§ 118. ATTEMPTED REFORMS IN CHURCH POLITY.
The struggle between imperialism and hierarchism, which is present
through the whole course of the Middle Ages, rose to a height in the
times of Louis the Bavarian, A.D. 1314-1347 (§ 110, 3, 4), and is
of special interest here because of the literary war waged against
one another by the rival supporters of the emperor and the pope. It
concerns itself first of all only with the questions in debate between
the imperial and the sacerdotal parties; but soon on the imperialist
side there appeared a reforming tendency, which could not be given
effect to without carrying the discussion into a multitude of other
departments where reformation was also needed. Of quite another kind
was the “reformation of head and members” desired by the great councils
of the 15th century. The contention here was based, not so much upon
any superiority claimed by the emperor over the pope and by the State
over the church, but rather upon the subordination of the pope to the
supreme authority of the universal church represented by the œcumenical
councils. Yet both agreed in this, that with like energy they attacked
the corruption of the papacy, in the one case in the interest of the
State, in the other in the interest of the church.
§ 118.1. =The Literary War between Imperialists and Curialists in
the 14th Century.=--The literary controversy over the debatable
land between church and State was conducted with special vigour
in the earlier part of our period, on account of the conflict
between Boniface VIII. and Philip the Fair of France (§ 110, 1).
The ablest vindicators of the independence of the State were the
advocate =Peter Dubois= and the Dominican theologian =John of
Paris=. Among their scholars were the men who twenty years later
sought refuge from the wrath of Pope John XXII. at the court of
Louis the Bavarian at Munich. Of these the most important was the
Italian =Marsilius of Padua=. As teacher of theology, philosophy,
and medicine at Paris, in A.D. 1324, when the dispute between
emperor and pope had reached its height, he composed jointly with
his colleague =John of Jandun= in Champagne a _Defensor pacis_,
a civil and ecclesiastical memoir, which, with an insight and
clearness very remarkable for that age, developed the evangelical
mean of the superiority of the State over the church, and of
the empire over the papacy, historically, exegetically, and
dogmatically; and for this end established theories of Scripture
and tradition, of the tasks and place of the church in the State,
of excommunication and persecution of heretics, of liberty of
faith and conscience, etc., which even transcend the principles
laid down on these points by the Reformation of the 16th century.
Both authors accompanied Louis to Italy in A.D. 1326, and there
John of Jandun died in A.D. 1328. Marsilius continued with the
emperor as his physician, counsellor, and literary defender, and
died at Munich between A.D. 1341-1343. In A.D. 1327 John XXII.
condemned the _Defensor pacis_, and Clement VI. pronounced its
author the worst heretic of all ages. The book, often reprinted
during the 16th century, was first printed at Basel in A.D. 1522.
§ 118.2. Alongside of Marsilius there also stood a goodly array
of schismatical Franciscans, with their general, Michael of
Cesena, at their head (§ 112, 2), who were like himself refugees
at the court of Munich. They persistently contested the heresies
of John XXII. in regard to the vision of God (§ 110, 3) and his
lax theory of poverty. Their polemic also extended to the whole
papal system, and the corruption of church and clergy connected
therewith. The most celebrated of them in respect of scientific
attainments was =William Occam= (§ 113, 3). His earlier treatises
dealt with the pope’s heresies, and only after the Diet of
Rhense (§ 110, 4) did he take up the burning questions about
church and State. In the comprehensive _Dialogus_ he rejects
the infallibility of the pope as decidedly as his temporal
sovereignty, and denies the Divine institution of the primacy.
Also a German prelate, =Leopold of Bebenburg=, Canon of Würzburg,
and from A.D. 1353 Bishop of Bamberg, inspired by genuinely
German patriotism, made his appearance in A.D. 1338 as a brave
and prudent defender of imperial rights against the assumptions
of the papacy.--The ablest of all Marsilius’ opponents was the
Spanish Franciscan =Alvarus Pelagius=, who wrote in A.D. 1330 the
treatise _De planctu ecclesiæ_, in which, while sadly complaining
of the corruption of the church and clergy, he yet ascribes
to the pope as the vicar of Christ unlimited authority over
all earthly principalities and powers, and regards him as the
fountain of all privileges and laws. A still more thoroughgoing
deification of the papacy had appeared a few years earlier
in the _Summa de potestate ecclesiæ ad Johannem Papam_ by
the Augustinian =Augustinus Triumphus= of Ancona. But neither
he nor Pelagius, in view of the manifest contradictions of the
pope’s doctrines of poverty (§ 112, 2), dared go the length of
maintaining papal infallibility. A German canon of Regensburg,
=Conrad of Megensburg=, also took part in the controversy,
seeking to vindicate and glorify the papacy.
