The life and death of Hus and the principal events of his career form perhaps the one incident in the annals of Bohemia that is familiar to most English readers. I therefore give but a summary account of the career of the great Bohemian, for here, as everywhere, the need of compression confronts me. I feel the more justified in omitting many interesting incidents, as English literature in the late Mr. Wratislaw's John Hus possesses a short but trustworthy biography of Hus founded on lately-discovered documents. The work is superior to any other on the same subject. Even in Bohemian literature no equally trustworthy biography of Hus has as yet appeared.[28] The sympathies of Mr. Wratislaw are indeed very evident, but he has never attempted to slur over or to attenuate the arguments of the adversaries of Hus.

The study of the life and of the writings of Hus has until recently been greatly neglected in Bohemia, and even now no complete modern edition of his works exists. A recent editor of a selection from Hus's letters scarcely exaggerates when he writes: "Two wrongs have been committed on Magister John Hus—one was committed when at Constance long ago his life was violently brought to an end; the other consists in the neglect with which his works are treated at present by the national (i.e. Bohemian) public."

John of Husinec, or John Hus as he is usually called, was, according to ancient tradition, born on 6th July 1369; neither day nor year of his birth are, however, absolutely certain.[29] Many tales told of the early days of Hus are taken from the records of the Bohemian brethren, written many years after his death. From the year 1400 onward authentic accounts of the events of the life of the Bohemian reformer exist, and from the year 1409 to the time of his death we have a continuous and detailed record of his life.

At a very early age Hus proceeded to Prague to pursue at the university there the studies required for the purpose of entering the Church. With his usual candour and simplicity Hus himself tells us that he originally decided to adopt the ecclesiastical career rather for the purpose of gaining a living than through any special vocation. It is, however, certain that during his years of study he already led a pious and studious life. He has indeed confessed[30] that before he was ordained "he had been fond of playing chess, thus wasting time and causing irritation" (to his partners). Such a confession, written while he was preparing for his fatal journey to Constance, proves indeed how little he had to confess, and is a touching instance both of his extremely sensitive conscience and of the profound humility so characteristic of Hus.

In September 1393 Hus took the degree of bachelor of arts, in the following year that of bachelor in divinity, and in 1396 that of master of arts. His reputation for great learning seems to have spread very rapidly at the university, for in 1401 we already find him dean of the Faculty of Arts, and in the following year he became, for the first time and at an unusually early age, rector of the university of Prague. He seems soon to have attracted attention by his great learning, and by the acumen which he displayed in the learned disputations that formed so large a part of the routine of mediÆval universities. His learning was at that period noticed rather than any special religious fervour. His lectures, as Dr. Lechler has conjectured, were probably founded on Wycliffe's philosophical works, which became known to the Bohemians earlier than the theological works of the English divine.

A change appears to have come over the mind of Hus about the beginning of the fifteenth century. He has himself told us that after his ordination as a priest (probably in 1400) he led a yet simpler and more ascetic life. The principal cause of the enthusiasm, both religious and national, that henceforth distinguishes Hus was, however, undoubtedly his appointment in 1402 as rector and preacher at the Bethlehem Chapel in Prague. The foundation of the Bethlehem Chapel, which took place in 1391, and was the work of Kri, a tradesman of Prague, and John of Milheim, one of the courtiers of King Wenceslas, is an important manifestation of the desire to reform the Roman Church and to enlarge the sphere of the native language, which was then gaining ground in Bohemia. In their deed of endowment the founders stated that their object was the encouragement of the preaching of biblical doctrines in the Bohemian language. No special provision for the reading of masses was made, and no doubt many Bohemians, after hearing mass in other churches where German sermons were still preached, then proceeded to the Bethlehem Chapel. The stress laid on the preaching of the Gospel, one of the points to which the partisans of Church reform attached great importance, proves that the founders, or at least Milheim, sympathised with this movement. The increased use of the Bohemian language for preaching and its general development greatly irritated the Germans in Bohemia, who believed their preponderant position in the town and University of Prague to be menaced. The Germans in Bohemia were therefore thoroughgoing partisans of the Church of Rome, rather from antagonism to their fellow-citizens of Slav nationality than from any sympathy for the abuses then prevailing in the Roman Church. This division by nationalities, according to which the Bohemians favoured Church reform, while the Germans defended the authority of Rome, continued during the whole period of the Hussite wars, and indeed far later. It was only with the appearance of Luther that this distinction entirely ceased.

The sermons of Hus at the Bethlehem Chapel immediately attracted general attention. His great eloquence is evident in the few sermons of Hus that have been preserved, as well as in the fragments of them which he undoubtedly afterwards introduced into his Postilla. He seems to have preached on a wide range of subjects, and by no means to have eschewed the topics of the day. In one of Hus's earliest sermons[31] he refers to the invasion of Bohemia by the troops of the Margrave of Meissen, the ally of Rupert, Elector-Palatine, whom the enemies of King Wenceslas had elected King of the Romans. It is easy to imagine the strong impression which Hus's fiery words produced on his Bohemian audience, which, though thoroughly aware of the many faults of King Wenceslas, yet supported him against his German rival. "The Bohemians," Hus said, "are more wretched than dogs or snakes, for a dog defends the couch on which he lies, and if another dog tries to drive him away, he fights with him; and a snake does the same. But us the Germans oppress, seizing all the offices of state while we are silent. Bohemians in the kingdom of Bohemia, according to all laws, indeed also according to the law of God, and according to the natural order of things, should be foremost in all the offices of the Bohemian kingdom; thus the French are so in the French kingdom, and the Germans in the German lands. Therefore should a Bohemian rule his own subordinates, and a German German (subordinates). But of what use would it be that a Bohemian, not knowing German, should become a priest or a bishop in Germany? He certainly would be as useful as a dumb dog who cannot bark is to a herd! And equally useless to us Bohemians is a German; and knowing that this is against God's law and the regulations, I declare it to be illegal!" Though the date of this sermon is certain, and its immediate motive consisted no doubt in the cruelties that German troops were then committing in Bohemia, yet it is evident that Hus already had in view the preponderating influence which the Germans exercised in the university and city of Prague.

It is noteworthy that Hus was during the early days of his priesthood on good terms with his ecclesiastical superiors at Prague. This continued to be the case even after discussions on the teaching of Wycliffe had in 1403 begun to disturb the peace of the university. At a meeting of the magisters which took place in May of that year, and over which Walter Harasser, then rector of the university, presided, the twenty-four articles from Wycliffe's writings which the London Synod had already declared either heretical or erroneous, were laid before the assembly by John Kbel and Wenceslas of Bechin, canons of the chapter of Prague, the archiepiscopal seat then being vacant. Besides these twenty-four articles, the representatives of the archbishopric brought twenty-one other articles to the notice of the magisters, which a German member of the university, one John HÜbner, had selected from Wycliffe's writings, and submitted to the ecclesiastical authorities. The articles of HÜbner, as Hus truthfully declared, contained various statements that cannot be found in Wycliffe's works. "After these articles had been read out, and Magister Walter Harasser, the rector, had carefully noted down the votes of each and all the magisters present as representatives of the university of Prague, it was decided by a majority of the votes of the members of the university that no one should dogmatise, preach, or assert, publicly or privately, the articles which had been presented to the lord rector by John, official of the archbishopric, and Wenceslas, the archdeacon, under penalty of violating his oath."[32] A renewed discussion on the teaching of Wycliffe took place somewhat later; this time, however, the matter was only brought before the Bohemian "nation", one of the four sections into which the university of Prague was then divided. The condemnation of the articles taken from Wycliffe's works was renewed with a restriction—suggested by Hus—which stated that no master or scholar of the Bohemian "nation" should defend these articles in their false, erroneous, or heretical sense.

Shortly after the first deliberation on Wycliffe's articles, Zbynek Zajic of Hasenburg was elected Archbishop of Prague. A member of one of the most ancient Bohemian families, Zbynek had—though long ordained a priest and for some time provost of the town of MÉlnik—devoted himself mainly to political and military matters, as was then so frequently the case with ecclesiastics of high descent. Though his ignorance has been exaggerated, he certainly possessed no profound knowledge of theology. He brought, however, to his new office a strong feeling of indignation against the immorality and dishonesty of the clergy of his archdiocese, and had, at least at first, a firm determination to remedy these evils by establishing a system of severer discipline among his subordinates. It is a striking proof of the great respect in which Hus was then held, both because of his pure and honourable life and because of his great learning, that the Archbishop's attention was immediately directed to him. "At the commencement of his rule," the Archbishop, as Hus afterwards recalled to his memory, "ordered him, whenever he noticed any irregularity contrary to the rules of the Church, to bring such irregularity to his (the Archbishop's) knowledge, either in person, or, in case of absence, by means of a letter."[33] The Archbishop gave a further proof of his confidence in Hus when he appointed him one of the preachers before the synod of the diocese. These assemblies were held by Archbishop Zbynek more frequently than by his predecessors; he no doubt thought that they would contribute to the reformation of his clergy, which he had so much at heart. Of the sermons preached before the synod by Hus, only few have been preserved, but they are sufficient to prove how mercilessly he censured the immorality, avarice, and haughtiness of the Bohemian clergy. These accusations, which were unfortunately but too well founded, caused many to become enemies of Hus, those in particular to whom Hus's words were specially applicable.

