church."* Conceiving the unity of the church in the more free and spiritual manner we have described, Huss was prepared also to understand more clearly the multifarious ways of appropriating Christianity, determined by the various peculiarities of individual character, and it is a fine remark which he makes on this subject when he says: "Some love Christ more in reference to his divinity, as we suppose to be the case with the evangelist John; others, more in reference to his humanity, as is thought to be true of Philip; others, more in reference to his body which is the church, and so in many other relations." Here, then, we find characterised three rρóτoι Taideias, three different bents of Christian experience; the predominant tendency to the godlike in Christ, the predominant bent to the human, and to his revelation in the church. Huss, in a conference with Paletz, had required a proof from holy Scripture in support of something the latter had asserted. Paletz and his associates seized upon this to bring home against him the charge, that he recognised merely the holy Scriptures, but not God, nor the apostles, nor holy teachers, nor the universal church, as judge in the final appeal. To this accusation Huss replies: "One thing Paletz must assuredly know, that in the matter of faith we agree neither with him, nor with any of his adherents, except so far as they can sustain themselves on the foundation of sacred Scripture or on reason." Huss, who showed his Christian freedom in this, that he felt bound to follow the Divine Word and reason independent of all other authority, and in opposition to all other, and who for this reason was accused of pride by those who stood up for a servile obedience to church authority, was, however, very far from being inclined to persist obstinately in holding an opinion which he had once expressed. He says: "Often have I allowed myself to be set right even by one of my own scholars, when I saw that the reasons were good, and I felt bound to thank him for the correction." § In this work we find laid down the four principles of reform which constitute the soul of the whole movement * De Ecclesia, Opp. I. fol. 230, 2. † Ibid. fol. 212, 2. Ibid. fol. 227, 1. § Sicut mihi frequentius acciderat, dum mandavi et doctus de meliori etiam gratanter informationem suscipiens discipulo obedivi. Ibid. fol. i. 247, 1. that proceeded from Huss; the germ and beginning of the four articles subsequently held fast by the more moderate portion of the Hussite party. To wit: in opposition to the charge that the people were led astray by his party, he says-1. It was their endeavour rather to make the Christian people one; to bring them into a harmonious unity by the law of Christ; 2. That antichristian ordinances should not delude the people, which could not divide them from Christ; but that the law of Christ in its purity should rule, together with the customs of the people which harmonised with the law of the Lord; 3. That the clergy should live pure, according to the law of Christ; should banish pomp, cupidity, and luxury; 4. That the militant church should consist of the orders instituted by our Lord, namely, the priests of Christ, who faithfully fulfilled his law, the secular nobles, who should compel the rest to observe Christian ordinances, and the lower class of people, who should serve both orders according to the law of Christ.* We would join, with what we have taken from the book of Huss on the church, what he said akin to this in the tract already mentioned as having been composed about this time and directed against Stanislaus of Znaim. Had he affirmed that a bad pope, who was a reprobate, could not be head of the church, his adversaries who were glad of a chance to carry spiritual matters over into politics, hoping thus to make the doctrines of Huss appear the more dangerous to secular authority, would have argued from it that the king of Bohemia then, if he were a præscitus, could not be king. And so Huss would have been held up to view as the representative of a radical and revolutionary party. But Huss uniformly declared himself opposed to this method of carrying the subject over into a wholly different province. Christ, he said, was the head in spiritual things, and governed the church in a far more necessary way than the emperor who was head in temporal things. For Christ, who is seated at the right hand of the Father, must necessarily govern the militant church as its head. Against the necessity of a visible head, Huss cited * De Ecclesia, Opp. I. fol. 231, 1. † Resp. ad Scr. Stanislai, Opp. I. fol. 277, 1. the papal female reign of the tenth century, the time of the vacancy in the papal chair.* Christ can better govern his church, says he, by his true disciples scattered through all the world, without such monsters of supreme heads.† The theological faculty had called the pope the secure, neverfailing, and all-sufficient refuge for his church. Against this Huss says: No created being can hold this place This language can be applied only to Christ. He alone is the secure, unfailing, and all-sufficient refuge for his church, to guide and enlighten it. And he appeals to the words of Christ, Without me ye can do nothing (John xv. 5). What sound views he entertained of the progressive advance of the church as a necessarily free progression, is evidenced by these words: "It injures not the church, but benefits it, that Christ is no longer present to it after a visible manner; since he himself says to his disciples and therefore to all their successors (John xvi. 7), It is good for you that I go away, for if I went not away, the Comforter would not come to you; but if I go, I will send him unto you." It is evident from this, as the truth itself testifies, that it was a salutary thing for the church militant that Christ should ascend from it to heaven, that so his longer protracted bodily and visible presence on earth might not be prejudicial to her.