§ 118.3. =Reforming Councils of the 15th Century.=--The
longing for reform during this period found most distinct
expression in the councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basel
(§ 110, 7-9). The fruitlessness of these endeavours, though
they had the sympathy of the people generally, shows that there
was something essentially defective in them. The movement had
kept itself aloof from all sectaries and separatists, wishing to
hold by and reform the presently existing church. But its fault
was this, that it insisted only upon a reformation in the head
and members, not in the spirit, that it aimed at lopping off
the wild growths of the tree, without getting rid of the corrupt
sap from which the very same growths would again proceed. Only
that which was manifestly unchristian in the pretensions of
the hierarchy, the covetousness and greed of the pope, the
immorality of the clergy, the depravity and ignorance of
the monks, etc.--in short, only abuses in hierarchical
constitution and discipline--were dealt with. There was no
word about doctrine. The Romish system, in spite of all its
perversions, was allowed to stand. The current forms of worship,
notwithstanding the introduction of many unevangelical elements
and pagan superstitions, were left untouched. It was not seen
that what was most important of all was the revival of the
preaching of repentance and of justification through Him who
is the justifier of the ungodly. And so it happened that at
Constance Huss, who had pointed out and followed this way, was
sent to the stake, and at Basel the doctrine of the immaculate
conception (§ 112, 4) was admitted as a doctrine of the church.
It was not merely the election of a new pope opposed to the
Reformation that rendered the negotiations at Pisa and Constance
utter failures, the wrong principle upon which they proceeded
insured a disappointing result.
§ 118.4. =Friends of Reform in France during the 15th Century.=
1. =Peter d’Ailly=, professor and chancellor of the University
of Paris, Bishop of Cambray in A.D. 1397 and cardinal in
A.D. 1411, was one of the ablest members of the councils of
Pisa and Constance. He died in A.D. 1425 as cardinal-legate
in Germany. His chief dogmatic treatise, the _Quæstiones_
on the Sentences of the Lombard, occupies the standpoint
of Occam. In many of his other works he falls back upon
the position of the mystics of St. Victor (§ 102, 4),
and recommends with much warmth the diligent study of the
Scriptures. His ideas about church reform are centred in
the affirmation of the Gallican Liberties, which he had
to maintain as a French bishop, but are expressed with the
moderation becoming a Roman cardinal. In opposition to Occam
and the Spirituals, he founds the temporal sovereignty of
the pope on the _Donatio Constantini_. He also holds by
the primacy of the Roman bishop, as firmly established by
Scripture. But the πέτρα of Matthew xvi. 18 he understands
not of Peter, but of Christ. In this passage therefore no
pre-eminence is given to Peter over the other apostles in
the _potestas ordinis_, but by the injunction of John xx.,
“Feed My sheep,” such pre-eminence is given in the _potestas
regiminis_. The œcumenical council, as representative of the
whole church, stands superior to the pope as administrative
head.
2. d’Ailly’s successor as professor and chancellor was the
celebrated =Jean Charlier=, better known from the name of
his birthplace near Rheims as =Gerson=. Having denounced the
Duke of Burgundy’s murder of the Duke of Orleans, and having
thus incurred that prince’s hatred, he withdrew after the
Council of Constance into Bavaria. Soon after the duke’s
death, in A.D. 1419, he returned to France, and settled
at Lyons, where he died in A.D. 1429. Like d’Ailly, Gerson
was a decided nominalist, and sought to give new life
to scholasticism by combining with it Scripture study
and mysticism. He, too, was powerfully influenced by the
Victorine mystics, and yet more by Bonaventura He had
no appreciation of the speculative element in German
mysticism. Gerson was the first French theologian who
employed the language of the people, particularly in his
smaller practical tracts. He was mainly instrumental in
bringing about the Council of Pisa. In the Council of
Constance he was one of the most conspicuous figures.
Restrained by no personal or official relationship with
the curia, he could by speech and writing express himself
much more freely than d’Ailly. The principle and means
of the reform of the church, in its head and members, was
recognised by Gerson in his statement that the highest
authority of the church is to be sought not in the pope,
but in the œcumenical council. He held however in every
point to the Romish system of doctrine. He did indeed
unweariedly proclaim the Bible the one norm and source
of all Christian knowledge, but he would not allow the
reading of it in the vernacular, and regarded all as
heretics who did not in the interpretation of it submit
unconditionally to the judgment of the church.
3. Nicholas of Clemanges was in A.D. 1393 rector of the
University of Paris, but afterwards retired into solitude.
He had the profoundest insight into the corruption of the
church, and acknowledged Holy Scripture to be the only
source of saving truth. From this standpoint he demanded
a thorough reform in theological study and the whole
constitution of the church.
4. Louis d’Aleman, cardinal and Archbishop of Arles, who died
in A.D. 1450, was the most powerful and most eloquent of the
anti-papal party at Basel. He was therefore excommunicated
by Eugenius IV. At last submitting to the pope, he was
restored by Nicholas V. and in A.D. 1527 beatified by
Clement VII.