The amicable relations that at first existed between Hus and his Archbishop did not continue long. In 1408 the clergy of the city of Prague and of the archdiocese forwarded to the Archbishop a written statement complaining of Hus's preaching in the Bethlehem chapel. In this document—printed by PalackÝ—it was stated that Hus had, "in opposition to the decisions of the Holy Church and to the opinions of the holy fathers, and to the injury, shame, detriment, and scandal of the whole clergy and the people generally," declared heretics all those priests who received remuneration for the administration of the sacraments or for other ecclesiastical functions, whether such payment took place before or after the ceremony. Hus was further accused of having spoken strongly against the ecclesiastics who held numerous benefices. Hus indeed wrote an eloquent defence of his preaching, and certainly succeeded in proving that Archbishop Ernest of Prague had, when issuing an enactment against the avarice of the clergy in 1364, used language almost identical with his own. Hus was none the less deprived of his office of preacher before the synod.

It is important to note that this denunciation of Hus in no way accused him of having preached anything contrary to the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church; up to the year 1409, indeed, no such charge was ever brought forward against him. For the present, the priests of the diocese only stated that Hus had shown extreme and imprudent zeal in his endeavours to reform the clergy; such endeavours necessarily met with the approbation of the worthier priests; the others could not, at any rate, openly oppose them.

Relations with the Archbishop were yet further embittered by a letter which Hus addressed to him in July 1408 in defence of Nicholas (or Abraham) Velenovic, a priest who had been accused of preaching Wycliffe's doctrine with regard to communion. As a Protestant divine, Dr. Lechler has truly remarked, this letter reaches the extreme limit of what is permissible to a priest when writing to his ecclesiastical superiors. At the end of his letter Hus addresses the Archbishop in these words: "Therefore, most reverend father, open your eyes inwardly and within, love the good, observe those who are evil, do not let the ostentatious and avaricious flatter you; rather let the humble and the friends of poverty find favour with you; oblige the indolent to work; do not hinder those who work steadfastly at the harvest of the Lord."[34] It was inevitable that the form, if not the contents, of this letter should cause offence. It is indeed a characteristic of Hus, that while always speaking of himself with extreme humility and almost exaggerating his petty failings, he yet uses authoritative, not to say provocatory, language when he considers himself as defining "God's law."

The definitive rupture between Hus and the Roman Catholic Church, "the principal beginning of accusations and grievances against me," as Hus himself wrote, was brought on by events which had vast importance for the whole Christian world. The schism in the Western Church still continued, in spite of many efforts to effect a reconciliation between the two rival groups of cardinals and their respective leaders. France therefore decided no longer to recognise as legitimate either of the two claimants to the papal throne, Benedict XIII. and Gregory XII., and to remain neutral up to the time that a general meeting of the cardinals of both parties should have chosen a new pontiff. Bohemia was one of the countries that had hitherto recognised the "Roman Pope," Gregory XII., but King Wenceslas, no doubt honestly wishing to re-establish the unity of the Church, decided to follow the example of the King of France. He therefore brought the matter before Archbishop Zbynek, and also consulted the university of Prague. The Archbishop immediately answered that he would never forsake the allegiance of Pope Gregory. At the university opinions differed. The Bohemian "nation", of which Hus was now the recognised leader, was strongly in favour of the king's proposition. The Bavarian and Saxon "nations", as well as the Polish one—which then consisted principally of Germans from Silesia—took the opposite view. At a general meeting held under the presidency of Henry of Baltenhagen, a German who was then rector, it was decided that the university should continue to recognise Gregory XII. as the legitimate Pope. Hus energetically defended the proposal that the university should declare to remain neutral up to the time that a new and legitimate Pope should have been chosen, and he thus incurred the particular enmity of the Archbishop. At the end of the year 1408 a decree was placarded in Bohemian and Latin on the doors of the churches of Prague, stating that Hus, "as a disobedient son of the holy mother, the Church," was forbidden to exercise any ecclesiastical functions. Hus addressed an eloquent letter to the Archbishop defending his conduct, but it made no impression on the mind of that ecclesiastic.

An important indirect result of the decision of the university was that a fundamental change in its organisation now took place. After the vote by which it had been decided to ignore the king's wishes, and to refuse to accept neutrality in the struggle between the two Popes, both parties at the university sent deputations to Kutna Hora (Kuttenberg), where Wenceslas and his court were then residing. The representatives of the Bohemian party, who were headed by Hus, no doubt hoped for a favourable reception, as they alone had maintained the views of the king with regard to the papal schism. They were, however, mistaken. The king received them very ungraciously, and even accused Hus and other Bohemian magisters of being the cause that Bohemia had acquired the evil reputation of being a heretical country. On the other hand, the king was most gracious to the German magisters, who had probably come to apologise for their opposition to the royal will, and he assured them that he would maintain all their privileges.

A complete change in the views of the ever-vacillating king took place in the following month. At that moment Nicholas of Lobkovic, a man of learning, and, it is said, a friend of Hus, had obtained considerable influence over Wenceslas. As "supreme notary", or director of the Bohemian mines, Lobkovic resided at Kutna Hora, then an important mining centre, and he was thus thrown into constant contact with the king at this time. Under his influence, Wenceslas, in January 1409, published the "Decrees of Kutna Hora", which entirely changed the constitution of the university of Prague. As has already been mentioned, the university was divided into four nations, three of which—perhaps contrary to the intentions of Charles IV., the founder of the university—always voted together, and were jointly known as the German nation. The Bohemians were thus in their own country permanently in a minority. A complete change was effected by the decrees of Kutna Hora. The king stated that, "whereas the German nation, possessing no rights of citizenship in the kingdom of Bohemia, has hitherto held three votes" (at the university), "while the Bohemian nation, the lawful heiress of that kingdom, possessed and enjoyed but one, we consider it unjust and most improper that foreigners should enjoy in abundance the profits" (i.e. benefices, foundations, &c.) "of the natives, who consider themselves aggrieved by this deprivation, and we declare that the Bohemian nation shall, ... according to the regulations existing in favour of the French at the university of Paris, and according to similar rules which exist in Lombardy and Italy, possess in future three votes at all councils, judgments, examinations, and other acts and dispositions of the university."[35] Four days later a decree of the king forbade all persons in Bohemia, both ecclesiastics and laymen, to continue their allegiance to Pope Gregory.

All resistance to the king's will now ceased at the university. In the year of the publication of the decrees of Kutna Hora, all German professors and students, that is to say, all those members of the university who supported Pope Gregory, and were opposed to Church reform, left Prague. The university now became a stronghold of that party which was favourable to Church reform, as well as to the national aspirations of the Bohemian people. It was but natural that the reconstituted university should choose John Hus, the leader in the struggle, as its rector, though he had already held that office a few years before.

The position of Hus was now more assured and more prominent than at any previous period. His popularity with the Bohemian people, who attributed to him the change in the regulations of the university so favourable to their nationality, was greater than ever, and they flocked to his sermons in the Bethlehem chapel in even greater numbers than before. King Wenceslas was grateful to Hus for his aid in obtaining the neutrality of the university during the schism in the Church, and his consort, Queen Sophia, made no secret of her veneration for the great preacher whose sermons at Bethlehem she often attended. Archbishop Zbynek, indeed, continued inimical to Hus, but circumstances rendered it for the moment difficult for him to harm the preacher at Bethlehem. The Council of Pisa had deposed both claimants to the papal throne, and had elected a new pontiff, who took the name of Alexander V., and who was recognised by the greatest part of Europe. The two previously elected Popes did not renounce their claims, and still found followers. The Archbishop of Prague, who still recognised Gregory, was therefore naturally without influence on Pope Alexander. It was thus for the moment fruitless that the Archbishop appointed an "inquisitor" who was to inquire into the complaints raised against Hus and his followers, and specially into the right of Hus to continue preaching at the Bethlehem chapel. Hus entirely ignored these proceedings, and some of his followers even brought before Pope Alexander a complaint against the conduct of the Archbishop, stating that he had raised false accusations against them. The matter went so far that Zbynek was summoned to appear before the new pontiff.

On September 2, 1409, Archbishop Zbynek—inconsistently, as Hus maintained—renounced the allegiance of Pope Gregory, and recognised Alexander as the legitimate pontiff. The reconciliation between the generally recognised Pope and the Archbishop of Prague had a marked influence on the destiny of Hus. The united strength of the Roman Church is now directed against him, and matters proceed much more rapidly. As early as December 20, 1409, a decree of Pope Alexander stated that, "through the action of the enemy of the human race, recently in the city of Prague, the kingdom of Bohemia, the marquisate of Moravia, and other provinces, the false opinions—savouring of heresy and division of the Church—once brought forward by the condemned heresiarch, John Wycliffe, have been fully circulated, particularly with regard to the sacrament of the altar."[36] The letter continues to declare that in future no sermons shall be preached except in "cathedrals, collegiate churches, parish churches, and churches belonging to monasteries." This was directly aimed at Hus, whose Bethlehem chapel fell under none of the categories mentioned above. The letter or decree ended by instructing the Archbishop to appoint four doctors of theology and two doctors of canon law, under whose advice he was to proceed against those who spread the heretical tenets referred to. The Archbishop was to oblige all such persons to recant their erroneous opinions, and to deliver up for destruction all MSS. of the works of Wycliffe which they might possess. Should they refuse to do this the Archbishop was not only to deprive them of all benefices that might be in their hands, but he was also to invoke the aid of the "secular arm" against them.

