and openly subjects himself to the reproach addressed to him by one
of the Catholic writers, who judged him most impartially. “It is
greatly to be lamented,” says the writer alluded to, “that such a man
should have so frightful a destiny, and so bitter a death,--he, who
glowed with so ardent a love for Christ and his doctrine,--who shone,
by the integrity of his life, the sincerity of his heart, the ardour
of his mind, his eloquence, and other precious gifts, to so high a
degree, that he might have become an illustrious Reformer, if, after
the example of some very eminent men, such as Gerson, d’Ailly, or
Clémangis, he had devoted his talents to the work of reform in the
Church itself, and not out of its bosom.”[150]
This reproach is best refuted by referring to John Huss’s life, and the
history of his time. Both form the subject of the work, which this one
completes, and to which the reader has been often referred.[151] It
will be there seen that the reform of abuses could not be accomplished
by those whose interests it was to perpetuate them, and that the
corruption of the external and visible Church was then so profound,
that to introduce a reform in it, it was necessary first to leave it
altogether.
* * * * *
Of all John Huss’s treatises, that on _The Church_ is the most complete
and celebrated. We must insert here an analysis of it, which will
terminate this work.
ANALYSIS OF THE TREATISE ON THE CHURCH.
John Huss defines the universal Church to be the assembly of all the
predestined, past, present, and to come, including the angels. “The
Church,” writes he, “is the most excellent thing created by God. We
ought not therefore to believe in the Church, because it is not God;
but we should believe that there is a holy universal Church, of which
Jesus Christ is the sole Chief. The entire Church and all its parts
ought to honour God; but it ought not to wish that divine worship
should be rendered her.”[152]
“Reprobates,” says Huss, “are not members of the Church. It may occur
that one is in the Church, without being of the Church. Such may be
the case with the popes, bishops, priests, and clergy, although they
style themselves the Church in particular, because it is possible that
they are reprobate: we may also belong to the Church, without being
exteriorly in the Church, like those who commence to be converted to
the faith.”
Huss next examines the celebrated passage of St Matthew: _Thou art
Peter, and on this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it; and I will give thee the keys of the
kingdom of heaven, &c._ (Matthew xvi., 18, 19). He considers in it four
things: _The Church_, its _faith_, its _foundation_, and its _power_.
He examines, first of all, whether the Roman Church is the universal
one, as is affirmed by the canon law, where the Pope is called the
chief, and the cardinals, the body of the Church. He denies this to
be the case, for the reason that the Pope and the cardinals do not
compose the whole assembly of the elect. _Thou art Peter, and on this
rock will I build my Church_, signifies, according to Huss, “Thou art
the confessor of the true Rock, which is Christ; and it is on this rock
that I will raise my Church by faith and by grace; but this Church does
not consist in men, constituted in power and dignities, whether secular
or ecclesiastical, because several popes have fallen into error and
crime.”
Huss does not, however, contest great privileges to the Roman Church,
because St Peter founded it; and he does not oppose the Pope and the
cardinals holding the principal rank in the Church, provided they
follow the example of Jesus Christ, and that, stripping themselves of
pomp and ambition, they serve with humility the common mother of all
believers.