§ 118.5. =Friends of Reform in Germany.=
1. Even before the appearance of the Parisian friends of
reform, a German, =Henry of Langenstein=, at Marburg had
insisted upon the princes and prelates calling an œcumenical
council for putting an end to schism and reforming the
church. In a treatise published in A.D. 1381 he gave a sad
but only too true picture of the desolate condition of the
church. The cloisters he designated _prostibula meretricium_,
cathedral churches _speluncæ raptorum et latronum_, etc.
From A.D. 1363 he taught in Paris, from A.D. 1390 in Vienna,
where in A.D. 1397 he died as rector of the university.
2. =Theodorich or Dietrich of Niem= in Westphalia
accompanied Gregory XI. from France to Rome as his
secretary in A.D. 1377. From A.D. 1395-1399 he was Bishop
of Verdun, was probably present at the Council of Pisa,
and certainly at that of Constance. He died in this latter
place in A.D. 1417. His writings are of great value for
the history of the schism and of the councils of Pisa and
Constance. His language is simple, strong, and faithful.
3. =Gregory of Heimburg= was present at the Basel Council,
in terms of close friendship with Æneas Sylvius, who was
then also on the side of reform. He became in A.D. 1433
syndicus at Nuremberg, went to the council at Mantua
in A.D. 1459 as envoy of Duke Sigismund of Austria, was
banished in A.D. 1460 by his old friend, now Pius II.,
afterwards led a changeful life, never free from the
papal persecutions, and died at Dresden in A.D. 1472. His
principal writings on civil and ecclesiastical polity,
powerful indictments against the Roman curia inspired by
love for his German fatherland, appeared at Frankfort in
A.D. 1608 under the title _Scripta nervosa justitiæque
plena_.
4. =Jacob of Jüterboyk [Jüterbock]=, who died in A.D. 1465,
was first a Cistercian monk in Poland and teacher of
theology at Cracow, then Carthusian at Erfurt, and to the
end of his life a zealous defender of the positions of the
Council of Basel, at which he was present in A.D. 1441. His
writings leave untouched the doctrines of the church, but
vigorously denounce the political and moral corruption of
the papacy and monasticism, the greedy misuse of the sale
of indulgences, and insist upon the subordinating of the
pope under general councils, and their right even to depose
the pontiff. Whoever contests this latter position teaches
that Christ has given over the church to a sinful man, like
a bridegroom who surrenders his bride to the unrestrained
will of a soldier. All possession of property on the part
of those in sacred offices is with him an abomination, and
unhesitatingly he calls upon the civil power to put an end
to this evil.
5. The =Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa= (§ 113, 6) also for a long
time was one of the most zealous friends of reform in the
Basel Council.
6. =Felix Hemmerlin=, canon at Zürich, was to the end of
his life an ardent supporter of the reform measures of the
Council of Basel, at which he had been present. As he gave
effect to his views in his =official= position, he incurred
the hatred and persecution of the inmates of his convent
to such an extent, that they laid a plot to murder him in
A.D. 1439. His whole life was an almost unbroken series of
sufferings and persecutions. These in great part he brought
on himself by his zealous support of the reactionary party
of the nobles that sided with Austria in opposition to the
patriotic revolutionary party that struggled for freedom.
Deprived of his revenues and deposed from office, he was
imprisoned in A.D. 1454, and died between A.D. 1457-1464
in the prison of the monastery of the Minorites at Lucerne,
martyr as much to his political conservatism as to his
ecclesiastical reformatory principles. His writings were
placed in the _Index prohibitorum_ by the Council of Trent.
7. To this place also belongs the work written in the Swabian
dialect, “=The Reformation of the Emperor Sigismund=,”
which demands a thoroughgoing and radical reform of
the clergy and the secular priests, insisting upon the
renunciation of all personal property on the part of the
latter, enforcing against prelates, abbots, monasteries,
and monks all the reforms of the Basel Council, and making
proposals for their execution in the spirit of the Taborites
and Hussites. The author is styled in the MSS. Frederick
of Landscron, and describes himself as a councillor of
Sigismund. The tract was therefore regarded during the
15th and 16th centuries as a work composed under the
direction of the emperor, setting forth the principles
of reformation attempted at the Basel or Constance Council.
According to Böhm its author was the Taborite Reiser
(§ 119, 9), who, under the powerful reforming impulse
of the Basel Council of A.D. 1435-1437, composed it in
A.D. 1438.
§ 118.6. =An Italian Apostate from the Basel Liberal
Party.=--=Æneas Sylvius Piccolomini=, born at Siena in A.D. 1405,
appeared at Basel, first as secretary of a bishop, then of a
cardinal, and finally of the Basel anti-pope Felix V., as a most
decided opponent of Eugenius IV., and wrote in A.D. 1439 from
this point of view his history of the council. In A.D. 1442 he
entered the service of the then neutral Emperor Frederick III.,
was made _Poeta laureatus_ and imperial councillor, and as such
still fought for the independence of the German church. But in
A.D. 1445, with all the diplomatic arts which were so abundantly
at his disposal, he wrought to secure the subjection of the
emperor and German princes under the pope (§ 110, 10). Made
bishop of Siena in A.D. 1450, he was raised to the cardinalate
by Calixtus III. in A.D. 1456, and two years later ascended the
papal throne as Pius II. The lasciviousness of his earlier life
is mirrored in his poems, novels, dialogues, dramas, and letters.