The papal decree, for reasons that are not known, only reached Prague in March of the following year, and was made public on the 18th of that month. Hus appealed to Pope Alexander, and again somewhat later to his successor, John XXIII., but both appeals remained without result. While awaiting the papal decision, Hus had, in company with some of his adherents, delivered up about two hundred volumes containing writings of Wycliffe; they declared that if it were proved that these writings contained matter contrary to the doctrine of the Church, they were prepared publicly to recant such errors.

Archbishop Zbynek had, meanwhile, after consulting the doctors of theology and canon law, issued a decree forbidding all preaching except in the places specified by the papal command; at the same time he ordered that all the copies of Wycliffe's works that had been made over to the ecclesiastical authorities should be immediately burnt. It is probable that the decision of the Archbishop, which he published at a meeting of the synod of the archdiocese on June 16, was known before that day. On the same day, the 16th of June, the members of the university already protested against the intended burning of Wycliffe's works. They maintained that sufficient time had not elapsed since the writings of Wycliffe had been delivered over, and that it was impossible that a thorough examination of the theological tenets contained in them should already have taken place. They also stated that many of these writings had no connection with questions of dogma, but dealt with logic, philosophy, natural history, and similar matters. However, neither Hus's appeal to the Pope nor the declaration of the university, nor the appeal to King Wenceslas, in which that learned body begged that the burning of the books be at least deferred, was of any avail. On July 16 two hundred books containing writings of Wycliffe, some—as the contemporary chronicler tells us—beautifully bound, were solemnly burnt in the courtyard of the archiepiscopal palace, in the presence of the Archbishop, the members of the chapter, and many other priests. This measure was followed two days later by the solemn sentence of excommunication pronounced by the Archbishop against Hus and his adherents.

The burning of Wycliffe's works met with almost general disapproval in Prague. A chronicler, writing probably shortly after these events, tells us: "Instantly a great sedition and discord began. Some said that many other books besides those of Wycliffe had been burnt; therefore the people began to riot; the courtiers of the king were incensed against the canons and priests; many opprobrious songs against the Archbishop were sung in the streets."[37]

The rioting in Prague became so serious, that Wenceslas, who had been absent, returned hastily to his capital, and while ordering that the owners of the books of Wycliffe that had been burnt should be compensated, he forbade, under penalty of death, the singing of opprobrious songs, which had been one of the causes of the riots. Hus and his adherents were still confident that the Pope would, in consequence of their appeal, cancel the decree of the Archbishop. In the meantime they determined to defend publicly the orthodoxy of some of Wycliffe's works which the Archbishop had condemned. In the then usual manner a meeting of the university was convoked, before which Hus, on July 28, defended the orthodoxy of Wycliffe's treatise, De increata, benedicta et venerabili Trinitate. On the following days some of his adherents, before the same forum, defended other works of Wycliffe.[38] Hus also continued, in spite of the Archbishop's prohibition, to preach at the Bethlehem chapel, and his services were more crowded than ever. When Hus read to his audience a letter he had received from Richard Wyche,[39] an English adherent of Wycliffe, and in the name of the Church of Christ in Bohemia saluted the Church of Christ in England, more than ten thousand people are stated to have been present at the sermon.

The papal see had meanwhile entirely identified itself with Archbishop Zbynek. Without entering into details regarding the character of John XXIII.—it cannot be condemned more severely than was afterwards done by the Council of Constance—it is not surprising that the declared enemy of simony and of the corruption of the clergy found little sympathy with him. Cardinal Colonna, whom Pope John had authorised to give judgment on the Bohemian affairs, rejected the appeal of Hus and his followers to the papal court. That court at the same time expressed its entire approval of the conduct of the Archbishop, and enjoined on him to take immediate proceedings against Hus with the aid of the "secular arm". At the same time sentence of excommunication was passed on Hus, and the city of Prague was declared to be under interdict.

Though such attempts were obviously hopeless, endeavours were still made to mitigate the irritation of the papal court against Hus. King Wenceslas and his consort, as well as several of the most prominent Bohemian nobles, addressed strong remonstrances to Pope John and the Roman court, complaining of what they considered his exaggerated severity against Hus. Queen Sophia's letters were couched in very energetic language. She wrote: "An order contrary to Scripture, agitating the people and disturbing the order of our kingdom, has been published on the suggestion of those who are opposed to the preaching of the gospel. In consequence of this the preaching of the gospel has, except in monasteries and parish churches, been prohibited by the Archbishop of Prague, even in chapels that have been sanctioned by the apostolic see, under penalty of excommunication. Your Holiness well knows that the preaching of the Word of God should not be confined to certain places, but that, on the contrary, it should be allowed in hamlets, streets, houses—in fact everywhere according to the requirements of the people." The queen proceeds to request the Pope to withdraw his prohibition, and ends by stating: "We will not endure that the preaching of the Word of the Lord in our castles and cities should suffer such hindrance."[40] This interesting letter was undoubtedly written specially in the interest of the Bethlehem chapel, at which the queen was one of the most assiduous worshippers. These letters remained without result, and negotiations which took place on the initiative of King Wenceslas were also fruitless, though the Archbishop in the last months of his life seems to have been himself in favour of a compromise. A court of arbitration, composed principally of Bohemian nobles, met by wish of the king, but the desired reconciliation between Hus and the Archbishop was soon found to be impossible.

Archbishop Zbynek died in September 1411, and was in the following month succeeded by Albert of Unicov, a Moravian who had formerly been court physician to King Wenceslas. Unicov is described to us as a man of conciliatory character, and this appears all the more probable from the fact that he was in great favour with King Wenceslas. The king had always wished that the Bohemians should settle their differences among themselves, and as far as possible without foreign intervention. This had indeed been the basis on which the recent negotiations had been conducted.

But neither the Archbishop nor any one else could at this moment have arrested the march of events that were rapidly approaching a crisis. A comparatively unimportant event dispelled the last hopes of those who still hoped for an agreement.

King Ladislas of Naples still recognised Gregory XII. as Pope, and had therefore incurred the bitter enmity of Pope John XXIII. The latter decided on undertaking a crusade against the King of Naples, and caused a decree to be read in all churches promising all those who should contribute to the expenses of the intended expedition the same remission of sins that had been formerly granted to those who fought against the infidels in Palestine.

In May 1412, Wenceslas Tiem, Dean of Passau, arrived at Prague, and immediately began to collect money for the intended crusade. This caused great irritation among the population of Prague, then almost entirely favourable to Hus and his doctrines. Hus and his followers had already previously frequently denounced the system of indulgences, and they now renewed their attacks with increased vigour. A very stormy meeting of the members of the university took place on June 7, though the theological faculty had forbidden all bachelors of theology to attack the papal decree. Hus in an eloquent speech sharply attacked the practice of granting indulgences in the manner then usual at Rome. Of the contents of this speech we can form a certain judgment from a pamphlet on the same subject which Hus published about this time and which has been preserved. He emphatically maintained that priests had the right of remitting sins to those only who showed signs of repentance and penitence, but not merely on receipt of a sum of money. Hus's teaching was here very similar to that of Wycliffe, and his opposition to the crusade against the King of Naples recalls that of Wycliffe against the Flemish crusade of Henry Spencer, Bishop of Norwich.

Meanwhile the Theological Faculty of Prague again condemned as heretical the forty-five articles drawn from Wycliffe's works, now adding six more which were attributed to Hus; it was stated that they had been extracted from his speech against indulgences (on June 7) and from his pamphlet on the same subject. About the same time a considerable portion of the clergy of Prague forwarded to Pope John a written complaint against Hus. The author was a German, one Michael of Deutschbrod, also known as Michael de Causis, one of the most steadfast opponents of Hus and of Church reform. In this document Hus was accused of railing (oblatrare) against the clergy and against the papal indulgences, and also of having "by means of his writings spread his pestilential opinions through various districts of the kingdom of Bohemia, Poland, Hungary, and the marquisate of Moravia."[41] The consequence of these denunciations was a papal decree pronouncing the "aggravation" of the excommunication of Hus which had already been proclaimed by Cardinal Colonna in the previous year. Several of the former adherents of Hus, such as Stanislas of Znaym and Stephen Palec, now abandoned his cause, and the latter afterwards became one of his most dangerous opponents at the Council of Constance.

The greatest part of the population of Prague, however, continued to be devoted to Hus, and the continued preaching in favour of indulgences caused disturbances in the city, particularly after three young men who had interrupted these sermons had been decapitated. Further rioting seemed certain, and it was probably the fear that his person might be made a pretext for disorders that induced Hus willingly to accept King Wenceslas' suggestion that he should leave Prague for a short time. The king promised, during his absence, to endeavour to reconcile him with the ecclesiastical authorities. After publishing an "Appeal from the sentence of the Roman pontiff to the supreme judge Jesus Christ,"[42] Hus left Prague at the end of the year 1412. He first retired to Kozi HrÁdek, a castle belonging to one of his adherents, John of Austi, situated near the spot where the town of Tabor was soon to arise. Afterwards Hus spent some time at the castle of Krakovec, which belonged to Lord Henry of Laan, one of the courtiers of King Wenceslas, and a zealous adherent of Hus. In contradiction to the papal prohibition, Hus continued to preach, and large crowds assembled to listen to his sermons, which he often preached in the fields. He also remained in constant communication with his congregation at Prague, to whom he paid two short visits during his exile. He addressed to them several letters, which, next to those written while in prison at Constance, are the most valuable of all the letters of Hus that have been preserved. He did not limit his literary activity to these letters. Some of his most important works indeed now appeared in rapid succession. His most important Latin work, the treatise De Ecclesia, the principal cause of his condemnation at Constance, was written about this time. Of his Bohemian works the VÝklad (Expositions) had been finished in November 1412, before he left Prague; but other important Bohemian works, such as the one entitled The Daughter (Dcerka), or of the Knowledge of True Salvation, and the treatise on "the traffic in holy things" (Svatokupectoi) date from this period of exile.

