 |
BOOK II.
THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE
1414 — 1418.
CHAPTER IV.
JOHN HUSS IN BOHEMIA.
1398—1414.
John Huss was born of humble parents in the little
village of Husinec in 1369, and rose by his talents
and his industry to high fame in the University of Prague. There he began to
teach in 1398, and with his friend Nicolas of Leitomysl founded a philosophic school on the basis of the philosophical writings of
Wycliffe. From Wycliffe’s philosophy he advanced to Wycliffe’s theology, which
seemed to find an echo in his own moral nature. From the first, however, he saw
the dangers to which the acceptance of Wycliffe’s teaching was likely to lead.
“Oh, Wycliffe, Wycliffe”, he exclaimed in a sermon, “you will trouble the heads
of many!” Nor was the influence of Huss confined only to academic circles. One
of the marks of the religious activity produced by the preaching of Milicz was
the foundation in Prague by a wealthy burgher of a chapel called Bethlehem, for
the purpose of procuring for the Czechs sermons in their native tongue. The
nomination of Huss as priest of the Chapel of Bethlehem in 1402 gave him the
means of appealing forcibly to the popular mind.
Huss summed up in his own person all the political and
religious aspirations of the Czechs, and gave them dear, forcible expression in
his sermons. Sprung from the people, he maintained that Bohemia ought to be for
the Bohemians, as Germany was for the Germans, and France for the French. Of
pure and austere life, his countenance bore the traces of constant self-denial,
and his loftiness of purpose lent force to his words. From the time that he
undertook the Chapel of Bethlehem he devoted himself to the work of popular
preaching, and his penetrating intelligence, his clearness of expression, his
splendid eloquence, made his sermons produce a more lasting impression than the
more impassioned harangues of Conrad or the more mystical and imaginative
discourses of Milicz. He exactly expressed the thoughts that were surging in
the minds of the people, and gave them definiteness and form. It was clear that
Huss was not merely a popular preacher; he threatened to become the founder of
a new school of religious thought.
At first Hus followed in the same lines as his
predecessors strove to bring about a moral reformation of the Church by means
of the existing authorities. The feebleness of the Archbishop of Prague, his
death, and a long vacancy in the see left the ground open for the Wycliffite teachers; but in 1403 a reaction set in. The
office of rector of the University passed by rotation from the Bohemians to the
Germans, and it was proposed to affirm in Bohemia the acts of the Council of
London in 1382, which condemned the writings of Wycliffe. It was a great matter
for the opponents of the reforming party to be able to identify their teaching
with that of one who had been already condemned for heresy. Though the
reforming movement in Bohemia had an independent existence, it borrowed its
principles from England with remarkable docility. Wycliffe’s writings supplied
the philosophical basis which was wanting in Bohemia, and Huss was willing to
be judged as a pupil of the great English philosopher and divine. A German
master of the University, John Hubner, laid before
the Chapter of Prague the twenty-four articles of Wycliffe’s teaching condemned
by the Synod of London, and added twenty-one of his own discovery. These
forty-five articles were submitted to the University on May 28, 1403.
Wycliffe’s followers contented themselves with protesting that the articles
were not to be found in Wycliffe’s writings; but after some warm discussion the
majority condemned the articles laid before them, and a decree was passed that
no member of the University was to teach them either in public or in private.
This decree of the University, however, produced no
effect. The new Archbishop of Prague, Zbynek, was no
theologian, and was attracted by the earnestness of Huss. The clerical party
had no hope of help from him, and applied directly to Innocent VII, who, in
1405, addressed to the Archbishop a monition to greater diligence in rooting
out the errors and heresy of Wycliffe. Little, however, was done in this
direction, perhaps owing to the influence of Huss, who was so trusted by the
Archbishop that he requested him to bring before his notice any defects of ecclesiastical
discipline which, in his opinion, needed correction. Moreover, the position of
Huss as confessor to Queen Sophia gave him considerable influence at Court, and
Wenzel was so indignant at the refusal of Innocent VII, and afterwards of
Gregory XII, to recognize him as Emperor, that he had no objection to see a
more independent ecclesiastical party establishing itself in his kingdom.
