ARTICLE III.

JOHN HUSS AND HIS WRITINGS.*

JOHN HUSS was a most remarkable man. Historic justice has never been done either to his extraordinary ability or evangelical spirit. In the tragic scenes of the Council of Constance, he is thrown into the shade by the lofty bearing and extraordinary eloquence of his associate Jerome. It is only on a perusal of his works, that we are brought to coincide fully with the popular sentiment of his Bohemian countrymen, who uniformly awarded him the undisputed preeminence.

Huss was not, like his friend Jerome, of an impulsive temperament. He was the logician rather than the orator. Crowds indeed thronged to Bethlehem Chapel to listen to his sermons. He was not less distinguished as a popular preacher than as Rector of the University of Prague. But while Jerome was the hero of the tongue, Huss was the hero of the pen. His adversaries could never congratulate themselves on the issue of the conflicts to which they provoked him. It was nearly ten years after he commenced his labors as a preacher, before he came into open antagonism with the ecclesiastical authorities. Up to this period, he had enjoyed the favor of the Archbishop and the two men had cöoperated in efforts for reform among the Bohemian clergy. In the exposure of the false miracle at Wilsnack, Huss had acted in concert with his powerful friend

* Monumenta Johannis Huss. Norinberga, MDLVIII.

The only synopsis of the works of Huss of any value, which has ever-so far as our knowledge extends-been given to the world, is the one contained in the thirty-fourth volume of Schröckh's extensive Church History; a work highly and deservedly esteemed by Dr. Murdock and others, for its candor and careful research. Yet of the treatises of Huss, Schröckh's notice is exceedingly meagre and unsatisfactory, with the single exception of the one "on the Church," and of his notice of this work, we have availed ourselves in the preparation of this Article. L'Enfant gives only here and there an extract from the Sermons of Huss, as the object of his History only required him incidentally to speak of the Reformer. Yet it is only through his writings that Huss can be fairly known, and surely the time has come for the vindication of a name that deserves to be ranked by the side of Luther and of Calvin.

and ecclesiastical superior. At Sbynco's instance he had preached several synodical sermons which are to be found in his works, and whose tone and spirit are scarcely to be distinguished from those of his later writings. The corruption of the clergy, their ignorance, brutality, drunkenness, avarice, and simony are severely reprehended. His texts give a fair indication of the character of his discourses: "Ye are the salt of the earth;" "Let us cast off the works of darkness;" "Quench not the Spirit;" "Go out and compel them to come in." Such are some of the passages of Scripture on which he based the most searching exposures of priestly vice, and the most scathing invectives against ecclesiastical corruption. Beside these, we have some of the sermons and addresses of Huss to the people, in which we see manifested the earnest spirit of reform which was as ready to deal with popular as with clerical abuses. On the subject of Purgatory and masses for the dead he presents views that strip the Romish doctrine, which he professed to hold, of its most objectionable features. "Christ," he says, "is the basis of all merit of the members of the Church. Other foundation can no man lay than is laid, even Jesus Christ. None can merit for another except as he does for himself, nor ought we to hope in one another's suffrage.' "Preaching the

Gospel to the living," he says, "is better than lending our suffrages to the dead."

Yet even with views so far in advance of his age, Huss still enjoyed the friendship of the Archbishop. Doubtless among the more vicious clergy he had made himself some bitter enemies. But all their efforts to molest him were for a long time utterly futile. His own spotless life, on which malice could not fasten one of its calumnies; the Royal favor, for he was the Queen's confessor; his influence in the University, of which he was Rector; his popularity in Prague, where he was the preacher of acknowledged preeminence; and the countenance of the Archbishop, with whom he acted in concert until their paths diverged, gave security to his position, as well as force to his reproofs and remonstrances.

It was at the instance of Andrew Broda, a member with Huss of the University, and a Doctor in Theology, that the Archbishop's attention was called to the already wide circula

tion of the writings of Wicliffe, which Huss had ventured to commend from the pulpit, but which for thirty years, according to Huss himself, had been known and read at Prague. Broda's letter alarmed the Archbishop. The cry of heresy hurried him back from his country-seat to guard his flock from the invading evil. With little knowledge of the books of Wicliffe-accepting without question the representations in regard to them, made to him by Broda-he ventured at once on a stretch of ecclesiastical prerogative for which he had no war

He required that all the books of Wicliffe should be brought to him within a given period, in order that they might be burned. Huss went to the Archbishop to remonstrate. He asked Sbynco to point out the errors or heresies of the Oxford doctor. The Archbishop could not do it, but refused to recall his mandate. Huss applied to the king. Sbynco was ordered to desist from his purpose. The measure he proposed was in violation of the privileges of the University, as was afterwards decided by the doctors of Bologne to whom it was submitted. Feigning compliance, Sbynco, who had collected the works of Wicliffe, after a few days delay, committed them to the flames. It was a rash act. All Prague was in commotion. Some demanded back the value of their burnt manuscripts. The great mass were indignant. The king was provoked, and the University felt itself insulted. Huss gave a tongue to the popular feeling. The tide set strongly in his favor. In the flush of the moment he appealed to the Pope.