§ Accordingly he concludes that the church is sufficiently provided for in the invisible guidance, and should need no visible one by which she might be made dependent. Suppose, then, that the pope who walks visibly among men, were as good a teacher as that promised Spirit of truth, for which one need not to run to Rome or Jerusalem, since he is everywhere present, in that he fills the world. Suppose, also, that the pope were as secure, unfailing, and all-sufficient a refuge for all the sons of the church as that Holy Spirit, it would follow that you supposed a fourth person in the divine Trinity.|| Huss Resp. ad Scr. Stanislai, Opp. I. fol. 277, 1. Ibid. fol. 277, 2. || Ponat ergo doctor papam conversantem in humanis ita bonum doctorem, sicut bonus doctor est iste promissus spiritus veritatis, ad quem non est necesse Hierusalem vel Romam currere, cum sit ubique præsens, replens orbem terrarum. Ponat etiam doctor papam ita securum, certum et indeficiens, sed omnino sufficiens, refugium omnibus filiis ecclesiæ, sicut est iste Spiritus Sanctus, et dicam, quod posuit quartam personam in divinis. Ibid. fol. 283, 1. + Ibid. § Ibid. fol. 269, 1. sees clearly how the mistaken endeavour to secure unity to the church by externalisation, by making it dependent on a visible head, instead of operating as was intended to prevent heresies and divisions, provoked the contrary and multiplied them. "For," says he, "it is evident that the greatest errors and the greatest divisions have arisen by occasion of this head of the church, and that they have gone on multiplying to this day. For before such a head had been instituted by the emperor, the church was constantly adding to her virtues; but after the appointment of such a head, the evils have continually mounted higher; and there will be no end to all this, until this head, with its body, be brought back to the rule of the apostles." It was not Saracens, Greeks, and Jews alone that took umbrage at this; but since the schism between the popes, there had sprung up such divisions among the people, that few were to be found who agreed together in their walk according to the law of Christ. All true unity must have its foundation in Christ.* When the opponents of Huss, following the fashion of their age, resorted to a very arbitrary system of so-called philosophy and false analogies drawn from the organism of the body, to demonstrate the necessity of such an organism as that of the existing hierarchy, confounding together, as was so common in those times, philosophy and theology in a way equally injurious to both, Huss might justly accuse them of unwarrantably mixing up worldly wisdom with revealed truth, and substituting the water of a cistern for that of the living spring.† Of the only necessary and truly uninterrupted agency, in the church, of the Holy Spirit, Huss says: "This Spirit, in the absence of a visible pope, inspired prophets to predict the future bridegroom of the church, strengthened the apostles to spread the gospel of Christ through all the world, led idolaters to the worship of one only God, and ceases not, even until now, to instruct the bride and all her sons, to make them certain of all things and guide them in * Omnem vero concordiam veram et sanctam in militante ecclesia oportet esse in Christo domino in stabilitam. Resp. ad Scr. Stanislai, Opp. I. fol. 279, 1. Quis non conciperet ratione discutiens, quod hoc est cisternam extraneam, prætar aquam Christi fodere, philosophiam fallaciter cum scriptura sacra commiscere? Ibid. fol. 279, 2. To show that all things that are necessary for salvation."* the church may be governed best by organs ordained and guided by Christ, he says: "As the apostles and the priests of Christ ably conducted the affairs of the church in all things necessary to salvation, before the office of pope had yet been introduced, so they will do it again if it should happen, as it is quite possible it may, that no pope should exist, until the day of judgment; for Christ is able to govern his church, after the best manner, by his faithful presbyters, without a pope." So in pointing out the contrast between pious priests and the cardinals, he says: "The cardinals, occupied with worldly business, cannot teach and guide, by sermons, in the articles of faith and the precepts of the Lord, the members of the universal church and of our Lord Jesus Christ. But the poor and lowly priests of Christ, who have put away out of their hearts all ambition, and all ungodliness of the world, being themselves guided by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, teach and guide the sons of the church, quickened by the grace of the Holy Spirit, and give them certainty in the articles of faith and the precepts necessary to salvation." He shows how the church has all that it needs in the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and ought to require nothing else; nothing else can be a substitute for that. Stanislaus of Znaim had affirmed that the church could not have been left by Christ without a visible head, for it would be leaving her in a condition of too great embarrassment. Huss replies: "Far be it from our hearts ever to utter a sentiment so heretical as this; for it directly contradicts the declarations of the gospels. How can the church be embarrassed, when she has the bridegroom with her to the end of the world; when she has a sure * Ille ergo spiritus, nullo papa conversante in humanis visibiliter, prophetas aspiravit, ut sponsum futurum ecclesiæ præcinerent, apostolos confortavit, ut Christi evangelium per mundum veherent, idolatras ad cultum revocavit, et nunc non deficit ipsam sponsam et omnes ejus filios informare, certificare ac dirigere in necessariis ad salutem. Resp. ad Scr. Stanis. Opp. I. fol. 283, 1. + Sicut apostoli et fideles sacerdotes Domini strenue in necessariis ad salutem regularunt ecclesiam, antequam papæ officium fuerat introductum, sic facerent, deficiente per summe possibile papa, usque ad diem judicii; cum ipse Christus potest suam ecclesiam optime per suos fideles presbyteros regere sine papa. Ibid. fol. 283, 2. Ibid. VOL. IX. 2 G |