Yet the Roman Church can hardly be termed a universal one, because,
in reality, it is a particular Church; the first and most ancient
being that of Jerusalem, and the second that of Antioch, of which the
faithful were the first called Christians.[153]
As to faith, Huss distinguishes several kinds. “The true faith,” says
he, “is faith formed by charity.[154] This, when persevered in, is the
foundation of all the other Christian virtues; it ought necessarily
to be founded on _truth_, which enlightens the understanding, and on
_authority_, which strengthens the soul. This authority can be only
that of God speaking by his word. If the Christian is convinced that
a truth has been dictated by the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures, he
ought, without hesitation, to declare his opinion, and expose his life
for it. The obligation is not the same with regard to the words of
the saints, and popes’ bulls: one is not held to believe them, but
only so far as they agree with the Holy Scriptures. We may, besides,
believe in them as in opinions, because the Pope and his court might
err, through ignorance of the truth. It is, then, one thing to believe
in God, because he cannot err or be deceived, and another to believe
in the Pope, who is liable to error; it is one thing to believe the
Holy Scriptures, and another to believe in a bull, because the latter
is of human invention. It can never be permitted not to follow the
Scriptures, or to oppose them; but it is sometimes allowable not to
believe in a bull, and even to oppose it, as, for instance, when it
has originated in avarice, when it raises to dignity unworthy persons,
or oppresses the innocent; in a word, when it is contrary to the
instructions and commandments of God.[155] As regards the foundation
of the Church, there is but one, which is Jesus Christ. If the
Apostles, therefore, are called the foundations of the Church, it is
in a figurative manner, as being subjected to Jesus Christ, because
it is he who has built the Church, and St Peter is only its basis and
foundation; in the same manner is the Apostles his colleagues. It
must be admitted, that Jesus Christ, who is the corner-stone of the
Church, established Peter in humility, poverty, and faith, and that
it was by these virtues he elevated the Church which he governed. But
to pretend, from these words, _On this rock will I raise my Church_,
that Jesus Christ intended to found the entire Church in the person
of _Peter_, is to believe what is contrary to faith and reason. St
Peter never boasted of being the head of the whole Church, because he
never governed the whole of it; yet there may be allowed to him, with
some of the Fathers, a priority of order over the other Apostles, on
account of the excellence of his virtues; and, _in this sense_, the
words of the blessed St Denis are true: St Peter was the Chief of the
Apostles,[156] which does not mean the Chief of the Universal Church.
The Bishop of Rome may be looked upon as the vicar of St Peter, and the
first in the church which he governs, if he imitate the virtues of this
Apostle; but if he follow an opposite path, he is only the forerunner
of Antichrist.” Huss supports his opinion by citing several of the
Fathers, and amongst others, St Bernard, St Jerome, St Gregory, and St
Chrysostom. “It is not the post which he holds that makes the priest,”
says the last named saint, “but the priest which makes the post; it is
not the place which sanctifies man, but man that sanctifies the place.”
“_Lastly_, As relates to the power of priests, it is purely spiritual;
it consists in instructing, in condemning the culpable by spiritual
punishment, in absolving the penitent, and announcing to them the
remission of their sins; it dwells actually in Jesus Christ, and has
been given, in the person of Peter, to all the Church militant.
“Priests are only the ministers of the Church, and are not able to bind
or loose, remit or retain sins, if God has not previously done so; and
the people greatly err, if they believe that the priests first bind or
unbind, and that God only does so after them; as if God executed the
sentence of priests, whereas, priests ought to execute the judgment of
God, only in accord with Jesus Christ.[157]
“There are two kinds of power: one legitimate, and which should be
obeyed; the other pretended and usurped, which ought to be resisted.
Such is the power of Simoniacs, who, through interest, take advantage
of the keys in order to condemn the innocent and absolve the guilty;
who buy and sell holy orders, bishopricks, canonries, and livings;
who make a traffic of the sacraments; who live in avarice and
voluptuousness, and sully the authority of the priesthood.” Huss
maintains that the power of binding or loosing was equally given to all
the Apostles, and contests the right of the popes to bear the title of
_universal bishop_ and _most holy_. “They have no right,” he says, “to
decorate themselves with it;” and he cites, as proofs, the example of
the Apostles, the canons, the councils, as well as the scandalous lives
of several popes, in whom there was no holiness. “As to the cardinals,
of whom it is said that they form the body of the Church, it would
be necessary, in order to acknowledge it, to know by revelation that
they are predestined to salvation, and that they live as becomes the
successors and vicars of the Apostles; but do they shew themselves as
such? Those men who accumulate livings, gain favours by presents after
the example of Giezi; who go early in the morning, dressed in splendid
clothing, to visit the Pope, mounted on horses richly caparisoned, not
on account of the distance or difficulty of the roads, but to display
their magnificence to the eyes of the world, in opposition to the
example of Christ and his Apostles, who visited on foot, and in humble
clothing, the towns and villages, preaching the Gospel, and announcing
the kingdom of God.[158]
“The Church,” says John Huss, “may be governed without the Pope
and cardinals, as was the case during three hundred years. It was
Constantine who established, in the third century, the universal
domination of the Roman Pontiff. Before the donation, the Bishop of
Rome was like the other bishops;[159] and for that reason, the Roman
pontiffs who succeeded Sylvester, fearing to lose this pre-eminence,
besought the Emperors to confirm it.” John Huss afterwards quotes
Gratian’s decree, confirmed by Lewis-le-Debonnaire, and adds--“St
Peter never required that Lewis-le-Debonnaire should bestow on him
the temporal domain of Rome; he was in possession of the kingdom of
heaven, and consequently greater than Lewis. Would to God that Peter
had replied to him, I accept not your concession. When I was Bishop of
Rome, I did not envy Nero the domination of Rome, and I had no need of
it. I believe it to have been injurious to my successors; it turned
them from the preaching of the Gospel, from prayer, and observing the
commandments of God, and filled them with pride.”