But affairs soon destroyed this agreement between Huss
and the Archbishop and Court. Zbynek was beginning to
be exercised in his mind at the frequent discussions about the Eucharist, and
in 1406 published a pastoral defining what he considered to be the true
doctrine. The preparations for the Council of Pisa exercised great influence
over Wenzel, who hoped to secure from the Council, or the Council’s Pope, a
recognition of his Imperial title, but saw that for this end he must be ready
to purge his kingdom of its reputation for heresy. In May, 1408, the condemned
opinions of Wycliffe were read over to a congregation of the Bohemian nation of
the University, and lectures or disputations on the works of Wycliffe were
forbidden. Some of the Bohemian masters were tried for heresy before the
Archbishop’s court, and a letter of Huss to the Archbishop, couched in lofty
tones of moral remonstrance, besought him not to punish the lowly priests
who were striving to do their duty in preaching the Gospel, when there were so
many of their accusers who were given up to avarice and luxury. From this time
a breach was made between Hus and the Archbishop, which went on increasing. The
Archbishop, however, satisfied with his victory for the present, declared in a
provincial synod on July 17, 1408, that no heretics were to be found in his
diocese: he ordered all the books of Wycliffe to be burned, and enjoined on the
clergy to preach transubstantiation to the people.
The questions raised by the Schism of the Papacy gave
Huss and his party unexpected help. Wenzel was desirous to have his kingdom
cleared of the charge of heresy, that he might more decidedly take part in the
negotiations about the summons of the Council of Pisa. He was ill-disposed to
Gregory XII, who carried out his predecessor’s policy, and continued to
recognize Rupert as King of the Romans. Wenzel was urged by the French Court to
join in the Council of Pisa, and, on November 24, wrote to the Cardinals that
he was willing to do so, provided his ambassadors were received as those of the
King of the Romans. Meanwhile he wished to withdraw from the allegiance of
Gregory XII and declare neutrality within his kingdom. The reforming party
naturally hoped for some changes in their favor from a Council, and supported
the King’s desire. Archbishop Zbynek and the orthodox
party opposed it. When the King appealed to the University of Prague, the
Bohemians were on his side; the Germans sided with the Archbishop. The question
of the neutrality drew together the Bohemian masters in the University. Many
who had combated Huss as a heretic were now with him. The King’s anger gave the
Bohemian academic party an opportunity of gaining a triumph over their German
adversaries. A deputation, of whom Huss was one, represented to the King the
grievances of the Bohemians, who had only one vote in the University, while the
Germans had three. They urged that the Bohemian masters had increased in
number, while the Germans had diminished; in learning, as well as in numbers,
the Bohemians were at least equal to the Germans. While they were young they
were content to be in bondage; but now the fullness of time was come, when they
need no more be regarded as servants, but heirs of all that the original
foundation of Charles IV had meant to bestow upon them. The cause of the
Bohemian masters was warmly applauded by some of Wenzel’s favorites, and also
by the ambassadors of France. On January 18, 1409, the King issued an angry
decree that it was unjust that the Germans, who were foreigners, should have
three votes and the true heirs of the kingdom only one: he ordered that
henceforth the Bohemians should have three votes and the Germans one. On
January 22 he published a decree renouncing the obedience of Gregory XII.
The Czechs were triumphant. Huss in a sermon openly
thanked God for this victory over the Germans. Popular excitement ran high, and
the Germans in vain strove to resist. They declared that they would leave the
University rather than obey. They refused to elect any officials, and when the
King nominated them by royal authority the German masters carried their threat
into execution and left Prague. According to the most moderate computation, two
thousand are said to have departed, leaving but scanty remnants behind.
This hasty, passionate step of Wenzel was the
destruction of the European importance of the University of Prague, and was a
decisive moment in the intellectual development of Germany. The emigrant
masters formed a new university at Leipzig, and many of them went to the young
universities of Germany. Henceforth there was no great centre of learning in Germany, and a powerful bond of national union was lost. But the
loss was counterbalanced by the vigorous growth of scattered universities,
which leavened more thoroughly with the traditions of learning the mass of the
German people. The importance of Prague as one of the great cities of the world
began to decline, and the strife of Germans and Czechs was no longer to be
contested, when it could most surely have been healed, in the bloodless sphere
of academic disputation. More immediate consequences followed on this decree of
Wenzel. He had wished only to pave the way to his adhesion to the Council of
Pisa; he kindled into a flame the smoldering spirit of the Bohemian people, and
did much to identify the nation with the cause of ecclesiastical reform. This
great national victory was also a victory for the reformers. But it was won at
a heavy cost; the enemy was baffled, not crushed. The emigrant masters were
dispersed throughout Germany filled with hatred of their victorious rivals.