But as pope, old and weak, he maintained an honourable life, and
in a bull of retractation addressed to the University of Cologne
exhorted Christendom _Æneam rejicite, Pium recipite_!
§ 118.7. =Reforms in Church Policy in Spain.=--Notwithstanding
the church feeling awakened by the struggle with the Moors, a
vigorous opposition to papal pretensions was shown during the
14th century by the Spanish princes, and after the outbreak
of the great schism the anti-pope Clement VII., in A.D. 1381,
purchased the obedience of the Spanish church by large
concessions in regard to appointment to its bishoprics and
the removal of the abuses of papal indulgences. The popes,
indeed, sought not unsuccessfully to enlist Spain in their
favour against the reformatory tendencies of the councils
of the 15th century, until =Ferdinand= of Aragon [Arragon],
A.D. 1479-1516, and =Isabella= of Castille [Castile],
A.D. 1474-1504, who had on account of their zeal for the
Catholic cause been entitled by the pontiff himself “their
Catholic majesties,” entered so vigorous a protest against
papal usurpations, that toward the end of the 15th century the
royal supremacy over the Spanish church had won a recognition
never accorded to it before. They consistently refused to
acknowledge any bishop appointed by the pope, and forced from
Sixtus IV. the concession that only Spaniards nominated by
the Crown should be eligible for the highest ecclesiastical
offices. All papal rescripts were subject to the royal approval,
ecclesiastical tribunals were carefully supervised, and appeals
from them were allowed to the royal judicatures. The church had
also to give ordinary and extraordinary tithes of its goods and
revenues for State purposes. The Spanish inquisition (§ 117, 2),
thoroughly recognised in A.D. 1483, was more of a civil than
an ecclesiastical institution. As the bishops and inquisitors
were appointed by the royal edict, the orders of knights
(§ 98, 13), by the transference of the grand-mastership to
the king, were placed in complete subjection to the Crown;
and whether he would or not Alexander VI. was obliged to accord
to the royal commission for church and cloister visitation
and reform the most absolute authority. But in everything
else these rulers were worthy of the name of “Catholics,”
for they tolerated in their church only the purely mediæval
type of strict orthodoxy. The most distinguished promoter
of their reforms in church polity was a Franciscan monk,
=Francis Ximenes=, from A.D. 1492 confessor to Isabella,
afterwards raised by her to the archbishopric of Toledo,
made a Roman cardinal by Alexander VI., and grand-inquisitor
of Spain in A.D. 1507. He died in A.D. 1517.
§ 119. EVANGELICAL EFFORTS AT REFORM.
Alongside of the Parisian reformers, but far in advance of them,
stand those of the English and Bohemian churches represented by Wiclif
and Huss. The reformation aimed at by these two was essentially of
the same kind, Wiclif being the more original, while Huss was largely
dependent upon his great English precursor. For in personal endowment,
speculative power, rich and varied learning, acuteness and wealth of
thought, originality and productivity of intellect, the Englishman
was head and shoulders above the Bohemian. On the other hand, Huss
was far more a man for the people, and he conducted his contention
in a sensible, popular, and practical manner. There were also powerful
representatives of the reform movement in the Netherlands during this
period, who pointed to Scripture and faith in the crucified Saviour as
the only radical cure for the corruptions of the church. While Wiclif
and Huss attached themselves to the Augustinian theology, the Dutchmen
gave themselves to quiet, calm contemplation and the acquirement of
practical religious knowledge. In Italy too a reformer appeared of a
strongly evangelical spirit, who did not however show the practical
sense of those of the Netherlands.
§ 119.1. =Wiclif and the Wiclifites.=--In England the kings and
the Parliament had for a long time withstood the oppressive yoke
of the papal hierarchy. Men too like John of Salisbury, Robert
Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, and Thomas Bradwardine had raised their
voices against the inner corruption of the church. =John Wiclif=,
a scholar of Bradwardine, was born about A.D. 1320. As fellow of
the University of Oxford, he supported in A.D. 1366 the English
Crown against the payment of tribute to the papal court then at
Avignon, admitted by John Lackland (§ 96, 18), of which payment
had now for a long time been refused. This secured him court
favour, the title of doctor, and a professorship of theology at
Oxford; and in A.D. 1374 he was chosen as member of a commission
which was to discuss at Brügge in the Netherlands with the papal
envoys the differences that had arisen about the appointing
to ecclesiastical offices. After his return he openly spoke
and wrote against the papal “antichrist” and his doctrines.
