A Bohemian princess, Anna, sister to king Wenceslaus, had married Richard II., king of England.* This would of course lead the way to more familiar intercourse between the two nations; and the disciples of Wickliff, who were enthusiastic in their endeavours to diffuse the writings, the philosophical and theological doctrines, of their master, would assuredly not fail to take advantage of such an opening for this purpose. The connection also between the two flourishing universities, which doubtless, independently of this event, was a lively one, would be still more promoted by it. Young English theologians came from Oxford to Prague. Bohemians studied in Oxford, and were there seized with enthusiasm for the doctrines of Wickliff; though we should not lose sight of the fact, that Wickliff was not merely the representative of a particular theological bent, but also by philosophical writings, having no connection whatever with the theological interest, and particularly by his work already mentioned, which created an epoch of its own, the treatise on the reality of general conceptions, was one of the most important representatives of the philosophical school of realism; and, though with him, as we have seen, the philosophical and theological interest, philosophical and theological principles were intimately connected, yet this was not at all a necessary connection in itself; and one might adopt the philosophical opinions of Wickliff, esteem him highly as a philosopher, without agreeing with him on that account in his theological views. From this it is the more easily to be explained how Wickliff's writings might already for a long time have been considerably read at the university of Prague, without creating any ecclesiastical movements whatever, or rendering the orthodoxy of those persons suspected, who occupied themselves with the study of certain writings of Wickliff. Huss himself declares, in a paper composed about the year 1411,† that for thirty years,

therefore from the year 1381-writings of Wickliff were read at Prague university, and that he himself had been in

* She was in the habit of reading the New Testament; and carried with her to England a book of the gospels in the Latin, German, and Bohemian tongues. Comp. Palacky III. 1, p. 24.

† Replica contra Anglicum Joannem Stokes, Opp. I. fol. 108.

the habit of reading them for more than twenty years, that is, before the year 1391.*

It is evident, from what has been said, that the spread of Wickliff's writings in Prague fell within the last years of the life of Matthias of Janow; yet, although traces perhaps of a reference to doctrines of Wickliff may be discovered in his work already noticed, still he must have occupied himself but very little with them, and they must have exercised little or no particular influence on his mind. He pursued his course after an independent manner in the path to which the suggestions that came originally from Militz had conducted him. But Huss, as we may gather with certainty from his own language already cited, had at a very early period read many of Wickliff's writings. What attracted him in these writings was partly the philosophical realism, partly the spirit of reform as opposed to the secularisation of the church, of the monastic orders, and of the clergy, which they contained, and that inclination to adhere to the New Testament as the only source of doctrine, the striving after a renovation of the Christian life in the sense of apostolical Christianity. Let us hear the words of Huss himself on this point: "I am drawn to him,” he says, "by the reputation he enjoys with the good, not the bad priests, at the university of Oxford, and generally with the people, though not with the bad, covetous, pomp-loving, dissipated prelates and priests. I am attracted by his writings, in which he expends every effort to conduct all men back to the law of Christ, and especially the clergy, inviting them to let go the pomp and dominion of the world and live with the apostles according to the life of Christ. I am attracted by the love which he had for the law of Christ, maintaining its truth and holding that not one jot or tittle of it could fail." He mentions here in particular for illustration the

* Universitas ab annis triginta habet et legit libros ipsius Joan. Wicleff. Egoque et membra nostræ universitatis habemus et legimus illos libros ab annis viginti et pluribus. Replica contra, &c.

† Movent me sua scripta, quibus nititur toto conamine, omnes homines ad legem Christi reducere, et clerum præcipue, ut dimittendo sæculi pompam, dominationem vivat cum apostolis vitam Christi. Movet me affectus suus, quem ad Christi legem habuit, asserens de veritate ejus, quæ non potest in uno iota vel apice fallere. Ibid. fol. 109, 1.

book composed by Wickliff, on the truth of holy Scripture, in which he endeavoured to establish the validity of the law of Christ in its whole extent. And he then adverts to the fact that many of Wickliff's writings were on purely philosophical subjects, which, as they did not at all affect the truths of faith, could be read without danger. It is evident, therefore, that Huss agreed with Wickliff only up to that point to which his interest for reform had already led him in following the steps of Matthias of Janow. To Wickliff, as we have seen, his attack on the doctrine of transubstantiation, and his peculiar views of the Lord's supper, were of especial importance; but we do not perceive that these had had any particular influence on Huss. On this matter he never passed beyond what was simply practical;-as already seen, he gave special prominence to the spiritual fellowship with Christ, to the truth that he himself is the bread of the soul, without entering more minutely into the question about the relation of the bread and wine to the body and blood of Christ.* Huss may