“It is the law of God, and not the arbitrary will of the Pope and
cardinals, that ought to regulate ecclesiastical judgment.” The
adversaries of Huss considered this proposition of his as a crime. He
defends it against them, and makes it a point of honour to acknowledge
only the Scriptures as authority, although he respects the holy
doctors, when their decisions are in harmony with the Divine word.
He rejects the application to Christians of certain passages of
Deuteronomy, in which God orders the Israelites to have their disputes
judged in the place he had chosen, and sentences with death whoever
should not submit himself to the Pontiff and to the judge.[160] “It
is here a question,” says John Huss, “of civil affairs rather than of
religious ones, and the spirit of the Gospel, which, only employing
persuasion, differs greatly from the ancient law, which was one of
rigour. If these distinctions were not established, it would follow
that Jesus was justly condemned, because the high priests Annas and
Caiaphas presided in the places designed by God himself.”
Huss likewise rejects the accusation of wishing to excite the people,
and induce them to disobedience towards their superiors, viz., the
pope, bishops, priests, and all the clergy. He distinguishes three
kinds of obedience: _1st_, Spiritual obedience, which is that which all
Christians, without exception, are expected at all times to render to
the law of Jesus Christ. _2dly_, Secular obedience, which is that which
is due to civil laws, admitting them to be conformable to the law of
God. _3dly_, Ecclesiastical obedience, which is that paid to the laws
invented by the priests of the Church without any express authority
of the Scriptures. “This latter,” he says, “is only obligatory as far
as the things prescribed or forbidden are in conformity with what is
ordered or prohibited by the Word of God;” and he draws this inference,
“_that he who knows of a certainty that the commandments of the Pope
are contrary to what is counselled and commanded by Jesus Christ, or
tends to the ruin of the Church, ought boldly to resist them, for fear
of sanctioning a crime by his consent_.” He invokes, in support of
this opinion the authority of the canon law, as well as the Fathers,
from whom he quotes many passages, extracted especially from Nicholas
Lyra and Saint Augustin.[161] In the last chapters, Huss inveighs
energetically against the abuse of _excommunication_, _suspensions_,
and _interdicts_.
“One ought not to be excommunicated,” continues Huss, “but on account
of a mortal sin which separates from the grace of God. The _major
excommunication_ is pronounced against a public sinner, and it is
that which was pronounced against myself; but blessed be God, who has
not given to this excommunication the power of taking away justice
and virtue from a just man, and of making him become a sinner.... I
am more afraid of the greatest of all excommunications, viz. that
by which the Sovereign Pontiff, in presence of angels and men,
will eternally excommunicate the wicked from all participation in
eternal beatitude.... It is on that One, that he who judges should
reflect, through fear of excommunicating unjustly; for whoever shall
excommunicate a man from temporal interest or pride, or in order
to revenge himself of some injury, and against his conscience,
excommunicates himself.[162]
“As to suspension, it is God who pronounces it against every bad priest
who lives scandalously and criminally. It follows from hence, that
there are but few preachers whom God does not at present suspend from
the ministry of his Word, because there are few who do not reject
the knowledge of the Scriptures, and contradict, by their lives, the
duties which they teach unto others.” Huss concludes from this, that
he was forced to preach against the vices of the clergy. “Wo unto me,”
he exclaims, “if I had remained silent; for, according to the canon
law,[163] not to oppose an error is to approve of it; and to neglect
denouncing the perverse when it is in our power to do so, is to shew
ourselves their accomplices.[164]”
Afterwards passing to the subject of interdicts, a punishment which
ecclesiastical dignitaries may inflict on a country or town, simply
for the fault of one individual, and forbidding divine service to be
celebrated in the place, without distinguishing the innocent from
the guilty, John Huss adds: “One of the manifest proofs that these
censures, which are called _fulminations_, are derived from Antichrist,
is, that they are cast against those who preach the Gospel, and expose
the corruption of the clergy. Interdicts began after the year one
thousand, and by the rage of Satan, when the clergy had become fat on
the misfortunes of the world, and had grown in voluptuousness, pride,
and impatience of submitting to any restraint.”
Huss calls to mind the worldly motives which led the pontiffs, Adrian
IV., Alexander III., Innocent III., Boniface VIII., Innocent IV., and
Clement IV., to interdict towns and countries, in the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries, and concludes by quoting, against this custom,
an admirable letter of St Augustin to a young bishop, who, on account
of the ill-conduct of a holy father, had excommunicated his whole
family. This is the letter:--“Instruct me, I pray you, by strict reason
or Scripture, in what case, should you know of any, the child should
be excommunicated for the sin of the father, the wife for that of the
husband, the servant for the master, and even the children that may be
born in the house thus excommunicated, since, as long as it remains so,
it is impossible to procure for the children, even when in danger of
death, the grace of regeneration produced by Baptism. The chastisement
which God inflicted on several of the impious who had despised his
law, and in which he included all belonging to them, was an external
punishment, which fell only on the body, in order to fill the living
with dread; but the excommunication resulting from the power given us
by these words: ‘_That which you shall have bound on earth, shall be
bound in heaven_,’ falls even upon the soul; and it is said of souls:
‘The soul of the father belongs to me, as likewise the soul of the son;
and that which has sinned shall die.’ Perhaps you have heard of some
bishops of great repute, who anathemised sinners with the whole of
their families; but if they were asked to explain their conduct, it is
likely they would be embarrassed to assign a good reason for it; and
as I should not myself have known how to answer a similar inquiry, I
have never, on that account, dared to act in this manner, however great
might have been the crimes committed against the Church. Nevertheless,
if God has revealed to you that this may be done with justice, I shall
not despise your youth, and your little experience of the weight of
episcopacy. Behold me, then, an old man, and for many years a bishop,
ready to learn from a young man, my colleague a year since only, how I
should justify myself before God and men, if I inflicted a spiritual
punishment on innocent souls for the sins of others.”[165]
John Huss, after supporting his argument by the imposing authority of
St Augustin, energetically addresses the doctors, his adversaries,
and asks them if they believe in their conscience that it is an
unimportant thing, keeping the middle path between good and evil, to
deprive the innocent of the sacraments, and of sepulture--to prohibit
divine service, and give rise, in consequence, to so much scandal,
calumny, and hatred. “O doctors!” he exclaims, “to what church belongs
this language? Is it that of an apostolical church? Say whether it be
the language of an apostle, or of a saint. Assuredly it is not that
of Jesus Christ, of the Chief of the Holy Church, in whose word is
contained every truth useful to the Church.”[166]
Huss terminates his celebrated treatise by alluding to the condemnation
of the forty-five articles of Wycliffe, by the doctors, without their
being able to demonstrate that any of these articles were heretical,
erroneous, or scandalous. He expresses his astonishment at his
adversaries abstaining from opposing too openly, at Prague, Wycliffe’s
proposition, which authorizes lay lords to strip of their wealth
ecclesiastics of depraved morals. “They are silent,” says he, “like
the priests and Pharisees, and fear prevents them from condemning
this article; but what they dreaded has occurred, and will again come
to pass. _They shall lose their temporal wealth; God grant they may
preserve their souls!_”
FINIS.
FOOTNOTES:
[139] _Hist. et Monum. Johann. Huss_, t. ii., p. 176.
[140] The physician delights in disease, the priest in death.
[141] _Hist. et Monum. Johann. Huss_, Sermo habitus Pragæ in Synodo ad
Clerum, t. ii., p. 77.
[142] Ubi supra, p. 82.
[143] _Hist. et Monum. Johann. Huss_, t. ii.
[144] For the complete list of John Huss’s treatises, see Note B.
[145] For this celebrated writing, consult _Reformers before the
Reformation_, vol. i., b. i.
[146] _De Eccles._
[147] Ibid.
[148] Retrum Hussi doctrina fuerit hæresiea. _Dissert. Hist. Dogmat.
Cappenberg._
[149] Gers. Oper. _De Conosolat. Theolog._, t. i. p. 137.