Gregory XI. now, in A.D. 1377, condemned nineteen propositions
from his writings, but the English court protected him from the
strict inquiry and punishment threatened. Meanwhile Wiclif was
ever becoming bolder. Under his influence religious societies
were formed which sent out travelling preachers of the gospel
among the people. By their opponents they were called Lollards
(§ 116, 3), a name to which the stigma of heresy was already
attached. Wiclif translated for them the Scriptures from
the Vulgate into English. The bitterness of his enemies now
reached its height. Just then, in A.D. 1381, a rebellion of
the oppressed peasants that deluged all England with blood
broke out. Its origin has been quite gratuitously assigned to
the religious movement. When he had directly repudiated the
doctrine of transubstantiation, a synod at London, in A.D. 1382,
condemned his writings and his doctrine as heretical, and the
university also cast him out. Court and Parliament could only
protect his person. He now retired to his rectory at Lutterworth
in Leicestershire, where he died on 31st December, 1384.--For
five centuries his able writings were left unprinted, to moulder
away in the obscurity of libraries. His English works have
now been edited by Matthews, London, 1880. Lechler of Leipzig
edited Wiclif’s most complete and comprehensive work, the
“_Trialogus_” (Oxford, 1869), in which his whole theological
system is developed. Buddensieg of Dresden published the keen
antipapal controversial tract, “_De Christo et suo adversario
Antichristo_” (Leipzig, 1880). The Wiclif Society, instituted
at the fifth centenary of Wiclif’s death for the purpose of
issuing critical editions of his most important works, sent
forth as their first performance Buddensieg’s edition of
“twenty-six Latin controversial tracts of Wiclif’s from MSS.
previously unprinted,” in 2 vols., London, 1883. Among Wiclif’s
systematic treatises we are promised editions of the _Summa
theologiæ_, _De incarnatione Verbi_, _De veritate s. Scr._,
_De dominio divino_, _De ecclesia_, _De actibus animæ_, etc.,
some by English, some by German editors.--As the principle of
all theology and reformation Wiclif consistently affirms the
sole authority of Divine revelation in the Holy Scriptures. He
has hence been called _doctor evangelicus_. Anything that cannot
be proved from it is a corrupting human invention. Consistently
carrying out this principle, he denounced the worship of saints,
relics, and images, the use of Latin in public worship, elaborate
priestly choir singing, the multiplication of festivals, private
masses, extreme unction, and generally all ceremonialism. The
Catholic doctrine of indulgence and the sale of indulgences,
as well as the ban and the interdict, he pronounced blasphemous;
auricular confession he regarded as a forcing of conscience; the
power of the keys he explained as conditional, its binding and
loosing powerless, except when in accordance with the judgment
of Christ. He denied the real presence of the body and blood
of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, and affirmed, like Berengar,
a spiritual communication thereof, which however he makes
dependent, not only on the faith of the receiver, but also
on the worthiness of the officiating priest. The doctrine of
purgatory he completely rejected, and supported Augustine’s
predestinationism against the prevalent semipelagianism. The
papacy was antichrist; the pope has his power only from the
emperor, not from God. The hierarchical system should be
replaced by the apostolic presbyterial constitution. Ordination
confers no indelible character; a priest who has fallen into
mortal sin cannot dispense the sacrament. Every believer is as
such a priest. The State is a representation of Christ, as the
God-Man ruler of the universe; the clergy represent only the
poor and suffering life of His humanity. Monkery is contrary
to nature, etc.--Wiclif’s supporters, many of them belonging
to the noblest and most cultured orders, were after his death
subjected to violent persecution, which reached its height when
the House of Lancaster in the person of Henry IV. ascended the
English throne in A.D. 1399. An act of parliament was passed in
A.D. 1400 which made death by fire the punishment of the heresy
of the Lollards. Among the martyrs which this law brought to
the stake was the noble Sir John Oldcastle, who in A.D. 1418
was hung up between two beams in iron chains over a fire and
there slowly burnt. The Council of Constance in A.D. 1415
condemned forty-five propositions from Wiclif’s writings, and
ordered his bones to be exhumed and scattered abroad. Many
germs sown by him continued until the Reformation came.[348]
§ 119.2. =Precursors of the Hussite Movement.=--Owing to its
Greek origin (§ 79, 2, 3), the Bohemian church had a certain
character of its own and barely tolerated the Roman constitution
and ritual. In Bohemia too the Waldensians had numerous
supporters during the 13th century. And even before the
appearance of Huss three distinguished clergymen in and around
Prague by earnest preaching and pastoral work had awakened in
many a consciousness of crying abuses in the church.
1. =Conrad of Waldhausen= was a famous preacher when called
by Charles IV. to Prague, where after fifteen years’ labour
he died in A.D. 1369. Preaching in German, he inveighed
against the cupidity, hypocrisy, and immorality of the
clergy and monks, against the frauds connected with the
worship of images and relics and shrines, and threw back
upon his accusers the charge of heresy in his still extant
_Apologia_.