They spread far and wide the story of their woes; they painted in the blackest
colors the wickedness, the impiety of the Bohemians. When we seek afterwards
for the causes which led Germany to pour its crusading bands upon the Bohemian
land, we may find it in the bitterness which the woes of the emigrant students
carried into all quarters.
Meanwhile Wenzel was satisfied with the results of his
measure, and its meaning was clearly shown by the election of Huss as the first
rector of the mutilated University. The Cardinals and the Council of Pisa
received Wenzel’s ambassadors, disavowed Rupert, and restored to Wenzel in the
eyes of Christendom his lofty position as King of the Romans. When the
Council’s Pope had been duly elected, on Wenzel would naturally devolve
the duty of securing his universal recognition. But Wenzel found with shame
that he was powerless even in his own land. Archbishop Zbynek refused to recognize Alexander V, and was supported by the clergy; he even laid
Prague under an interdict. Wenzel replied by confiscating the goods of those
clergy who joined the Archbishop in withdrawing from Prague. Zbynek was driven to submit, and reluctantly acknowledged
Alexander V in September, 1409. These events, however, kindled anew the
animosity of the Bohemians against the clergy, and arrayed the Court, the
reformers, and the Bohemian people against the Germans and the clergy. The
Archbishop’s mind became more and more exasperated against Huss, who had
preached loudly in the King’s behalf, and he prepared to wipe away in a
conflict with Huss the discomfiture which he had undergone. Articles against
Huss had already, before the end of 1408, been presented to the Archbishop,
complaining that he defamed the clergy in his sermons and brought them into
contempt with the people. In 1409 new articles were presented, and Huss was
summoned to answer before the Archbishop’s inquisitor to charges of defaming
the clergy, speaking in praise of Wycliffe, and kindling contention between
Germans and Bohemians. Huss does not seem to nave appeared to answer to these
charges: indeed, a counter charge was raised against the Archbishop in the
Papal court, and Alexander V, who can have felt little goodwill to Zbynek, summoned him to answer to these charges. The
summons, however, was soon countermanded, as the Archbishop’s envoys laid
before the Pope an account of ecclesiastical matters in Bohemia, and Alexander
V became impressed with the gravity of the situation. He issued a Bull from
Pistoia on December 20, bidding the Archbishop appoint a commission of six
doctors, who were to purge his diocese from heresy, forbid the spread of
Wycliffe’s doctrines, and remove from the eyes of the faithful the books of
Wycliffe. Appeals to the Pope by those accused on any of these points were
disallowed beforehand by the Bull.
When this Bull was published in Prague the reformers
felt that for a time they must bow before the storm. Huss himself brought to
the Archbishop the books of Wycliffe which he possessed, with a request that Zbynek would point out the errors which they contained, and
he was ready to combat them in public. Zbynek’s commissioners contented themselves with reporting that Wycliffe’s writings,
which they specified by name, contained manifest heresy and error, and were to
be condemned. Whereupon, on June 16, the Archbishop ordered the books to be
burned, denounced Wycliffe’s opinions and prohibited all teaching in private
places and chapels. Already, on June 14, the University had met and protested
against the condemnation of the books of Wycliffe, asserting, as was true, that
the Archbishop and his commissioners had not had time to examine their
contents. On June 20 they renewed their protest, and Huss, seeing himself
pushed to extremities, proceeded to a bold step in defiance of ecclesiastical
authority. Alexander V was dead, and there was a chance that his successor
might be disposed to reconsider the Bohemian question. Disregarding the
Archbishop’s decree, Huss again ascended the pulpit in his Chapel of Bethlehem;
disregarding the Bull of Alexander V, he appealed from a Pope wrongly informed
to a Pope better informed. He called upon the people, he called upon his
congregation, to support him in the line which he resolved to pursue. He read
the Pope’s Bull, the Archbishop’s decree: he recalled the previous declaration
of Zbynek that there were no heretics in Bohemia; he
declared the charges contained in the Bull to be untrue.
“They are lies, they are lies”, exclaimed with one
voice the congregation.
“I have appealed, I do appeal”, continued
Huss, against the Archbishop’s decrees.
“Will you be on my side?”
“We will, we will”, was the enthusiastic answer.
“Know, then”, he went on, “that, since it is my duty
to preach, my purpose stands to do so, or be driven beyond the earth or die in
prison; for man may lie, but God lies not. Think of this, ye who purpose to stand
by me, and have no fear of excommunication for joining in my appeal”.
The language of the appeal itself was equally
resolute. The Bull of Alexander V, it affirms, was surreptitiously obtained by Zbynek on false grounds; its authority came to an end with
Alexander’s death, and Zbynek’s decrees were
therefore invalid. As for Wycliffe’s books, even if they contained some errors,
theological students ought not to be prohibited from reading them. The
Archbishop’s decree closing the chapels was an attempt to hinder the preaching
of the Gospel and could not be obeyed, for “we must obey God rather than men in
things which are necessary for salvation”. The decisive step of a breach with
the ecclesiastical system had now been taken. Huss asserted, as against authority,
the sanction of the individual conscience, and he called on those who thought
with him to array themselves on his side. Huss had stepped from the position of
a reformer to that of a revolutionist.
Zbynek was not slow to
take up the challenge. Wenzel in vain strove to arrange a compromise. On July
16 the Archbishop gathered the clergy round him, and in solemn state burned two
hundred volumes of Wycliffe’s writings which had been surrendered to him.
The Te Deum was chanted
during the ceremony, and all the church bells in Prague rang out a joyous peal
in honor of the event. Two days afterwards Zbynek excommunicated Huss and all who had joined in his appeal, as disobedient and
impugners of the Catholic faith.
If by these strong measures Zbynek hoped to overawe the people he was entirely mistaken. Epigrams on the man who
burned the books he had not read passed from mouth to mouth; songs declared
that it was done to spite the Czechs. When the Archbishop came in state to the
cathedral door, accompanied by forty clergy, to pronounce the excommunication
against Huss, the uproar of the people forced him to retire for safety into the
church. Wenzel, though hostile to the Archbishop, found it necessary to
interfere, and in a high-handed way devised a compromise. Libelous songs were
prohibited on pain of death; the Archbishop was ordered to pay tack to the
owners of the books he had burned their value, and to withdraw his
excommunication. When he hesitated his revenues were seized for the purpose.
Wenzel also wrote to Pope John XXIII, asserting that Bohemia was free from
heresy, and begging him to revoke the Bull of Alexander V, which had produced
nothing but mischief and ill-feeling. But the Archbishop had forestalled the
King at the Papal Court; he had sent Huss’s appeal and a statement of his own
case. John XXIII referred the matter to Cardinal Oddo Colonna, afterwards Pope Martin V, who lost no time in making his decision. In
a letter dated from Bologna, August 24, he enjoined the Archbishop to proceed
according to the Bull of Alexander V, and if necessary to call in the secular
arm to his aid; Huss was summoned to appear personally at the Papal Court to
answer for himself.
This letter reached Prague soon after Wenzel’s letter
to the Pope had been dispatched. The Archbishop triumphed, but Wenzel felt
himself personally aggrieved, and wrote again to the Pope, asserting that there
was no ground of fear for the religious condition of his kingdom; he took Huss
under his personal protection, begged the Pope to withdraw his summons, confirm
the privileges of the Chapel of Bethlehem, and allow Huss to continue in peace
his useful ministrations. The friends of Huss gathered round him and loudly
declared that they would not suffer him to be exposed to the perils of a
journey to Rome through lands that were filled with his bitter enemies. But
John XXIII naturally thought that opinions reflecting on the luxury, worldly
lives, and evil living of the clergy ought not to be allowed free scope. In
spite of Wenzel’s remonstrances, Huss was declared by
Cardinal Colonna contumacious for not appearing, and was pronounced
excommunicated (February, 1411).
