct--or free pass, as
they prefer to call it--engaged the imperial word for Huss' safety in
going to the council, but for nothing more--a most perfidious document,
if this is all which it undertook; for the words--I quote the more
important of them in the original Latin--are as follows: "_ut ei
transire, stare, morari, redire permittatis_." But the treachery was not
in the document, and nobody at the time attempted to find it there. If
this had not engaged the honor of the Emperor, what cause of complaint
would he have had against the cardinals as having entangled him in a
breach of his word? what need of their solemn ambassage to him? Untrue
also is the assertion that this was so little regarded by Huss himself
as a safe-conduct covering the whole period during which he should be
exposed to the malice of his enemies that he never appealed to it or
claimed protection from it. He did so appeal at this second formal
hearing, June 7th, the first at which Sigismund was present. "I am
here," he there said, "under the King's promise that I should return to
Bohemia in safety"; while at his last, by a look and by a few like
words, he brought the royal word-breaker to a blush, evident to all
present, July 6th.

But to return a little. More than seven months elapsed before Huss could
obtain a hearing before the council. This was granted to him at last.
Thrice heard, June 5, 7, 8, 1415--if, indeed, such tumultuary sittings,
where the man speaking for his life, and for much more than his life,
was continually interrupted and overborne by hostile voices, by loud
cries of "Recant, recant!" may be reckoned as hearings at all--he bore
himself, by the confession of all, with courage, meekness, and dignity.
The charges brought against him were various; some so far-fetched as
that urged by a Nominalist from the University of Paris--for Paris was
Nominalist now--namely, that as a Realist he could not be sound on the
doctrine of the eucharist. Others were vague enough, as that he had sown
discord between the church and the state. Nor were accusations wanting
which touched a really weak point in his teachi