But Sbynco, if little read in theology, was an adroit tactician. He represented the case to the Pope in such a way that his position was sustained and a blow struck at Huss. An edict was framed which forbid preaching except in certain specified churches. The object of it was to close Bethlehem Chapel where Huss addressed the people. This step was followed by another appeal of Huss from the Pope ill-informed, to the Pope well-informed. The whole matter was given in charge to a commission, who, with the greatest injustice, cited Huss to appear before them at Boulogne, whither he could only go at the risk of his life. The king sent ambassadors to represent the case to the Pope. Huss sent his attorneys to plead for him. But all was vain. Huss was condemned; sentence of excom

munication was pronounced against him, and Prague was laid under interdiet while he remained within its walls. To fill the cup of outrage to overflowing, the attorneys of Huss were thrown into prison. Huss appealed from the Pope to Jesus Christ, the supreme Judge.

Thus, in the course of two years, Huss and the Archbishop, from friends and co-laborers, became antagonists. One sought a thorough and spiritual, the other an outward and moral reform. One took counsel of Scripture, the other of ecclesiastical law and official interest. Huss defended the books of Wicliffe, not as free from error, but, like the writings of the Fathers, as containing much that was excellent and truthful. The Archbishop burned them as a tribute to his zeal for orthodoxy, and his own quiet. In the spirit of a Pilate, he was willing to make some sacrifice to silence the clamors of those who might charge him with favoring heresy; and thus the writings of Wicliffe, and the privileges of the University, were made the victims.

Much the same motives, probably, had weight with the Pope, although the name of Wicliffe was quite obnoxious, and in several quarters his writings had been strongly condemned. What course was Huss now to take? He at once and unhesitatingly declared the injustice of the bull of excommunication, and came before the University with a defence of several of Wicliffe's Articles. Among these were some which had a direct bearing on the case of Huss. The first one selected for vindication, reads: "They who for excommunication by men only, refuse to preach, are thereby excommunicate, and in the Judgment will be found among the foes of Christ." Another was: "Any deacon or priest may preach the word of God without being dependent on bishop or pope." The application of these Articles to his own case is sufficiently obvious, and their defence was presented by Huss in the theological lecture-room of the University. Along with them, he vindicated other articles of Wicliffe, full as obnoxious to many of his clerical brethren. He maintains with the English Reformer, that the clergy may be stripped of their temporalities, if they abuse them, and this deprivation may and should be executed by the civil rulers. This sentiment had become deeply rooted in many minds long before Wolsey and Henry VIII. gave it practical effect in England.

In respect to tythes, Huss held with Wicliffe that they were mere alms. The doctrine also that dominion is founded in grace that "no one is a civil ruler, prelate or bishop, while in mortal sin"—is defended by Huss, although he would have shuddered at such a practical application of it, as would have been made by those logical regicides, Petit and Falkenberg, his contemporaries, the one in France and the other in Poland. His after explanations of it strip it for the most part of its force and paradox, as well as its most objectionable features. He shows that the right of possession is not absolute, and that in the sight of God a man unjustly occupies that which he does not improve. He exercises an authority which God cannot sanction: "Ye have ruled, but not by me," is the Scripture quotation on which he relies for authority to maintain his position. But this principle, in the questionable shape which he gave it, was afterward most effectively employed to prejudice the Emperor against him.

On the subject of endowing the Church, he came forward with views at once bold and enlightened. He maintained that no King of Bohemia or Emperor may or should endow the Church, to the prejudice of his kingdom. The donation of Constantine to Pope Sylvester is severely criticised, as the first prominent measure leading to the corruption of the Church.

Huss was sustained-notwithstanding Wicliffe's condemnation by the theological doctors-by the majority of the University. Stanislaus de Znoyma, his former teacher, and Stephen Paletz, now his intimate friend-but soon to become his most bitter prosecutor-boldly defended Wicliffe. Paletz threw down his challenge to any one who would call in question one word of Wicliffe's writings. The sympathies of the University, and of the citizens of Prague, were strongly on the side of Huss.

But notwithstanding all this, the force of the interdict was such upon the minds of many, that Huss found it advisable to leave Prague. He was unwilling to be the occasion of such offence as was given in many quarters, by the closing of the churches and the cessation of divine offices, on account of his presence within the walls. He withdrew therefore to another field of action. The chief place of refuge for him was undoubt