Political considerations, however, soon admonished
John XXIII to pay more heed to Wenzel’s requests. The death of Jobst of Moravia
(January 17, 1411) left the title of King of the Romans in the hands of one or
other of the brothers, Wenzel or Sigismund. Sigismund was still an adherent of
Gregory XII; and John XXIII felt that it would not be wise to drive Wenzel to
join his brother; moreover, he hoped for Wenzel’s aid in bringing over
Sigismund to his own obedience. He therefore resolved to procrastinate in the
matter of Huss, and transferred the cause from the hands of Cardinal Colonna to
those of a new commission, which allowed the matter to stand over. The sentence
of excommunication against Huss was not rescinded, and the Archbishop ordered
it to be promulgated in Prague. Little attention was paid to it, and Zbynek, already infuriated by the seizure of his goods to
pay for the books which he had burnt, laid Prague under an interdict. Wenzel in
great wrath drove out the priests, who, in obedience to the Archbishop, refused
to perform the services, and seized their goods. The nobles were always ready
to stand by the King when they could lay hands on the property of the clergy,
whose riches they looked upon with a jealous eye. Zbynek,
who hoped by his extreme measure to strike terror into Wenzel and the people
found himself entirely mistaken. With the example of John of Jenstein before his eyes, he did not think it wise to
exasperate the King further or to trust to the Pope for help in extremities.
Most probably John XXIII privately advised him to make peace with the King. At
all events he agreed to submit his disputes with Huss and the University to
arbiters appointed by Wenzel, who gave their decision (July 6) that the
Archbishop should submit to the King, should write to the Pope saying that
there were no heresies in Bohemia, and that the disputes between himself and
the University were at an end, that all excommunications should be recalled and
all suits suspended. The King on his side was to do all he could to check the
growth of error, and was to restore all benefices taken from the clergy. To
this Zbynek was forced to consent. But the letter to
the Pope, though written, was never sent. Before the disputed points could be
practically arranged, Zbynek died, on September 28.
He was a man of blameless life and high character. Hus sincerely regretted his
death and honored him for his attempts to reform the lives and morals of the
clergy. He had been his friend in the early part of his episcopate, and Huss
considered the persecution of himself as due to the Archbishop’s advisers,
not to himself. The new Archbishop, Albik, was an old
man, who knew and cared little about theology. He was Wenzel’s physician, and
was of an easy disposition, rich and avaricious; nothing but the dread of
Wenzel’s displeasure drove him to accept the office of Archbishop. Under him it
seemed as though peace would be again restored, and there was quiet for a
while.
Huss, however, had, unknown to himself, drifted far
away from the old ecclesiastical system. His conscience had become more
sensitive, and his feeling that he must guard against offending the conscience
of others had become more intense. Hitherto he had raised the voice of moral
reproach against the abuses of the clergy; occasion soon drove him to raise the
same protest against the abuses of the Papacy itself. John XXIII, in his
struggle against Ladislas, appealed to Christendom for help. He issued Bulls of
excommunication, proclaimed a crusade, promised indulgences to the faithful who
took part in it, and sent commissioners to stir up their zeal. The Papal legate
in Bohemia for this purpose, Wenzel Tiem, Dean of
Passau, was not wanting in energy. Three chests were put up in public places to
receive contributions; indulgences were preached in the market-place, and those
who had no money might pay in kind. The parish clergy were enlisted in the
legate’s service, and used the confessional as a means of extorting money.
There was nothing new in this, nothing exceptionally
scandalous. Yet it set the whole nature of Huss in revolt. He denounced the
crusade as opposed to Christian charity; he vehemently attacked the methods by
which money was being raised. In vain the theological faculty of the University
dissented from him, pointing out that it was, and had been for centuries, the
belief of Christendom that the Pope could give remission of sins, and that he
was justified in calling on the faithful to help him in time of need. In spite
of the efforts of the University to prevent it, Huss held a public disputation
against the Pope’s Bull on June 7, 1412. Huss in his argument discussed the two
questions of the validity of indulgences and the justice of a crusade. While
admitting the priestly power of absolution, he urged that its efficacy depended
on the true repentance of him who received it, and that God only knew who were
predestinated to salvation. Neither priest nor Pope could grant privileges
contrary to the law of Christ; in following the example of Christ could
salvation most surely be obtained. Huss’s subtle arguments met with many
answers, but his fiery scholar Jerome of Prague by a storm of eloquence so
carried away the younger scholars that they escorted him in triumph home. In
the general excitement the noisiest and least thoughtful spirits, as usual,
took the lead. One of the King’s favorites, Wok of Waldstein,
organized a piece of buffoonery which was meant to be a reprisal for the
burning of Wycliffe’s books two years before. A student, dressed as a
courtesan, was seated in a car with the Pope’s Bull fastened round his neck;
surrounded by a motley throng, the car was drawn through the city to the
Neustadt, where the Bull was burnt (June 24).