[150] Maxime quidem dolendum esse ingenue confitemur quod tristissimam
sortem necemque acerbissimam vir ille perpessus est, qui magno exarsit
Christi reique christianæ amore, vitæ integritate voluntate sincera,
maximo animi ardore, præstantissima concionandi facultate aliisque
virtutibus mire excelluit, ita ut reformator extitisset egregius si cum
æqualibus viris præclarissimis, Gersonio, Petro ab Alliaco, Nicolao
Clémangis ea qua potuit ac debuit ratione intra, non extra Ecclesiæ
fines, reformandæ Ecclesiæ operam novasset. _Dissert. hist. dogmat._
Cappenberg.
[151] _The Reformers before the Reformation._
[152] Tota ecclesia et quælibet ejus pars debet Deum colere et nec
ipsa nec ejus pars vult coli pro deo.--_De Eccles. J. Huss, Hist. et
Monum._, t. i., p. 244.
[153] _De Eccles._, p. 258. Compare this opinion with that of Gerson on
the same subject. _Gers. Opera_, v. 11.--_De modis uniendi ac reform.
Eccles. en Concil._ See also the _Reformers before the Reformation_,
Introduction, sect. v.
[154] Unde quicumque habuerit fidem charitate firmatam in communis
sufficit cum virtute perseverantiæ, ad salutem.
[155] The doctrine of the Gallic Church is still more restrictive. It
only acknowledges bulls when they are not contrary to the laws of the
kingdom.
[156] Et dictum beati Dionysii est verum, quod Petrus fuit capitaneus
inter apostolos. _De Eccles._, cap. ix.
[157] _De Eccles._, cap. x. Compare this opinion of John Huss with
that of Wycliffe and Gerson on the same matter, _Reformers before the
Reformation_.
[158] _De Eccles._, cap. xv.
[159] This illegality of the donation of Constantine was not then
discovered.
[160] Deut. xvii.
[161] Consult on this subject, and compare with this passage, Letter V.
of the First Series, pages 24-29.
[162] _De Eccles._, cap. xxii.
[163] Distinct. 83.
[164] Error cui non resistitur approbatur.
[165] _De Eccles._, cap. xxiii.
[166] O doctores, cujus ecclesiæ est ille stylus? Numquam apostolicæ?
Dicite cujus apostoli est stylus ille, vel cujus sancti post apostolos?
Numquam est Christi stylus, illius capitis Ecclesiæ sanctæ, in cujus
stylo omnis veritas utilis Ecclesiæ est contenta. Cap. xxiii.
NOTES.
+Note A.+, p. 2.
PREFACE OF MARTIN LUTHER TO THE FOUR LETTERS OF JOHN HUSS, WHICH HE
CAUSED TO BE TRANSLATED INTO LATIN, AND WHICH HE PUBLISHED
SEPARATELY AT WIRTEMBERG, IN THE YEAR 1536.
Of these four Letters, written by John Huss in the Bohemian tongue, I
have procured a Latin translation, with the view of publishing them
forthwith, in the same year fixed for a General Council, at the earnest
request of our illustrious Emperor Charles. I have not taken this
trouble with the view of calling down indignation and contempt upon
the Council of Constance. This, on account of its culpable acts, I
have done elsewhere, and will always be ready to do, in defence of the
interests of the whole Church. My motive in publishing these Letters,
is, if God permits the said Council to assemble, to warn the members
to take care not to follow the example of the Council of Constance, in
which the Truth was exposed to such lengthened and violent attacks;
and yet, nevertheless, now triumphs, and, raising its victorious head,
shews this unworthy assembly in its naked aspect, and stripped of its
tyrannical authority. In this Council, indeed, the cardinals and most
distinguished men aimed principally at extinguishing schism; they
abandoned the cause of religion as below their notice, and left it to
the perverse race of monks and sophists; from whence has sprung, as
formerly from Babylon, all the evil which has produced, in Germany and
in Bohemia, so many calamities, wars, massacres, and inextinguishable
hatreds. The Papacy, freed from schism, did not afterwards behave less
cruelly towards the world, filling the churches with false doctrines,
indulgences, mercenary masses, and all sorts of inventions of priests
and monks. Such are the fruits of this sacred Council; it would,
therefore, be dangerous to trust again, at this time, the interests of
religion to the rage of these perverse men; but it is of consequence
that kings, princes, and bishops, combine all their energies, in order
that similar calamities, and more frightful ones, be not the result of
the new Council now summoned.
Certainly God has sufficiently shewn, in the Council of Constance, how
he resists the proud, how he confounds the lofty in their own designs,
without regard to the external dignity of any one.