2. More influential than Conrad as a preacher of repentance
in Prague was =John Milicz of Cremsier= in Moravia, who
died in A.D. 1374. Believing the end of the world near
and antichrist already come, he went to Rome in A.D. 1367
to place before Urban V. his scheme of apocalyptic
interpretation. Escaping with difficulty from the
Inquisition, he returned to Prague, and there applied
himself with renewed zeal to the preaching of repentance.
His preaching led to the conversion of 200 fallen women,
for whom he erected an institution which he called Jerusalem.
But the begging friars accused him before Gregory XI. as a
heretic. Milicz fearlessly went for examination to Avignon
in A.D. 1374, where he soon died before judgment had been
passed. The most important of his works is _De Antichristo_.
3. =Matthias of Janow=, of noble Bohemian descent, died in
A.D. 1374, after fourteen years’ work as a preacher and
pastor in Prague. His sermons, composed in Bohemian, lashed
unsparingly the vices of the clergy and monks, as well
as the immorality of the laity, and denounced the worship
of images and relics. None of his sermons are extant,
but we have various theological treatises of his on the
distinguishing of the true faith from the false and the
frequent observance of the communion. At a Prague synod of
A.D. 1389 he was obliged to retract several of his positions,
and especially to grant the propriety of confessing and
communicating half-yearly. Janow however, like Conrad and
Milicz, did not seriously contest any fundamental point of
the doctrine of the church.
§ 119.3. =John Huss of Hussinecz= in Bohemia, born A.D. 1369,
was Bachelor of Theology at Prague, in A.D. 1394, Master
of Liberal Arts in A.D. 1396, became public teacher in the
university in A.D. 1398, was ordained priest in A.D. 1400,
undertook a pastorate in A.D. 1402 in the Bethlehem chapel,
where he had to preach in the Bohemian language, was chosen
confessor of Queen Sophia in A.D. 1403, and was soon afterwards
made synodal preacher by the new archbishop, Sbynko of Hasenburg.
Till then he had in pious humility accepted all the doctrines
of the Romish Church, and even in A.D. 1392 he offered his last
four groschen for an indulgence, so that for a long time dry
bread was his only nourishment. But about A.D. 1402 he reached
an important crisis in his life through the study of Wiclif’s
theological works.--Bohemians who had studied in Oxford brought
with them Wiclif’s philosophical works, and in A.D. 1348 the
discussion on realism and nominalism broke out in Prague. The
Bohemians generally sided with Wiclif for realism; the Germans
with the nominalists (§ 113, 3). This helped to prepare an
entrance for Wiclif’s theological writings into Bohemia. Of the
national party which favoured Wiclif’s philosophy and theology,
Huss was soon recognised as a leader. A university decree of
A.D. 1403 condemned forty-five propositions from Wiclif’s works
as heretical, and forbade their promulgation in lectures or
sermons. Huss however was still highly esteemed by Archbishop
Sbynko. In A.D. 1405 he appointed Huss, with other three
scholars, a commission to investigate a reputed miracle at
Wilsnack, where on the altar of a ruined church three blood-red
coloured hosts were said to have been found. Huss pronounced
the miracle a cheat, and proved in a tract that the blood of
Christ glorified can only be invisibly present in the sacrament
of the altar. The archbishop approved this tract, and forbade
all pilgrimages to the spot. He also took no offence at Huss
for uttering Wiclifite doctrine in his synod sermon. Only when,
in A.D. 1408, the clergy of his diocese complained that Huss by
his preaching made the priests contemptible before the people,
did he deprive him of his function as synod preacher. When the
majority of cardinals at Leghorn in A.D. 1408 took steps to put
an end to the schism, king Wenzel determined to remain neutral,
and demanded the assent of the university as well as the clergy
of his realm. But only the Bohemian members of the university
agreed, while the rest, along with the archbishop, supported
Gregory XII. Sbynko keenly resented the revolt of the Bohemians,
and forbade Huss as their spokesman to preach within his diocese.
Huss paid no attention to the prohibition, but secured a royal
injunction, that henceforth in the university Bohemians should
have three votes and foreigners only one. The foreigners then
withdrew, and founded the University of Leipzig in A.D. 1409.