* We find nothing in the writings of Huss which indicates that, in respect of this doctrine, he had, as Palacky supposes, (III. 1, s. 197 and 198), through the influence of Wickliff, been at least led to waver, and did not, till a later period, take a decidedly different view from Wickliff on this point. In general, we think we have not observed that Huss allowed himself to be determined in his doctrinal convictions at first more and afterwards less by the influence of Wickliff. It seems to us much more to correspond with the actual course of the development of his doctrinal opinions to suppose that he was led by his principles and the opposition which grew out of them, step by step farther away from the church tendency, and not that he was more decided in his opposition at the beginning, and afterwards grew milder. Even, on the occasion of his trial at Prague, in 1414, of which a protocol, drawn up by Peter of Mladenowitz, secretary to the knight of Chlum, has been published in the Studien und Kritiken (Jahrg. 1837, Heft 1), Huss absolutely repels the charge that he had ever attacked the doctrine of transubstantiation. Huss here declares that he could not possibly have spoken before the people in the Bohemian tongue on the accidentibus sine subjecto, because this language contained no terms whatever by which such a conception could be expressed: but he had said, guarding against any misinterpretation of his language, that as a man's body is veiled under his shirt, so the body of Christ is, in a certain sense, veiled beneath the form of the bread, and as the soul is concealed within the body, so the body of Christ is concealed under the figure of the bread. And he appeals for proof to the language of an ancient hymn, and to

have had the less hesitation, about availing himself of the writings of Wickliff, inasmuch as two young men, who came from Oxford to Prague,-one an Englishman,* the other a Bohemian, probably the count Nicholas of Faulfisch, hereafter to be mentioned, had brought with them a document authenticated by the seal of the university of Oxford, in which Wickliff's orthodoxy was duly testified. Huss is reported to have read this document from the pulpit to his congregation as a testimonial in favour of that Wickliff who had been denounced as a heretic. Now it is evident, we admit, that such a declaration was altogether opposed to the spirit of the academical authorities who then ruled at Oxford. It was a forgery, to which the seal of the university had been fraudulently appended-the fabrication of false documents of this sort being at that time no un

words of St. Augustin, which mark a distinction between that which faith perceives, and that which is manifest to the senses in the Lord's supper. That when he speaks of a forma panis, he means to intimate the remaining behind of the substance, cannot be proved. He affirms, that when he spoke of the remaining behind of the bread in the Lord's supper, he meant only Christ the heavenly bread, which is offered in the sacrament. Now we might, it is true, suspect that Huss took the liberty to conceal his real opinion in this ambiguous phraseology, or that he, at a later period, resorted to sophistical interpretations of the language earlier used by him; but still we shall find no ground whatever to accuse him of any such thing. It is, in fact, one of the particulars which characterise the practical bent peculiar to Huss, to give special prominence to the statement that Christ himself is the bread of the soul in the Lord's supper, and if now he ever laid the whole stress upon this, it may have been interpreted by his opponents as if he always spoke only of the bread present in the Lord's supper. In fact we find that Huss afterwards, in a paper hereafter to be cited, was actually under the necessity of vindicating himself against such a perversion of his language, and of explaining his real meaning.

* We have taken no notice of the story about a picture drawn by the two Englishmen on the walls of a room which they had hired, which exhibited the contrast between the worldly entrance of the pope into Rome, and the entrance of Christ into Jerusalem, the so-called Antithesis Christi et Antichristi, and of the commotions to which it led; because we do not certainly know that the narrative of the Hussite historian, Theobald, which, in other respects, contains many inaccurate statements, is to be relied upon, and we have found in the writings of Huss himself no allusion whatever to this affair, which he is said to have touched upon in his sermons at that time.

common thing at Oxford;* but it is certain that Huss him self was deceived in this case; he could know nothing about this manufactory of false documents at Oxford, and his admiration of Wickliff might in this case easily incline him to believe without further examination.† Furthermore, the struggle for and against Wickliff, as well as the antagonism of realism and nominalism, was an affair of national interest. Under the emperor Charles IV., king of Bohemia, the founder of the university of Prague, many Germans had resorted thither, obtained important posts, and sought to gain on their own side the greatest influence at the uuiversity. This circumstance had excited great jealousy betwixt the two nations. Much enthusiasm was awakened at that time among the Bohemians for the maintenance of their own nationality in language and literature. Among the peculiar qualities of Huss belonged an ardent love of his country and people. His efforts for the cultivation of the Bohemian language and orthography were praised by those competent to judge, and his influence in this regard is said to have extended even to other Sclavic populations. Now as the Germans were zealous nominalists, so the Bohemians, on the other hand, were no less zealous realists, and the Bohemian theologians at the university were at first more inclined to the freer opinions and in favour of Wickliff. It was the Bohemian theo

* The seal of the university of Oxford was much abused in those days. Petras Paganus or Payne, a clergyman, had contrived to get it into his hands, and used it for the purpose of lending an appearance of authenticity to that paper got up in favour of Wickliff, as if it were an official document. See Wood, Historia et Antiquitates, Universitatis Oxoniensis, I. p. 203.

† When Huss, at his trial in Constance, on the 8th of June, was accused of publishing and using such a fraudulent document of Englishmen, he was able to make a clear and simple statement of the whole affair in justification of his conduct in the case, and to appeal to the testimony of his earlier like-minded friend, Stephen Paletz, who had been equally deceived with himself, and who now appeared at Constance as his accuser. Quumque confessus esset, propterea quod sub signo universitatis a duobus scholasticis allata esset, illique etiam de iis scholasticis quærerent, respondit: Ille amicus meus (significabat autem Stephanum Paletz) alterum ex iis æque novit atque ego, alter nescio qui fuerit. Hermann v. d. Hardt Acta Concilii Constantiensis tom. IV. p. 328. See Palacky, III. 1 S. 298 ff.