Wenceslas had meanwhile attempted to redeem his promise to Hus. On the king's suggestion, a diocesan synod met at Prague in 1413, which attempted to re-establish unity among the Bohemian clergy. On this attempt failing, Wenceslas appointed a committee consisting of four ecclesiastics, who were to hear the views both of Hus's representatives and of his opponents. This attempt also failed, as was indeed inevitable, in consequence of the total divergence of the opinions of the disputants. Two of the opponents of Hus, Palec and Stanislas of Znaym, even refused to appear before the committee after its second meeting, and were therefore banished from Bohemia by the indignant king, who still entertained the hope of restoring religious unity in his country.

It was, however, before a far larger forum that the case between the enemies and the partisans of Church reform was now to be brought. In consequence of the intolerable condition of the Western Church, which, since the Council of Pisa, possessed three rival pontiffs, the demand was raised on all sides that a General Council be summoned for the purpose of ending the schism. The influence of Sigismund, king of the Romans and king of Hungary, brother of Wenceslas of Bohemia, finally induced the reluctant Pope, John XXIII., to consent to the meeting of the Council; and it was decided that its members should assemble at Constance on November 1, 1414. The assembly was, as already mentioned, convoked for the purpose of ending the schism, but the fact that the discord in the Church of Bohemia had now become widely known in Europe naturally drew the attention of the Council also to the views of Hus and his adherents. King Sigismund suggested that Hus should attend the Council, and there develop his views, and at the same time vindicate the orthodoxy of the Bohemian nation, on which he as well as his brother Wenceslas laid great stress. Before Hus set out on his journey, King Sigismund offered him a letter of safe-conduct, which allowed him, according to the words of Professor Tomek, "to come unmolested to Constance, there have free audience, and return unharmed, should he not submit to the authority of the Council." It is not necessary to discuss here the various opinions as to the exact meaning of the letter of safe-conduct; the statement of Dr. Tomek, the greatest living authority with regard to Hus, may be considered as decisive. That the letter was not merely a guarantee that Hus should reach Constance in safety, is proved by the fact that he only received it after he had arrived there; still less can the remarks of Hus himself, who in his letters before leaving Bohemia expressed forebodings of coming doom, he used as an argument to prove that the letter of safe-conduct had little value. Hus was well aware that no official injunctions could ensure him against possible violence on the part of such fanatical enemies as Michael de Causis; nor could the possibility that the thesis "that no faith should be kept with heretics," might be used against him escape the sagacity of Hus.

Such apprehensions did not induce Hus to waver even for an instant in his decision to attend the Council; he felt assured that, whatever might subsequently be his fate, he would be allowed freely to expound his views before the assembled Council. After having addressed a letter of farewell to his pupil Martin, and another—one of the most precious that has been preserved—to his Bohemian friends, Hus, on October 11, 1414, started from the castle of Krakovec directly for Constance. In his company were the Bohemian noblemen Wenceslas of Duba, John of Chlum, and Henry of Lacenbok, who were instructed to assure his safety during his journey. Among Hus's companions also was Peter of Mladenovic, private secretary to Lord John of Chlum, who left a valuable record of Hus's last journey, his trial and death. Hus and his companions arrived at Constance on November 3, and he at first occupied lodgings in the house of a widow named Fida; the house, situated in the street now known as the Husgasse, near the Schnetzthor, is still shown to travellers. Hus confined himself to his room to avoid publicity, and also to prepare the speech he intended to deliver before the Council.

He was not, however, allowed to remain at liberty long. On the 28th of November he was arrested by order of Pope John XXIII., and at first confined for a few days under strict guard in the house of a canon of Constance. Thence he was conducted to a monastery of Dominican friars situated on an island in the Rhine, and confined in a dark and gloomy dungeon in immediate vicinity to a sewer. He remained here from December 6 to March 24, 1415. Endeavours were made to justify the arrestation of Hus by the totally unfounded assertion that he had attempted to escape from Constance in disguise. Even the writers most hostile to Hus now admit that there was no truth in this rumour.

As might have been expected from the nature of his prison, Hus became seriously ill, and was for some time in danger of his life. His Bohemian friends had meanwhile protested energetically against his imprisonment, but their attempts to rescue him from his dungeon remained without result. It was hoped that Sigismund, who arrived at Constance on Christmas Day (1414), would interfere in favour of Hus, but though he at first expressed some indignation, this led to no consequences. From the beginning of January of the following year, Sigismund granted the Council full liberty of decision with regard to Hus's fate. It is, indeed, more than probable that during the last months of Hus's trial the king was in favour of his execution, hoping that this event would intimidate the Bohemians.

The Pope had meanwhile appointed a committee, consisting of three bishops, for the purpose of undertaking a preliminary examination of the teaching of Hus. The commissioners examined numerous witnesses, all of whom were ordered to take their oaths in the presence of Hus. Thus, on one of the days when his illness was at its worst, fifteen witnesses were consecutively introduced into his prison. Hus demanded that a legal adviser should be allowed him, but this was refused him on the plea that it was illegal that any one should afford aid to a heretic. It may be noted that the condemnation of Hus had been decided on long before his three days' trial in June 1415, perhaps even, as some writers have conjectured, as early as in the previous November, when he was arrested. As soon as Hus had somewhat recovered, the act of accusation—mainly the work of Palec and Michael de Causis—was brought to his knowledge. The accusation, consisting of forty-two articles, was principally founded on statements contained in the Latin treatise De Ecclesia; the last articles only dealt with statements extracted from other works of Hus. According to Mladenovic, the authors of the accusation "had chosen their quotations from the treatise (De Ecclesia), falsely and unfairly abbreviating some in the beginning, some in the middle, and some at the end, and inventing matter that was not contained in the book." Hus immediately published his defence, proving that he had taken many of the passages in his works that were attacked from the writings of Augustine, Gregory the Great, Bishop GrossetÊte of Lincoln, and other writers of unimpeached orthodoxy; he also complained that the quotations from his book were incorrect.

New material for accusations against Hus had been meanwhile brought forward. After his departure from Prague, one of his pupils (Magister Jacobellus of Mies[43]) had defended the necessity of communion in the two kinds, afterwards the distinctive doctrine of the Hussites. The followers of Hus at Prague appealed to him, but he confined himself to declaring in his letters that communion in the two kinds was permissible. When, however, the Council of Constance had, on June 15—after the last day of Hus's trial and a few days before his death—entirely forbidden communion in the two kinds to laymen, Hus went somewhat farther. He declared the prohibition of communion in the two kinds to be in direct contradiction to the Gospel,[44] and advised those among his friends who were uncertain with regard to the new teaching of Jacobellus, no longer to oppose it, as unity among the Bohemians was necessary in view of the dangers that, as Hus foresaw, would shortly menace the country.

The Council of Constance had in March 1415 deposed Pope John XXIII., and the authority of the commissioners whom he had appointed to judge Hus ceased, while the decree of imprisonment issued by the Pope also became invalid. Sigismund, to whom the guardians of Hus applied for orders, contented himself with handing the prisoner over to the custody of the Bishop of Constance, by whose order he was now imprisoned in the castle of Gottlieben, not far from Constance. He remained there from March 24 to June 5, and was held in yet severer custody than in the Dominican convent. His feet were fettered with chains, and at night his hands were also fastened to the wall by a chain. All intercourse with his friends was forbidden, and we have therefore no letters from Hus written at Gottlieben, while he had been allowed to write when in confinement in the Dominican monastery.

Having passed judgment on the Pope, the Council now devoted its attention to questions of dogma. On May 5 the forty-five articles of Wycliffe, that have been so often mentioned, were again condemned at a plenary meeting of the Council. This may be said to have decided the fate of Hus, for the identity of many opinions advanced in his treatise De Ecclesia with Wycliffe's views was known to all. No agreement whatever was, indeed, possible between Hus and the members of the Council; for while Hus maintained that he had been summoned to the Council for the purpose of freely expounding his views, the Council now held even more decidedly than at first that their mission as far as Hus was concerned was limited to hearing his recantation of all the opinions that had rightly or wrongly been attributed to him, and then deciding what punishment he should receive.

It is probably mainly due to the energetic remonstrances of the Bohemian nobles who were present at the Council that Hus was at least allowed to appear before that assembly. His prison was again changed, and he was now conducted to a Franciscan monastery at Constance, where he spent the last weeks of his life. On June 5 he appeared for the first time before the Council. "When Hus attempted to speak he was interrupted, and when he was silent the cry arose, 'He has admitted his guilt.'"[45] As Hus afterwards wrote: "They almost all screamed at me, as did the Jews against Christ.... Many exclaimed, 'He must be burnt;' among them I heard the voice of Michael de Causis."