Wenzel was naturally indignant at this uproar, and
ordered the magistrates of the city to punish with death those who spoke
against the indulgences. On Sunday, July 10, three young men of the lower
orders were apprehended for having cried out in churches that the indulgences
were a lie. In vain Huss, accompanied by two thousand students, pleaded before
the magistrates in behalf of the prisoners. Their fault, he said, was his : if
anyone ought to suffer, it was himself. The magistrates gave him a fair answer,
but a few hours afterwards, on Monday afternoon, the three prisoners were
brought out for execution, surrounded by armed men. A vast crowd followed the
procession in solemn silence. When the executioner proclaimed, “All who do like
them must expect their punishment”, many voices exclaimed that they were ready
to do and suffer the same. A band of students took possession of the three
corpses, and, chanting the martyr’s psalm, “Isti sunt sancti”, bore them to the
Chapel of Bethlehem, where they were solemnly buried. The first blood had been
shed in the religious strife in Bohemia; the reformation had won its first
martyrs. Huss declared in a sermon that he would not part with their bodies for
thousands of gold and silver.
The opponents of Huss felt that he could not be
silenced by means of the University, where a large majority was on his side.
They accordingly had recourse to the royal authority, and asked Wenzel to
forbid the teaching of the forty-five articles taken from the writings of
Wycliffe, which had been condemned in 1408. To these were added six new
articles bearing on the present disturbance, condemning the opinion that
priestly absolution was not in itself effectual but merely declaratory, and the
opinion that the Pope might not ask for subsidies in his temporal needs. Wenzel
forbade under pain of banishment the teaching of any of these condemned
articles, but refused to go further and prohibit from preaching those who were
accused as prime causes of the late disturbance. Not content with the aid of
the King, the clergy of Prague also complained to the Pope. John XXIII,
naturally incensed at the news of this defiance offered in Bohemia to his
authority, handed over the trial of Huss to Cardinal Annibaldi,
who lost no time in pronouncing against Huss the greater excommunication:
if within twenty days he did not submit to the Church, none were to speak to
him or receive him into their houses; the offices of the Church were to cease
when he was present, and the sentence against him was to be solemnly read in
all churches in Bohemia every Sunday. Nor was this all. By a second decree all
the faithful were required to seize the person of Huss and deliver him to the
Archbishop of Prague or the Bishop of Leitomysl to be
burned; his Chapel of Bethlehem was to be leveled with the ground.
The denunciations of the Papacy have never been
lacking in severity, but they have rarely been carried at once into effect.
Huss appealed from the Pope to Jesus Christ, the true head of the Church; it
was a curious piece of formalism to maintain himself still within the communion
into the Church. His foes were ready to proceed against him : so long as he was
in Prague the interdict was rigidly observed by the clergy. But the resolute
attitude of his friends portended a bloody conflict. Wenzel interfered to
prevent it, and prevailed on Huss, for the sake of keeping the peace, to leave
Prague for a time; he promised to do his utmost to reconcile him with the
clergy. Huss obeyed the royal request, though with a feeling that he was
forsaking his post, and left Prague in December, 1412.
Wenzel was genuinely anxious to have things amicably
settled, and appointed a Commission, with the Archbishop at its head, to draw
up the terms of a reconciliation. But when once theological disputes arise,
every step towards a formal agreement is keenly criticized. The representatives
of the University theologians objected to be called in the preamble “a party”;
they declared that they expressed the opinions of the Church; they defined the
Church as that “whose present head was Pope John XXIII, and whose body was the
Cardinals, and the opinions of that Church must be obeyed in all concerning the
Catholic faith”. The friends of Huss were willing to accept this with the addition
“as far as a good and faithful Christian ought”. The four doctors who
represented the University objected, and protested against the Commissioners.
Wenzel regarded them as throwing willful hindrances in the way of his project
of peace, and angrily banished them from his kingdom.
This victory of the followers of Huss was followed by
a political triumph that was of still greater importance. The strength of
Huss’s party in Prague lay in the Bohemians, and the strength of the orthodox
party lay in the German middle class. Prague consisted of three separate
municipalities. On the left bank of the Moldau lay
the Old Town and the New Town; on the right bank of the Moldau the Little Town nestled round the cathedral and the royal palace of the Hradschin. In the New Town the Czechs were in a majority;
but in the Old Town the municipal council was chiefly in the hands of the
well-to-do Germans, which accounts for the vigor displayed by the magistracy in
suppressing all objections to the sale of indulgences. In late years the
struggle of Germans and Czechs had been bitter within the Old Town; and Wenzel,
in pursuit of his pacific policy, ordered, on October 21, 1413, that henceforth
the names of twenty-five Germans and twenty-five Bohemians be submitted to him,
from whom he would choose eighteen, nine from each nation, who should
constitute the Council. From this time the superiority of the Germans was
broken, and they no longer had the government of the Old Town in their hands.
Wenzel’s repressive measures produced external peace
for a time. Hus in his exile spread his opinions still more widely throughout
the land. Tractates addresses to the people flowed unceasingly from his pen, as
well as his great treatise “De Ecclesia”. Freed from the excitement which had constantly
attended his last six years in Prague, the literary activity of Huss was now
unimpeded. Nor must Huss be regarded only as a controversialist; he was the
great framer of the Bohemian tongue. He adapted the Roman alphabet more fully
to the expression of the Czech sounds; and the orthography which Huss
introduced exists up to this day in Bohemia. He was, moreover, anxious for the
purity of the Czech language, reproved the citizens of Prague for their
combination of German and Czech, and was in his own writings and speech a
linguistic purist.
In the treatise “De Ecclesia” Huss expresses
most clearly his opinions, though it is not as a thinker that Huss owes
his chief claim to the consideration of after times. His strength lay in his
moral rather than in his intellectual qualities. His opinions were not
logically developed, as were those of Wycliffe, but for that very reason they
awakened a louder echo amongst his hearers. Huss was deeply impressed with the
abuses of the ecclesiastical system, which were everywhere apparent. He was
above all things a preacher, bent upon awakening men to a new spiritual life,
and keenly sensitive of the difficulties thrown in his way by the failings and
vices of the clergy. Huss had no wish to attack the system of the Roman Church,
no wish to act in opposition to its established rules; he maintained
conscientiously to the last that he was a faithful son of the Roman Church. But
the necessity of attacking abuses led him on step by step to set up the law of
Christ as superior to all other enactments, as sufficient in itself for the
regulation of the Church; and this law of Christ he defined as the law of
the Gospel as laid down by Christ during the sojourn on earth of Himself and
the Apostles. His adversaries at once pointed out that, starting from this
principle, he maintained the right of each individual to interpret Scripture
according to his own pleasure, and so introduced disorder into the Church.
Besides this claim for the sufficiency of Scripture
instead of ecclesiastical tradition Huss, from his deep moral earnestness,
adopted the Augustinian view of predestination, and defined the true Church as
the body of the elect. There were true Christians and false Christians; it was
one thing to be in the Church and another thing to be of the Church. Those only
were of the Church who by the grace of predestination were made members of
Christ. The Pope was not the head of the Church, but was only the Vicar of
Peter, chief of the Apostles; and the Pope was only Vicar of Peter so far as he
followed in the steps of Peter. Spiritual power was given that those who
exercised it might lead the people to imitate Christ; it is to be resisted if
it hinders them in that duty. The Pope cannot claim an absolute obedience; his
commands are to be obeyed only as being founded on the law of Christ, and if
contrary thereto ought to be resisted. No ecclesiastical censures ought to
prevent a priest from fulfilling the commands of Christ, for he can reach the
kingdom of heaven under the leadership of his Master, Christ. We find in this
much that reminds us of Wycliffe; but what Wycliffe reasoned out calmly, with a
full sense of the difficulties involved in his view, Huss asserts with
passionate earnestness, applying only so much of his principles as covers his
own position at the time. The ideas of Huss were drawn from Wycliffe; and the
conception of the Church as a purely spiritual body corresponded in many ways
with the general tendencies of current opinion. The language of Huss might be
paralleled on some points by the language of Gerson and D'Ailly. All who were
anxious for reform, and saw that reform was hopeless through the Papacy, tended
to criticize the Papal power in the same strain. It is the strong personality
of the writer that attracts us in the case of Huss. Everything he writes is the
result of his own soul’s experience, is penetrated with a deep moral
earnestness, illumined by a boldness and a self-forgetfulness that breathe the
spirit of the cry, “Let God be true and every man a liar”.
In this literary activity Huss spent his exile from
Prague. He was in constant communication with his followers there, and his
letters of encouragement to them in their trials, and of exhortation to approve
their opinions by goodness of life, give us a touching picture of simple,
earnest piety rooted on a deep consciousness of God’s abiding presence. These
letters show us neither a fanatic nor a passionate party-leader, but a man of
childlike spirit, whose one desire was to discharge faithfully his pastoral
duties and do all things as in the sight of God and not of man.
Thus passed the year 1413. There was truce between the
two parties in Bohemia, but both were eagerly expecting what the future might
bring. John XXIII’s Council in Rome at the beginning of the year had condemned
the writings of Wycliffe, but the proceedings of the Council were too trivial
to awaken much attention. But when the Council of Constance was first
announced, both sides felt that it must have a decisive influence on the state
of affairs in Bohemia. John was anxious to bring into prominence the Bohemian
dispute; it was the one question that might stave off for a while any
discussion of the reform of the Church. In fact, the Bohemian movement rested
entirely upon a desire for reform: it put before Christendom one set of
principles, one way of procedure which would make a thorough reform of the
Church possible. Though John did not know much about theology, he knew enough
about human nature to feel convinced that the principles of the Bohemian
reformers would not commend themselves to the ecclesiastical hierarchy
assembled in the Council. He trusted that the difficulties which their
discussion might raise would blunt the earnestness of the reformers in the
Council, by identifying their cause with principles that were clearly
subversive of the order of the Church. Sigismund on his side was urged by his
vanity as well as his self-interest to use the prestige of a united Christendom
to reduce into order Bohemia, of which, as his brother Wenzel was childless, he
was the heir. Accordingly he lost no time in negotiating with Huss that he
should appear before the Council and plead his own cause. He offered Huss his
safe-conduct, promised to procure him an audience before the Council and to
afford him a safe return in case his matter was not decided to his satisfaction.
Huss’s friends besought him not to go. “Assuredly you will be condemned”, they
pleaded. They warned him not to trust too much to Sigismund’s safe-conduct. But
Huss considered it to be his duty to go and make profession of his faith, in
spite of all dangers: he had not considered that he was called upon to risk his
life in going before the Pope two years ago, but now he had a safe-conduct
against the perils of the journey, and had hopes of appearing before a
competent and impartial tribunal. He set out on his journey to Constance on
October 11, amidst the sad forebodings of his friends. “God be with you”, said
a good shoemaker as he bade him farewell; “God be with you: I fear you will
never come back”.
Huss was anxious to be in good time at the Council, so
ho left Prague before he had received the promised safe-conduct from Sigismund.
He was escorted by two Bohemian barons, Wenzel of Duba and John of Chlum, who were afterwards joined by a
third, Henry of Latzenborck. On his journey Huss sent
before him, into the various towns through which he passed, public notices that
he was going to Constance to clear himself of heresy, and that those who had
any accusation against him should prepare to present it before the Council.
Everywhere he was received with respectful curiosity by the people, and in many
cases by the clergy. The Germans no longer saw in Huss a national antagonist,
but rather a religious reformer. They were willing to stand neutral until the
Council had pronounced its decision on his doctrines.
On November 3, Huss entered Constance and took up his
abode in the house of a good widow close by the Schnetzthor.
His arrival was announced by John of Chlum and Henry
of Latzenborck to the Pope, who assured them that he
wished to do nothing by violence. In the true style of a condottiere general he
said that, even if Huss had killed his own brother, he should be safe in
Constance. On November 3, Wenzel of Duba, who had
ridden from Nurnberg to Sigismund, returned with the royal safe-conduct, which
ordered all men to give Huss free passage and allow him to stay or return at
pleasure. In full confidence for the future, in the simple belief that a plain
statement of his real opinions would suffice to clear away all
misrepresentations, and that the truth would prevail, Huss awaited the opening
of the Council. He expected that Sigismund would arrive at Christmas, and that
the Council, if not dissolved before, would have finished all its business by
Easter.
|