Huss was made first rector of the newly organized University
of Prague; but the very fact of his great popularity in Bohemia
caused him to be profoundly hated in other lands.[349]
§ 119.4. The archbishop escaped prosecution only by
unreservedly condemning the doctrines of Wiclif, burning his
books, and prohibiting all lectures upon them. Huss and his
friends appealed to John XXIII., but this did not prevent the
archbishop burning in his palace yard about two hundred Wiclifite
books that had previously escaped his search. For this he was
hooted in the streets, and compelled by the courts of law to
pay the value of the books destroyed. John XXIII. cited Huss
to appear at Rome. King, nobles, magistrates, and university
sided with him; but the papal commission condemned him when he
did not appear, and the archbishop pronounced anathema against
him and the interdict against Prague (A.D. 1411). Huss appealed
to the œcumenical council, and continued to preach. The court
forced the archbishop to become reconciled with Huss, and to
admit his orthodoxy. Sbynko reported to the pope that Bohemia
was free from heresy. He soon afterwards died. The pope himself
was the cause of a complete breach, by having an indulgence
preached in Bohemia in A.D. 1412 for a crusade against Ladislaus
of Naples, the powerful adherent of Gregory XII. Huss opposed
this by word and writing, and in a public disputation maintained
that the pope had no right to grant such indulgence. His most
stanch supporter was a Bohemian knight, Jerome of Prague, who
had studied at Oxford, and returned in A.D. 1402 an enthusiastic
adherent of Wiclif’s doctrines. Their addresses produced
an immense impression, and two days later their disorderly
followers, to throw contempt on the papal party, had the bull
of indulgence paraded through the streets, on the breast of a
public prostitute, representing the whore of Babylon, and then
cast into the flames. But many old friends now withdrew from Huss
and joined his opponents. The papal curia thundered against him
and his followers the great excommunication, with its terrible
curses. Wherever he resided that place was put under interdict.
But Huss appealed to the one righteous Judge, Jesus Christ. At
the wish of the king he left the city, and sought the protection
of various noble patrons, from whose castles he went forth
diligently preaching round about. He spread his views all over
the country by controversial and doctrinal treatises in Latin
and Bohemian, as well as by an extensive correspondence with
his friends and followers. Thus the trouble and turmoil grew
from day to day, and all the king’s efforts to restore peace
were in vain.
§ 119.5. The Roman emperor Sigismund summoned Huss to attend the
Council of Constance (§ 110, 7), and promised him a safe-conduct.
Though not yet in possession of this latter, which he only
got at Constance, trusting to the righteousness of his cause,
for which he was quite willing to die a martyr’s death, he
started for Constance on 11th October, A.D. 1414, reaching his
destination on 3rd November. On 28th November he was sentenced
to imprisonment at a private conference of the cardinals, on the
pretended charge of an attempt at flight, first in the Dominican
cloister, then in the bishop’s castle of Gottlieben, where he
was put in chains, finally in the Franciscan cloister. Sigismund,
who had not been forewarned when he was cast into prison, ordered
his release; but the council convinced him that Huss, arraigned
as a heretic before a general council, was beyond the reach
of civil protection. His bitterest enemies and accusers were
two Bohemians, Michael of Deutschbrod and Stephan of Palecz.
The latter extracted forty-two points for accusations from his
writings, which Huss from his prison retracted. D’Ailly and
Gerson were both against him. The brave knight John of Chlum
stood faithfully by him as a comforter to the last. For almost
seven months was he harassed by private examinations, in which,
notwithstanding his decided repudiation of many of them, he was
charged with all imaginable Wiclifite heresies. The result was
the renewed condemnation of those forty-five propositions from
Wiclif’s writings, which had been condemned A.D. 1408 by the
University of Prague. At last, on 5th June, A.D. 1415, he was
for the first time granted a public trial, but the tumult at
the sitting was so great that he was prevented from saying a
single word. Even on the two following days of the trial he
could do little more than make a vain protest against being
falsely charged with errors, and declare his willingness to be
better instructed from God’s word. The humility and gentleness of
his demeanour, as well as the enthusiasm and believing joyfulness
which he displayed, won for him many hearts even outside of the
council. All possible motives were urged to induce him to submit.
Sigismund so exhorted him, with the threat that if he did not
he would withdraw his protection. The third and last day of
trial was 8th June, A.D. 1415, and judgment was pronounced in
the cathedral church on the 6th July. After high mass had been
celebrated, a bishop mounted the pulpit and preached on Romans
vi. 6. He addressed Sigismund, who was present, “By destroying
this heretic, thou shalt obtain an undying name to all ensuing
generations.” Once again called upon to recant, Huss repeated
his previous protests, appealed to the promise of a safe-conduct,
which made Sigismund wince and blush, and kneeling down prayed
to God for his enemies and unjust judges. Then seven bishops
dressed him in priestly robes in order to strip him of them one
after another amid solemn execrations. Then they put on him a
high pyramidal hat, painted with figures of devils, and bearing
the inscription, _Hæresiarcha_, and uttered the words, “We give
thy soul to the devil.” He replied: “I commend it into the hands
of our Saviour Jesus Christ.” On that same day he was given over
by Sigismund to Louis Count-palatine of the Rhine, and by him
to the Constance magistrates, and led to the stake. Amid prayer
and praise he expired, joyfully, courageously, and confidently,
showing himself worthy to rank among the martyrs who in the best
times of Christianity had sealed their Christian confession with
their blood. His ashes were scattered on the Rhine. The later
Hussites, in accordance with an old Christian custom (§ 39, 5),
celebrated the day of his death as the _dies natalis_ of the
holy martyr John Huss.--=Jerome of Prague= had gone unasked to
Constance. When he saw that his longer stay would not help his
friend, but only involve himself in his fate, he left the city;
but was seized on the way, and taken back in chains in April,
A.D. 1415. During a severe half-year’s imprisonment, and wearied
with the importunities of his judges, he agreed to recant, and
to acquiesce in the sentence of Huss. But he was not trusted, and
after as before his recantation he was kept in close confinement.