This meeting of the Council did not last long. The more moderate prelates, no doubt, realised how injurious to their own cause such violence was. At the second and third hearing of Hus (on June 7 and 8) the proceedings of the Council had a more orderly character. The questions with regard to the heretical opinions contained in the treatise De Ecclesia and to Hus's views on communion—on which subject an English prelate declared his doctrine was in conformity with that of the Church—were again thoroughly discussed. The whole proceedings can, however, scarcely be termed a trial, and the conviction of the Bohemian reformer was a foregone conclusion.

Four weeks, however, contrary to the expectations of Hus, passed from the date of his last trial to the day of his execution. Repeated attempts were made to induce him to recant, and several members of the Council visited him in prison for this purpose. On one occasion, as Hus writes, "Michael de Causis, poor man, accompanied the representatives of the Council, and while I was with them, said to my guardians, 'By the grace of God we shall soon burn this heretic, and I have spent many florins for this purpose.' Be it known to you that in writing this I do not desire vengeance of him; that I leave to God. Indeed, I pray earnestly for him."

All attempts to obtain a recantation from Hus having failed, there was now no reason for further delay. On July 6, Hus was brought for the last time before the Council. The various accusations against him, some founded entirely on falsehoods, were then read out to him, and he was informed of his sentence. It was decreed that his books, both Latin and Bohemian, should be destroyed, and Hus, as "a manifest heretic," delivered to the secular authorities for punishment. After the ignominious ceremonies of degradation and deconsecration had been performed, Hus was immediately handed over to the authorities of the free town of Constance to receive the customary punishment of heresy. The horrible form of death applied by Nero to the early Christians, when his Palatine gardens were lighted with live torches, had unhappily in the Christian world been adopted as the recognised punishment of those whose religious views differed from those held by the majority of the community to which they belonged. Hus was therefore immediately led forth to the stake by the soldiers of the municipality of Constance.

The execution of Hus is an event of such world-wide importance that it is not surprising that legends concerning his last moment, founded on no contemporary evidence, soon sprang up. Such are the words, "O sancta simplicitas," attributed to Hus when he saw an old woman collecting fagots for his stake, and his pretended prophecy of the advent of a successor (Luther).

A short extract from the work of Mladenovic, which contains a minute description of the last moments and the death of Hus, may be of interest. Mladenovic writes: "When he (Hus) had arrived at the place of torture, he began on bent knees, with his arms extended and his eyes lifted to heaven, to recite psalms with great fervour, particularly 'Have mercy upon me, O God,' and 'In Thee, O Lord, do I put my trust.' He repeated the verse 'Into Thine hand I commit my spirit,' and it was noticed by those standing near that he prayed joyfully and with a beautiful countenance. The place of torture was among gardens in a certain field on the road which leads from Constance to the castle of Gottlieben. Some of the laymen who were present said, 'We do not know what he has formerly said or done, but we now see and hear that he prays and speaks holy words.' ... Rising from his prayers by order of the lictor (i.e. soldier or town official), he said with a loud and intelligible voice, so that he could be heard by his (followers), 'Lord Jesus Christ, I will bear patiently and humbly this horrible, shameful, and cruel death for the sake of Thy Gospel and of the preaching of Thy Word.'... When a rusty chain was placed round his neck, he said, smiling to the lictors, 'Our Lord Jesus Christ, my Redeemer, was bound with a harder and heavier chain, and I, a poor wretch, do not fear to be bound with this chain for His sake.'... When the lictors lighted the pile, the magister first sang with a loud voice, 'Christ, Son of the living God, have mercy on me,' and then again, 'Christ, Son of the living God, have mercy on me.' When he began again, now singing, 'Who art born from the Virgin Mary,' the wind blew the flames in his face, and still silently praying and moving his lips and head he expired in the Lord. The space of time when he had become silent, but still moved before dying, was that required to recite rapidly two or at the utmost three Paternosters."

The works of Hus, both Latin and Bohemian, are very numerous, and in recent times they have again attracted considerable notice. Still a complete modern edition of the works of Hus has not yet appeared, and the bibliography of the existent writings of the Bohemian reformer—for many of his works have entirely perished—is still very deficient. A complete edition of the existing Latin works of Hus was published in NÜremberg in 1558, but it omits several works that Hus is known to have written, and includes works by Matthew of Janov and others. The various Bohemian works were also frequently printed both at NÜremberg and in Bohemia itself up to the beginning of the seventeenth century. I shall first mention the Latin works of Hus, but devote greater space to his Bohemian writings. This is not only in accordance with the general plan of this book, but also justified by the fact that the Latin writings of Hus have less interest, and particularly less originality, than those written in his own language. This applies even to the great treatise De Ecclesia, which, however, cannot be passed over, as it had so decisive an influence on the fate of Hus.

The earliest Latin works of Hus are in complete conformity with the teaching of the Roman Church. Such a work is the treatise De omni Sanguine Christi Glorificata, written during the time when Hus enjoyed the favour of the Archbishop, and probably by his order. Hus had been sent with two other priests to investigate so-called miracles which, as was stated, had been performed by a relic containing the blood of Christ, which was exhibited at Wilsnack, a small town on the Elbe. In his treatise Hus asserted that it was impossible that the blood of Jesus Christ should be materially contained in any one spot. It was, he said, only to be found in Holy Communion.

Somewhat later—about the year 1410—the tone of Hus's writings changes. He no longer writes as an unconditional adherent of the Church of Rome, and the influence of Wycliffe's ideas gradually becomes evident. Hus's writings, still mainly Latin, are numerous at this period; they deal with then current theological controversies, and it would be of little interest to enumerate their titles. One of these treatises, addressed to a countryman of Wycliffe, entitled De Libris HÆreticorum Legendis; Replica contra Anglicum Joannem Stokes, deals almost entirely with Wycliffe's doctrine. John Stokes, a licentiate of law, was a member of an English embassy which was sent to Bohemia by King Henry IV. It was rumoured at Prague that Stokes had during his stay there stated that Wycliffe was in England considered a heretic. Hus immediately challenged the Englishman to a public disputation before the university in the then customary manner. On the refusal of Stokes to attend the meeting, Hus yet delivered his speech in defence of Wycliffe before the university, and afterwards founded his pamphlet principally on the contents of the speech. Many of the minor Latin writings of Hus are indeed based on speeches delivered before the university, and even in his larger Bohemian writings he has often introduced large portions of his sermons.

Of Hus's Latin works, as already mentioned, the treatise De Ecclesia requires particular notice. The work, written when Hus was exiled from Prague, and probably finished in the year 1413, is to a great extent a transcript of Wycliffe's work on the same subject, and has therefore little literary interest. But neither the events of the life of Hus nor the ideas expounded in his Bohemian works are intelligible without some knowledge of the treatise De Ecclesia. The Roman Catholic hierarchy, far more powerful and far less dependent on public opinion in the fifteenth century than in the present day, could not but see that—independently of all dogmatic differences of opinion—the acceptation of views such as those contained in the treatise De Ecclesia must necessarily produce a fundamental change in the organisation of the Church.

The keynote of the treatise De Ecclesia[46] is Hus's peculiar doctrine with regard to predestination. He divides all men into two classes, those who are—either conditionally or unconditionally—predestined (predestinati) to eternal bliss, and those who are "foreknown" (presciti) to damnation. The mass of the predestinati form the true Holy Catholic Church,[47] but the Church as at present constituted includes the presciti as well as the predestinati. Of the true Church, Christ is the only Head. As man He is "Head of the Church within it" (caput intrinsecum), as God He is "its Head without it" (caput extrinsecum). Christ is the true Roman Pontiff, the High Priest, and the Bishop of Souls. The Apostles did not call themselves "Holy Father" or "Head of the Church," but servant of God and servant of the Church. A change came with the "donation of Constantine" (that singular fiction which played so large a part in the theological controversies of the Middle Ages). Since that time the Pope has considered himself as head (capitaneus) of the Church and Christ's vicar upon earth. It is, however, according to Hus, not certain that the Pope is Christ's successor in this world. He is then only Christ's representative and the successor of St. Peter, and the cardinals are only then the successors of the Apostles when they follow the examples of faith, modesty, and love which the former gave. Many Popes and cardinals have not done this, and, indeed, many saintly men who never were Popes were truer successors of the Apostles than, for instance, the present Pope (John XXIII.). St. Augustine did more for the welfare of the Church than many Popes, and studied its doctrines more profoundly than any cardinal from the first to the last. If Pope and cardinals give their attention to worldly affairs, if they scandalise the faithful by their ambition and avarice, then they are successors not of Christ, not of Peter, not of the Apostles, but of Satan, of Antichrist, of Judas Iscariot. Returning to his former point, it is not certain, Hus continues, that the Pope is really the head of the Church; he cannot even be sure that he is not prescitus; and therefore no member of the true Church at all. St. Peter erred even after he had been called by Christ. Pope Leo was a heretic, and Pope Gregory was but recently condemned by the Council of Pisa. It is a popular fallacy to imagine that a Pope is necessary to rule the Church. We must be thankful to God that He gave us His only Son to rule over the Church, and He would be able to direct it even if there were no temporal Pope, or if a woman occupied the papal throne.[48] As with the Pope and the cardinals, so with the prelates and the clergy generally. There is a double clergy, that of Christ and that of Antichrist. The former live according to the law of God, the latter seek only worldly advantage. Not every priest is a saint, but every saint is a priest. Faithful Christians are therefore great in the Church of God, but worldly prelates are among its lowest members, and may indeed, should they be presciti, not be members of the Church at all.

The Latin letters of Hus will be mentioned later in connection with those written in Bohemian.

Of greater literary interest than the Latin works of Hus are those written in his own language. The latter are written in a more independent and popular manner, and it is on them that his value as a writer depends. That Hus was a strong Bohemian patriot is, I hope, evident even from this short sketch of his life. Almost his first sermon referred to the oppression of his countrymen by the Germans, and no one more energetically aided the Bohemians in their endeavours to secure the control over the national university. Yet Hus was by no means a national fanatic or a hater of Germans, as has been so often stated. It is sufficient to refer to his often-quoted words: "If I knew a foreigner of any country who loved God more and strove for the good more than my own brother, I would love him more than my brother. Therefore good English priests are dearer to me than faint-hearted Bohemian ones, and a good German is dearer to me than a bad brother."[49]

Hus, like all Bohemian patriots, entertained a warm affection for the national language. One of his earliest writings deals with the correct spelling of the Bohemian language, and the diacritical signs still used in Bohemian are mainly an invention of Hus. He was also strongly opposed to the introduction of foreign words into the language, and refers to this subject frequently in his "Exposition of the Ten Commandments." In that work he sharply attacks the citizens of Prague who interspersed their Bohemian speech with numerous German words, and compares them to the "Jews who had married wives of Ashdod, and whose children spoke half in the speech of Ashdod."

Hus's merits as regards the development of his language are also very great. That language had indeed already, principally by ŠtitnÝ, been raised to a level that rendered it available for the exposition of theological and philosophical matters. But the style of Hus contrasts favourably with that of his predecessors by its greater facility and simplicity. This may partly be attributed to the fact that Hus, particularly during the time of his exile from Prague, associated much with the humbler classes of the people, who, knowing no language but their own, naturally spoke it very purely and without interpolations from other languages. This spoken language was adopted by Hus for his writings. He indeed himself writes at the end of the Postilla, "That he who will read (my writings) may understand my Bohemian, let him know that I have written as I usually speak."

As already stated, the bibliography of Hus is as yet very uncertain, and it is not easy to fix the exact dates of his works. It may, however, be generally stated that his earliest Bohemian writings were composed in the years from 1406 to 1410, that his most important works in that language date from the last years of his life (1412-1415), and that the period of his exile from Prague was that of his greatest literary activity.

The earliest important Bohemian works of Hus are a series of Expositions (VÝklad) dealing consecutively of Faith, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord's Prayer. Each Exposition is followed by a shorter, more condensed treatise dealing with the same subject as the longer one that precedes. Of these Expositions the first one, dealing of Faith, has most interest. It consists of a continuous comment on the different articles of the Apostle's creed. Hus writes: "We believe that the twelve Apostles, immediately after Christ's ascension to heaven, composed this creed. And as there were then twelve Apostles, besides Paul and Barnabas, who were called after the ascension of Jesus, thus, according to general opinion, each article was expounded by one particular Apostle. But be it known to you, that the learned do not agree as to what particular article each Apostle expounded." Hus then proceeds to attribute to each Apostle the exposition and defence of one of the articles, obviously following the method then usual at the theological disputations at universities in which he so frequently took part. In Chapter XVIII. the defence of the tenth article, which refers to the Holy Catholic Church, is attributed to St. Simon. It is interesting as containing some of the very distinctive ideas of Hus. He writes: "Every Christian must believe in the Holy Catholic Church. The reason is, that every Christian must love Christ, who is the husband of that Church, and that Church is Christ's spouse.... And as no one will honour his mother if he has no knowledge of her, therefore it is very necessary to know the Holy Church through faith, for ignorance of the Church causes many errors among the people. Therefore be it known to you that the first Bohemian who translated the Greek word ecclesia misunderstood that word; therefore he foolishly rendered it by the word 'church' or 'chapel,' as if he believed that the bride of Christ was a church made of stone or a chapel made of wood. But had he translated the word ecclesia by 'congregation,' then so many would not have erred. Others, again, err, saying that the Pope is the Holy Church; others, that it is the Cardinals with the Pope; while others, again, say all priests together, and yet others (say) all Christians together, constitute the Church.

"Therefore be it known to you that all men from Adam to the last man form one congregation, which God has divided into two; one division has been chosen (for salvation) from eternity, the other from eternity has been rejected, and it is known to God only which (division) each man belongs to. The first division is the universal community of saints, the second is the universal community of the damned. There can be no higher Church, according to God's will, than the first-named (community). It contains all the good, and the other all the evil, and yet these two (divisions) constitute one community, one assembly, just as sheep and goats form one herd, although the sheep are always in a way divided from the goats, and these from them. Therefore though ecclesia sometimes signifies a church of wood or stone, sometimes the Pope with the Cardinals, sometimes the priesthood generally, sometimes the whole community of Christians—as the Church of Prague may signify all Bohemians or a community only of good Christians—yet the Holy Catholic Church is the community of all those who have been chosen; that Church is called the bride of Christ, of whom it is written in the verses of Solomon, 'I am His bride, He has adorned me with a crown.'"

The other Expositions are inferior to the one just mentioned, both as regards their interest and the style in which they are written. The Exposition of the Ten Commandments is in its teaching generally in conformity with the Roman Church; only in occasional passages are the opinions peculiar to Hus evident. After dealing generally of the commandment "Thou shalt not kill," Hus discusses in a separate chapter its application to members of the clergy. It must be remembered that Hus's time was an age of warlike pontiffs and of bishops who commanded armies. Incidentally this chapter throws strong light on Hus's very elevated and ideal view of the duties of the priestly order. It is to this, no doubt, that his strong animadversions on the behaviour of some members of that order (for which he has been severely censured by hostile writers) should be largely attributed. The Chapter (XLVIII.) begins thus: "As in our times bishops and priests wage war, it is good for us to know whether it is fit that they should go to war and thus kill their fellow-creatures. It appears fit to some, firstly, from this reason, that the priests of the old law fought bravely according to God's commandment; why then should not the priests of the new law fight, who have to defend their faith as the others did, and a much higher one? Secondly (you say), the Pope goes to war, and gives the other bishops power to go to war, and to speak against this is heresy; and who speaks thus will become a heretic if he obstinately persists in it. Thirdly, St. Peter the Apostle fought bodily, when on Maundy Tuesday, being already a priest, he cut off the ear of Malchus. The fourth reason is that the priests, and specially the Pope, have two swords, the spiritual and the temporal one; so also had the Apostles when they said to Christ, 'Lord, behold here are two swords. And He said unto them, It is enough.'[50] The fifth reason is this: many priests are strong, and that strength were given them in vain, could they not use it for fighting; why, therefore, should they not fight? The sixth reason is: if bishops did not fight with temporal arms, the Church would be in an evil state; for laymen would lay hands on priests, rob them and beat them; who would then wish to be a priest?

"But our Saviour Jesus, King and Bishop at the same time, is the best mirror in which we should seek for wisdom; for every action of His is a lesson for us, as St. Augustine has said."

Hus then proceeds to refute the arguments enumerated above, depending mainly on the example of Christ. The passage, written with singular lucidity and penetration, is unfortunately too long for quotation. Here, as in many places, Hus speaks strongly of the pride and arrogance of the clergy.

At the end of the chapter Hus addresses a warning to the clergy. Should they persist in their pride, "you will," he writes, "be judged and condemned, and your prayer will be as a sin. Your days will be short, and another will take your place. O priest, give up your pride, be meek like Jesus, and you will be glorified like He (was)! Suffer insult, robbery, abuse, blows. Be ready to die for Christ, and give up warfare, which is a very uncertain path to salvation."

The treatise entitled Dcerka (Daughter), also known as the treatise "on the true road to salvation," dates from about the same time as the Expositions. It was addressed to some pious ladies who lived in common in a house near the Bethlehem chapel, and to whom Hus also wrote a letter, which has been preserved. The treatise has been called the Daughter, from the fact that each of the ten chapters begins with the words, "Listen, daughter, and see, and incline thine ear." In a short preface Hus very clearly explains the purpose of the book. He writes: "Listen, daughter, who hast promised Christ (to retain) virginity. Listen, daughter, and incline your ear, and know that I wish you to know yourself, knowing in whose similitude you were created; secondly (I wish) you to know your conscience; thirdly, the wretchedness of this world; fourthly, the temptations of our earthly existence; fifthly, the three enemies (the body, the world, and the devil); the sixth point on which I insist is that you should truly do penance; the seventh, that you should value the dignity of your soul; the eighth, that you should assiduously look to the coming judgment; the ninth, that you should value the eternal life; the tenth, that you should love our Lord God more than anything." Hus then deals with each of these points in one of the ten chapters of the book.

Somewhat later than the Expositions, and the Daughter, Hus published his celebrated treatise, O SavtokupectvÍ, on "traffic in holy things," or simony, which he completed on September 2, 1413. This valuable book is written in a manner similar to that of the works mentioned above, but the polemical tendency is here yet more evident, for Hus is here treating of the great plague-spot of his time. The constant note of just indignation renders the book very striking, and it would—as Mr. Wratislaw has truly remarked—well bear translation as a whole. I shall, from want of space, be unable to give more than one quotation. In Chapter IV. Hus deals with the question, Can a Pope be guilty of simony? He writes: "Let us see if it is possible for a Pope to be a simoniac. Some say it is impossible, for he is the lord of the whole world, who is entitled to take what he wishes and do what he wishes. Therefore is he the most holy father whom sin cannot touch? Now, you must know that many Popes were heretics, and generally bad, and they were deprived of the papal dignity. Therefore be not in doubt that the Pope can be a simoniac. And if some one maintain that he cannot commit simony or any deadly sin, then he must desire to raise him higher than St. Peter or the other Apostles. And to the argument that he (the Pope) is the lord of the whole world, who may take what he will and do what he will, I will answer that there is but one Lord of the whole world who cannot sin, and whose right it is to rule and do as He will, and that Lord is the Almighty God. And further, if, according to the argument, it is said that the Pope is the most holy father, whom sin cannot touch, I deny this; for one only is our most Holy Father, the Lord God, whom sin cannot touch."

After maintaining that it is possible for a Pope to be a simoniac, Hus continues thus: "Let us see in what manner he (the Pope) can be a simoniac. He can be so, firstly, if he desires the papal dignity for the sake of riches and of worldly advantage. No rank in Christendom, indeed, is nearer to a fall. For if he (the Pope) does not follow Christ and Peter in his way of life more than others (do), then he should be called not a successor, but an adversary of the Apostles. Therefore every one who strives for this dignity for the advantage of his person or for worldly honours is infected with simony. The second manner of committing simony consists in the various regulations which he (the Pope) issues for his bodily advantage and contrary to God's law, perhaps not openly, but they are regulations that may lead to something contrary to God's law. And is it not contrary to God's regulations that the Pope should decree that his cooks, porters, equerries, footmen, should have first claim on the most important benefices, even in lands of which they do not know the language? And again, that no one can announce anything (in church) if he has not paid down money, and whatever similar arrangements may be made. The third manner in which a Pope can commit simony consists in appointing bishops or rectors for the sake of money; and that case has been made quite clear to us recently, when many thousands of florins were paid down for the Archbishopric of Prague."[51]

At the end of the same chapter Hus refers to the question of indulgences, which from his time to that of Martin Luther was ever before the Christian world. He writes: "With regard to the giving indulgences for money, St. Peter has sufficiently shown that they are worthless when he refused to give for money to Simon the power to lay his hands on people, so that they might receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; no, the Apostles laid their hands on the people, not for money, but gratuitously for their salvation; obeying the words of their Saviour, who said, 'Freely ye have received, freely give.' And thus they worthily received the Holy Ghost, for the Apostles were worthy bishops, and the people who truly believed truly repented their sins."

The last of the great works of Hus, and also the last one which I shall mention, is the Postilla, which Hus finished about the month of September 1413. It may be considered more popular in manner than his other Bohemian works, and, written so shortly before his death, it was long revered as the testament, or the "last will," of the great Bohemian divine. The book consists of expositions, or, as perhaps they should rather be called, sermons, explaining the evangel of each Sunday in the year. The Bible being then very scarce in Bohemia, the text from the Bible which is referred to precedes in every case the exposition or reading (Ctenie), as Hus himself worded it. The indignation against the corruption of the Roman Church, which becomes more accentuated in each successive work of Hus, finds here its strongest expression. "The evil priests," he writes, "do not tell the people that Christ said, 'If you do not repent your sins you will all perish.' They have so obscured the truth, which is Christ, that preachers mention the Pope more than Christ, and they praise and defend the institution of papacy more than the law of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore are His faithful sons oppressed in the lands; for in Bohemia, in Moravia, in Meissen, in England, and elsewhere there is much suffering, as I know. They murder, torture, and curse faithful priests, and it is useless to appeal to Rome; there indeed is the summit of the wickedness of Antichrist, that is, pride, lewdness, avarice, and simony; thus has simony and avarice poured from Rome into Bohemia."

Of more general interest than any other work of Hus are the collections of his Latin and Bohemian letters, and they are perhaps his only writings that will appeal strongly to modern readers. They also, more clearly than any other work, bring out the real individuality of the great Bohemian reformer. His sincere and unostentatious piety, his sometimes almost childlike simplicity, his very touching humility, the warm friendship of which he assures his friends, the unconditional forgiveness which he extends to his enemies, all these appear very clearly in these letters, in which Hus never writes ex cathedra. I nowhere more regret that limited space will oblige me to restrict my quotations. The letters of Hus that have been preserved extend from July 1408 to within a few days of his death. Those written while in exile from Prague and those from prison at Constance have the greatest value. Of the earlier letters a Latin one, addressed to "Master Richard the Englishman," dating from the year 1410, deserves notice. Though it is usually stated that the family name of Hus's correspondent was "Fitz," it appears very probable that the person addressed was Richard Wyche, a chaplain who was about this time accused of being a Lollard, and who was—according to Foxe—burnt for the same cause in 1439. Richard Wyche had sent a letter to Hus and the Bohemians, admonishing them to remain steadfast in the faith. In his answer Hus writes: "Preaching before nearly ten thousand people, I said, 'See, beloved brethren, what interest in your salvation faithful preachers in foreign countries take, they who are ready to shed out their whole heart, if only they can preserve us in the law of Christ,' and I added, 'Our most beloved brother Richard, the associate of Master John Wycliffe in his evangelical work, has written you such a comforting letter, that even had I no other written assurance, I should be ready to risk my life for Christ's Gospel, and I will do so with the help of our Lord Jesus Christ!' The faithful of Christ were so inflamed by this letter that they begged me to translate it into the language of our country.

"I do not know what further I should write to your reverence. I am not able to instruct those who are far more learned than I; by what words can one who is weaker comfort those who are stronger soldiers of Christ? What, then, shall I say? You have taken all words of Christian instruction from my mouth. It only remains for me to beg of you help by means of prayer, and to render thanks for all the good which, through your labours and by the help of Jesus Christ, Bohemia has received from blessed (benedicta) England."

Hus's letters from exile, as already mentioned, were very numerous. During his absence the adherents of the papal party endeavoured to suppress the religious services in the Bethlehem Chapel, and some Germans had even made an attempt to destroy the chapel. In a Bohemian letter addressed to the citizens of Prague Hus refers to this matter: "God be with you, dear sirs and masters," he writes. "I beg of you firstly to consider this matter before God, to whom great wrong is done; for they wish to suppress His holy word, to destroy a chapel that is useful for [the teaching of] the word of God, and thus to frustrate the salvation of the people; secondly, consider the insult to your land, your nation, or race. In the third place, only consider the shame and wrong which undeservedly is done to yourselves. Fourthly, consider and endure cheerfully that the devil rages against you and Antichrist snarls at you, for he will not harm you if you are lovers of God's truth. Indeed he has raged against me for many years, and yet I trust to God he has not harmed a hair on my head; rather has my happiness and content increased." The letter ends with these words: "Therefore, considering these things, and placing truth and the praise of God foremost and living worthily in charity, let us resist the lie of Antichrist to the end; for we have with us as a helper our Almighty Saviour, whom no one can vanquish, and who will not desert us as long as we do not desert Him; He will then give us the eternal reward... I have written this down for you, as I cannot well come to you, so that the priests who endeavour to stop the religious services may not harm your minds."

Many letters written by Hus at Constance have been preserved; some date from the time when he was still at liberty, others from the period when he was imprisoned in the Dominican monastery, and afterwards in that of the Franciscans. During his stay at Gottlieben he was, as already mentioned, entirely prohibited from writing. In the first of the letters written from the dungeon in the Dominican monastery addressed to the citizens of Prague, and dated January 19, 1415, Hus refers to the severe illness which had befallen him in consequence of the unhealthy condition of his prison. The letter, which is written in Bohemian, begins thus: "May the Lord God be with you that you may persevere in your resistance to evil, to the devil, to the world, and to the flesh.

"Beloved brethren, I write to you while sitting in prison, but I am not ashamed, for I suffer hopefully for the sake of the Lord God who has graciously visited me with a severe illness and has again restored me to health, and who has permitted that those should become my bitter enemies to whom I have done much good and whom I have sincerely loved.[52] I beg of you to pray for me to the Lord God, that He may deign to be with me; for it is on Him and on your prayers that I rely to remain unto death in His grace. If the Lord deigns now to call me to Him, may His holy will be fulfilled; and if He deigns to return me to you, then also be His holy will fulfilled! Verily I am now much in want of help; but I know that God will submit me to no misfortune or temptation except such as are for my own and for your benefit, so that having been tried and found steadfast we may obtain a great reward... I have no one to advise me except our merciful Lord Jesus, who said to His faithful: I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to resist. Dearly beloved, remember that I have worked with you with great devotion, and that I am anxious for your salvation even now when I am in prison and suffering grievous persecution."

Want of space obliges me to quote but from one other letter of Hus, written in prison, though they all well deserve to be better known. This is the letter written on June 10th, two days after his trial before the Council had ended. Hus was then in expectation of immediate death, though, as already stated, attempts were still made to obtain his recantation, and his execution only took place on July 6th. The letter, also written in Bohemian, is addressed "To the whole Bohemian nation." Hus writes: "Faithful in God, men and women, rich and poor, I beg and entreat you to love the Lord God, praise His word, hear it gladly, and live according to it. Cling, I beg you, to the divine truth, which I have preached to you according to God's law. I also beg that if any one has heard either in my sermons or privately anything contrary to God's truth, or if I have written anything such—which, I trust to God, is not the case—he should not retain it. I further beg, then, if any one has seen levity in me in word or deed he should not retain it; but let him pray to God for me that God may forgive me. I beg you to love, praise, and honour those priests who lead a moral life, those in particular who strive for God's word. I beg you to beware of crafty people, particularly of unworthy priests, of whom our Saviour has said they are clothed like sheep, but are invariably greedy wolves. I beg the nobles to treat the poor people kindly and rule them justly. I beg the burghers to conduct their business honestly. I beg the artisans to perform their labours conscientiously. I beg the servants to serve their master and mistress faithfully. I beg the teachers to live honestly, to instruct their pupils carefully, to love God above all; for the sake of His glory and the good of the community, not from avarice and worldly ambition should they teach. I beg the students and other scholars to obey and follow their masters in everything that is good, and to study diligently for the praise of God, for their own salvation, and for that of others."

Hus then mentions by name the Bohemian and Polish noblemen present at the Council who had afforded him aid, and expresses his thanks to them. He then refers to his sovereign, King Wenceslas, and more particularly to Queen Sophia, who had always aided the cause of Hus, as far as it had been in her power. He then continues: "I write this while in fetters, expecting my sentence of death to-morrow, full of hope in God, resolved not to recede from the divine truth nor to recant errors which false witnesses have invented and attributed to me. How God has acted towards me, how He is with me during all my troubles, that you will only know when, by the grace of God, we shall meet again in heaven." It is touching to notice that the imminent vicinity of death by no means lessened Hus's interest in his beloved Bethlehem Chapel. Towards the end of the letter from which I have already quoted he writes: "I beg all of you, particularly you men of Prague, to be careful of Bethlehem as long as the Lord God will permit that God's word be preached there. The devil has been much incensed against that spot, and he has stirred up parsons and canons against it, well knowing that that spot is hostile to his kingdom. I trust in God that he will graciously deign to preserve that spot, and that he will obtain there greater advantages by means of others than was possible through so feeble a person as I am."

From the time of Hus to the present day it has constantly been attempted to define his doctrine, and to trace the origin of the opinions that are peculiar to him. According to one theory, the teaching of Hus did not aim at a reform of the Church in the manner of the later Church reformers, but was rather an endeavour to return to the Eastern Church, from which Bohemia first received the Christian doctrine. In the seventeenth century Paul Stransky[53] wrote that even after the Latin rites had been generally accepted in Bohemia, "humble people and the populace, contented with the former religious institutions of their land, tenaciously adhered to the rites of the Greek Church." The same theory has in the present century been maintained by Eugene Novikov, Hilferding, and other Russian writers. The patient and thorough investigation of this matter by modern Bohemian historians, particularly by PalackÝ, Dr. Kalousek, and Dr. Goll, has, however, proved to a certainty that all reminiscences of the Eastern Church had in Bohemia died out before the time of Hus.

It would be natural to attribute Hus's peculiar views principally to the influence of the writers of his own country who immediately preceded him and who have been noticed in the last chapter. It is therefore surprising to note that Milic, ŠtitnÝ, and Matthew of Janov are scarcely noticed in the works of Hus that have been preserved. It has, however, been conjectured that further references to them may have been contained in the lost works of Hus. In sharp contrast with this independence of the writings of his countrymen is the strong influence of Wycliffe on the ideas and writings of Hus, which the recent publication of many of Wycliffe's works has rendered yet more evident. It is certain that the works of Hus, specially those written in Latin, contain lengthy extracts from Wycliffe's writings, and that many of the leading ideas of Hus can be traced to the same source. This fact has been strongly brought forward by Professor Loserth, who has quoted in parallel columns passages from Hus's treatise, De Ecclesia, and passages from Wycliffe's treatise of the same name, which are identical. In a lesser degree Loserth has found this dependence on Wycliffe also in other works of Hus. The German professor, however, deals principally with the Latin works of Hus, whereas his Bohemian writings—though the influence of Wycliffe can here also be traced—are far more independent and original. It must also be remembered that in the fifteenth and even the sixteenth century the modern ideas with regard to literary property were unknown. Many writers, particularly on theology, incorporated with their works whole pages from the writings of their predecessors, and this without any acknowledgment. It would also be incorrect to imagine that Hus followed Wycliffe blindly. He indeed writes: "I hold those true doctrines which Master John Wycliffe, professor of holy theology, held, not because he said these things, but because the Holy Scripture says them." On the important question of transubstantiation Hus, differing herein from Wycliffe, upheld the teaching of the Church of Rome. It must further be considered that in many cases ideas common to Hus and to the English reformer can be traced far farther back. This matter has been fully expounded by the recent foreign and Bohemian writers on Hus. It will here be sufficient briefly to state that the disapproval of the enormous riches, of the arrogance and avarice of the higher members of the Roman clergy—so constantly expressed by Hus—can be traced back as far as to the German Emperor Frederick II. After Pope Innocent IV. had pronounced the Emperor's deposition in 1245 at the Council of Lyon, Frederick in a circular addressed to all princes declared "that it had always been his intention to reduce the ecclesiastics, particularly those of highest rank, to that state and condition in which they had been at the time of the primitive Church, that is, leading an apostolical life and imitating the humility of Christ."

In the following century Marsiglio of Padua in his celebrated work, Defensor Fidei, wrote strongly against the interference of the clergy in temporal matters. He already maintained that the Church consisted of the whole community of Christian men, be they ecclesiastics or laymen. The Pope, according to Marsiglio, can claim no right of supreme judgment in temporal matters, even over the clergy, and the "power of the keys" does not entitle him to place a man under civil disabilities by means of excommunication. Somewhat later, in his Dialogues, William of Ockham expressed similar opinions, though he did not go as far as Marsiglio.

If we endeavour briefly to define the ideas of Hus as far as they differ from the tenets of the Church of Rome—for on most points he was entirely in accord with that Church—we may state that his two leading ideas, closely connected with one another, are his theory of "Christ's law" and his conception of the "true Church." According to Hus the law of Christ, or "God's law"—an expression that afterwards became a watchword of the Hussites—is contained in the writings of the Old and New Testament, which contain all God's commands to man. The second fundamental principle of Hus is his conception of the true Church, which, according to him, consists of the totality of the elect. It is doubtful whether this theory was in direct opposition to the doctrine of the Church of Rome, in the development which it had reached in the fifteenth century. Long before his rupture with the Church, Hus, speaking before the archiepiscopal synod, had defined the "Ecclesia" as "PrÆdestinatorum Universitas." The head of this Church, according to Hus, is Christ, not the Pope, whose predecessors held no higher rank than other bishops.

It remains to cast a glance on the individuality and character of Hus. He has always been judged in a most opposite manner, according to the religious opinions of those who wrote about him. As Schiller has said of another very different, great Bohemian, it can be said of Hus too:—

I must rely on what I have already written, but principally on my extracts from the works of Hus, to bear witness for the sincere piety, the enthusiasm for the law of God, the patriotism, the humility and the sincerity of Hus. That he was faultless, I do not attempt to prove, and no one would have resented such an attempt more than the great Bohemian, who, in one of his last letters, begged those who might have heard that he had committed some offence against God's law, not to follow his example, but to pray God to forgive him. It is certain that Hus was imprudent when, by high-coloured descriptions of the misdeeds of their priests, he incensed the ignorant and excitable population of Prague. Neither can it be denied that—no doubt influenced by his firm belief that he was speaking in the name of Christ, not in his own—Hus sometimes showed traces of the self-willed obstinacy which the enemies of Bohemia have ever declared to be characteristic of its inhabitants.

Such slight blemishes, visible indeed to the modern writer, were not unnaturally ignored by the enthusiastic followers of Hus. To them he was "The Martyr," and the National Church of Bohemia, up to the time of its suppression in the seventeenth century, continued to celebrate the 6th of July, the anniversary of the death of Hus.

If, neglecting for a moment the minutiÆ of mediÆval theological controversy, we consider as a martyr that man who willingly sacrifices his individual life for what he firmly believes to be the good of humanity at large, who "takes the world's life on him and his own lays down," then assuredly there is no truer martyr in the world's annals than John of Husinec.

The name of Jerome of Prague was, particularly among older writers, so closely connected with that of Hus, that it would appear incorrect altogether to omit mentioning his name. He had by no means the great influence on the development of Hussitism in Bohemia—in which country he appeared but occasionally and for short periods—which was attributed to him before the studies of the present century had rendered the past history of Bohemia clearer. What influence he obtained was through his eloquence, not through his pen, so that his place in a history of Bohemian literature is a very modest one. One letter still preserved has been, on doubtful evidence, attributed to Jerome. It is more pleasing, at any rate, to doubt its authenticity. It is supposed to have been written after he had recanted his former opinions. In this letter (dated August 12, 1415), addressed to Lord Lacek of KravÁr, Jerome states that "the dead man (i.e. Hus) wrote many false and hurtful things."