Then his courage revived. He demanded a public trial before the
whole council, which was at last granted him in May, A.D. 1416.
There he solemnly and formally retracted his previous retractation
with a believer’s confidence and a martyr’s joy. On May 30th,
A.D. 1416, he, too, died at the stake, joyfully and courageously
as Huss had done. The Florentine humanist Poggio, who was present,
has given enthusiastic expression in a still extant letter to his
admiration at the heroic spirit of the martyr.
§ 119.6. In all his departures from Romish doctrine Huss was
dependent upon Wiclif, not only for the matter, but even for
the modes of expression. He did not however separate himself
quite so far from the Church doctrines as his English master.
He firmly maintained the doctrine of transubstantiation; he was
also inclined to withhold the cup from the laity; and, though
he sought salvation only from the Saviour crucified for us, he
did not refuse to give any place to works in the justification
of the sinner, and even invocation of the saints he did not
wholly condemn. While he energetically protested against the
corruption of the clergy, he never denied that the sacrament
might be efficaciously administered by an unworthy priest. In
everything else however he was in thorough agreement with the
English reformer. The most complete exposition of his doctrine
is found in the _Tractatus de ecclesia_ of A.D. 1413. Augustine’s
doctrine of predestination is its foundation. He distinguishes
from the church as a visible human institution the idea of the
church as the true body of Christ, embracing all elected in
Christ to blessedness from eternity. Its one and only head is
Christ: not Peter, not the pope; for this church is no monster
with two heads. Originally and according to Christ’s appointment
the bishop of Rome was no more than the other bishops. The
donation of Constantine first gave him power and dignity over
the rest. As the church in the beginning could exist without
a pope, so the church unto the end can exist without one. The
Christian can obey the pope only where his commands and doctrines
agree with those of Christ. In matters of faith Holy Scripture
is the only authority. Fathers, councils, and popes may err,
and have erred; only the word of God is infallible.--That
this liberal reforming Council of Constance, with a Gerson
at its head, should have sentenced such a man to death is not
to be wondered at when we rightly consider how matters stood.
His hateful realism seemed to the nominalistic fathers of the
council the source of all conceivable heresies. It had even
been maintained that realism consistently carried out would
give a fourth person to the Godhead. His devotion to the national
interests of Bohemia in the University of Prague had excited
German national feeling against him. And, further, the council,
which was concerned only with outward reforms, had little
sympathy with the evangelical tone of his spirit and doctrine.
Besides this, Huss had placed himself between the swords of two
contending parties. The hierarchical party wished, in order to
strike terror into their opponents, to show by an example that
the church had still the power to burn heretics; and the liberal
party refused to this object of papal hate all protection, lest
they should endanger the cause of reformation by incurring a
suspicion of sympathy with heresy.--The prophecy said to have
been uttered by Huss in his last moments, “To-day you burn a
goose (this being the meaning of Huss in Slavonian), but from
its ashes will arise a swan (Luther’s coat of arms), which you
will not be able to burn,” was unknown to his contemporaries.
Probably it originated in the Reformation age from the appeals
of both martyrs to the judgment of God and history. Huss had
often declared that instead of the weak goose there would come
powerful eagles and falcons.[350]
§ 119.7. =Calixtines and Taborites.=--During the imprisonment
of their leader the Hussite party was headed by Jacob of Misa,
pastor of St. Michael’s church in Prague. With consent of Huss
he introduced the use of the cup by the laity and rejected the
_jejunium eucharisticum_ as opposed to Matthew xxvi. 26. This
led to an interchange of controversial tracts between Prague and
Constance on the withholding of the cup. The council decreed that
whoever disobeys the Church on this point is to be punished as a
heretic. This decree, followed by the execution of Huss, roused
Bohemia to the uttermost. King Wenceslaw died in A.D. 1419 in the
midst of national excitement, and the estates refused to crown
his brother Sigismund, “the word-breaker.” Now arose a civil war,
A.D. 1420-1436, characterized by cruelties on both sides rarely
equalled. At the head of the Hussites, who had built on the brow
of a steep hill the strong fortress Tabor, was the one-eyed,
afterwards blind, =John Ziska of Trocznov=. The crusading armies
sent against the Hussites were one after another destroyed;
but the gentle spirit of Huss had no place among most of his
followers. The two parties became more and more embittered toward
one another. The aristocratic =Calixtines= (_calix_, cup) or
Utraquists (_sub utraque_), at whose head was Bishop Rokycana
of Prague, declared that they would be satisfied if the Catholic
church would concede to them four articles: