A Summative Assessment of Jan Hus Focusing on his
Contribution to the Church both then and now, and his Contribution to the Development
of Christian Theology.
Abstract
Hus preached the word to the people of Bohemia, He steered
them towards biblical truth, spoke against abuses, and was persecuted and
burned alive by the religious authorities. While he did not manage to divest
himself of all religious tradition, he was an important precursor to the
Reformers, inspiring both them, and the people of the Czech Republic ever
since. In more recent times he has been approved of by people from many
branches of Christianity.
Jan Hus, mostly following Wycliff, preached the Word of God
to the well-prepared Bohemian people, condemned wicked aspects of the church,
inspired the Reformers, and inspired the Czech people.
Born circa 1369[1] in
Husinetz in the Kingdom of Bohemia, Jan Hus was a learned and studious man,
although it has been suggested his fondness for chess was often a distraction.
He earned himself a B.A., B.D. and an M.A. Over time, Hus served God in varied
capacities: as a rector in the University of Prague, as a preacher in the
Bethlehem Chapel, as a philosopher and a theologian who sought biblical truth,
and most notably as one of the earliest reformers to challenge the papacy.[2]
Before Hus began his exegetical communications to the
assembled crowds there were some notable men who had provided Bohemia with
exceptional spiritual nourishment: Konrad of Waldhausen, Milicz of Kremsier and
Matthias of Janow.[3]
In fact there was a mass exodus from the
churches of the Mendicant orders due to blandis sermonibus. This
prepared the ground for Hus to bring the Gospel and reform to God’s Bohemian
elect.[4]
The reform Hus brought was to steer the church of Bohemia
back to biblical truths and foundations.[5] He castigated those in ecclesiastical office
who were misusing privileges and living lives which were inappropriate for
clergy. Simony was a common practice to which
Hus was vocally opposed.[6] Hus also called the laity to reform by
invoking them to consider their consciences and to live lives in keeping with
repentance. His popularity in Bohemia
was such that when he was excommunicated by one of the popes a riot broke out. Eventually Prague was excommunicated and he
was required to leave for a time.[7]
There were problems with the papacy, the church and the
inquisition at the time of Hus, and he opposed the prevailing conditions in
these institutions.
Relying upon Augustine’s
definition that the church is the body of the elect, they [Wycliff and Hus]
contested the proposition that what the visible church teaches must be believed
because the church teaches it. They turned away from an infallible pope and
infallible visible church to the living Christ, who rules personally in the
hearts of believers and in the scriptures. They questioned or denied the
church’s right to punish heretics and schismatics with physical punishments.[8]
Hus challenged the papal tradition that Peter was the head of
the church and appealed to Augustinian theology for inspiration. Hus, like Augustine, believed that Christ is
the rock on which the church is built and that the correct definition of the
church is the body of the elect.
At the early period Huss
took the ground he afterward assumed in his Treatise on the Church, that not
Peter, but Christ, is the rock on which the church is built. In favour of this
interpretation, he quoted the famous passage from Augustine’s Retractations and
confirmed it from 1 Corinthians 3. . . . He refers to the abuse of the power of
the keys and claims for all the Apostles equally the right of loosing and
binding. In these sermons the church is defined as the whole number of the
elect – totus numerous predestinatorum.[9]
Praha makes mention of this in his paper and notes that there
is much agreement between Hus and Wycliff in their writings and arguments of
the definition of the church and he states that they deny the existence and
functioning of the church as an institution.[10] Hus was well versed in the theology of Wycliff
and did agree with him on many points. They both believed that every elect
person should participate in communion. However
he did differ from Wycliff in his theology behind communion; Hus was in favour
of transubstantiation.[11]
Another way in which Hus was closer to Catholic views that
Wycliff was in his continued veneration of Mary. He preached many sermons about
her and he taught that she was in God’s presence interceding for sinners. He
also believed that she ascended into heaven but was uncertain “whether Mary
ascended in soul only or enveloped with her body”.[12]
When Hus was a student he purchased an indulgence but later
in his life he came to the realisation that this practice was unbiblical and
unnecessary. Schaff made mention that Hus was opposed to the sale of
indulgences.[13]
Hus took an interest in eschatology, particularly in the
passage of the abomination of desolation in Matthew 24:15.[14]
Hus started to question the authority of the church and the pope.
Hus saw the Scriptures as the highest
authority and if a pope or clergyman was acting in contradiction to the Word of
God then he need not be obeyed.[15] In his De Ecclesia Hus stated “. . . he who
commands ought only to command things in agreement with the law, and the person
obeying ought to the same extent to obey them and never act contrary to the
will of God Almighty”.[16]
In 1414 Hus travelled under safe conduct, provided by Emperor
Sigismund, to the church council at Konstanz. By this time Hus had been
declared a heretic. “The charges against Hus were that he had disobeyed the
discipline of the church and rejected sundry of its doctrinal tenets.”[17] Hus
was condemned without a trial and burnt at the stake on the 6th July
1415. Erasmus said that “Hus was burned
but he was not convicted”.[18]
One hundred and four years after the death of Hus, Martin
Luther was acquainted with writings of the man he was taught had been a
heretic. Accused of being a Hussite, Luther
delved into Hus’s De Ecclesia and realised that indeed he was, at least on many
of the major theological points. This
had an impact on Luther’s theological ideas that would be invaluable for the
German reformation.[19]
Lubomir Batka, who wrote a paper describing the theology of
Hus from a Lutheran view point said, “Luther's enthusiasm for Hus does not
relate to all central aspects of Hus' teaching. Luther moved beyond Hus'
understanding of original sin, of medieval ecclesiology and piety, of the law
of Christ and of the difference between the visible and invisible church. These
changes are based on the importance Luther ascribed to the external word of the
preached gospel. This is what changes the heart of the sinner and creates faith,
the church, and life everlasting.”[20]
In more recent times it has been suggested that Hus was
focused on the reformation of the church. Paul Kubricht, in a paper, gave a brief
insight into this opinion: “Matthew
Spinka, the leading American scholar on Hus has written: "His [Hus]
overwhelming motive was the reformation of the church; his theology was only a
means to this end." Hus felt he had a spiritual call and purpose to his
activity and noted that he, in his own life, had undergone a change in values
and goals that led him to focus on the less worldly concerns of life.”[21]
Among Hus’ critics is Thomas Fudge, an historian specialising
in medieval and reformation history. Thomas
Fudge has claimed that “Jan Hus and the Hussites in the sixteenth century were
mainly utilities both in the hands of their admirers and their detractors. The historical, theological, social and
religious realities of Hus and the Hussites were of secondary importance at
best.”[22] If that were the case, there would be little
talk about Hus and his followers, and his plight would not have encouraged the
Reformers, like Luther, to the extent that it did.
The Polish-American historian, Piotr Wandycz, has made the
point that the Czech reformation, instigated by Hus, and the Hussite movement,
was an inspiration for the Czech people in more recent history. This was important for nationalism going into
and coming out of Communism.
The Hussite upheaval was
variously appraised as part of an all-European crisis that surfaced first in
Bohemia, or as a manifestation of specifically Czech conditions; as a
pre-Reformation or Czech reformation; and as a national or bourgeois
revolution. It was perhaps the most important single development in Czech
history. Both universal and native elements mingled to produce a revolution
that affected religion, culture, politics, economy, and society. Even if a
certain mythology grew around it, Hussitism served as an inspiration for Czech
democratic tradition in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.[23]
It is also worthy to note that Hus played another important
role in the history of Bohemia. Wandycz
propounded, “Hus’s contribution to the Czech language, its grammar and
spelling, is comparable to Luther’s impact on the German tongue. A Czech
translation of the Bible was preceded only by German and Italian, and followed
by the French. Hussite influences were responsible for the first translation of
the Bible into Hungarian”.[24]
On a more recent and international scale Hus has received
acclaim from participants in various theological traditions. Vilem stated “Hus was recognized as a saint by the
Eastern Orthodox Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, and has been honored
as God's witness by Reformed churches and, since its inception, by the
Czechoslovak Hussite Church”.[25] In recent years the Vatican has been
considering changing the views it currently holds regarding Jan Hus. In 1996 an
article appeared in the periodical Christian Centuary stating that, “Several
Roman Catholic experts have urged Pope John Paul II –who during a visit to
Prague in 1990 spoke of Hus’s ‘personal integrity of life’ – to condemn the
treatment of Hus”.[26]
The contribution Hus has made to the church over the
centuries has been to impact in a penetrative yet humbling way through the
inspiration of the example he set. “John
Hus was condemned . . . and they supposed that his name was obliterated
forever. Yet now he is shining forth
with such glory that his cause and his teaching have to be praised before the
whole world, while the pope’s cause lies ignominiously in the manure.”[27]
Hus was inspired by Wycliff, and intur inspired the Reformers
and the Czech people. He preached God’s word, and highlighted abuses in the
Catholic church. Hus was against unspiritual institution, and an advocate for
the body of Christ. “The blood of the
martyr produced seed. The ink of the scholar brought forth substance and the
‘man’ made ‘saint’ in the hands of others gave birth to a myth that whispered
in Prague, sang in Constance and shouted across Europe.”[28]
Bibliography
Batka, Lubomir. “Jan Hus’ Theology in a Lutheran Context.”
Lutheran Quarterly 23, nο.1 (March 1, 2009): 1-28
Di Domizio, Daniel G. “Jan Hus’s De Ecclesia,
Precursor of Vatican II.” Theological Studies 60, no.2 (June 1, 1999):
247-260
Fudge, Thomas A. “ “The Shouting Hus”: Heresy
Appropriated as Propaganda in the Sixteenth Century.” Communio Viatorum
38, no. 3 (January 1, 1996): 197-231
Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity: The
Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. 2nd Edition. New York: Harper Collins, 2010.
Vilem, Herold, and David, Zdenek V. “Jan Hus: a
Heretic, a Saint, or a Reformer?.” Communio Viatorum 45, no.1 (January
1, 2003): 5-23
Hus, Jan. The Church. Translated by David S.
Schaff. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1915.
Kubricht, Paul. “The Impact of Historical
Interpretations on the Popular Press: the Case of John Hus in Modern
Czechoslovakia.” Fides Et Historia 12, no.1 (September 1, 1979): 29-43.
MacCulloch, Diarmaid. Reformation: Europe’s House
Divided. London: Penguin Books, 2004.
Schaff, David S. John Huss: His Life, Teachings
and Death, After Five Hundred Years. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
1915.
Tomkins, Stephen. A Short History of Christianity.
Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2005.
“Vatican Reconsidering Views on Jan Hus.” Christian
Century 113, no.11 (April 3, 1996): 368.
Wandycz, Piotr S. The Price of Freedom: A History
of East Central Europe from the Middle Ages to the Present. 2nd
Edition. New York: Routledge, 2001.
[1]
Other sources may claim as early as 1362 or as late as 1371; see the following
for details: {}; {source 2}.
[2]
David S. Schaff, John Huss: His Life, Teachings and Death, After Five
Hundred Years (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1915), 20-21.
[3]
Schaff, John Huss, 33.
[4]
Schaff, John Huss, 28.
[5]
Diarmaid MacCulloch, Reformation:
Europe’s House Divided. (London: Penguin Books, 2004), 37
[6]
Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of
Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. 2nd
Edition. (New York: Harper Collins, 2010),
416-417.
[7]
Stephen Tomkins. A Short History of
Christianity. (Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2005), 126.
[8]
Schaff, John Huss, 30-31.
[9]
Schaff, John Huss, 36.
[10]
Herold Vilem, and Zdenek V. David, “Jan Hus: a Heretic, a Saint, or a Reformer?.”
Communio Viatorum 45, no.1 (January 1, 2003): 13.
[11]
Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of
Christianity, 416.
[12]
Schaff, John Huss, 36.
[13]
Schaff, John Huss, 271.
[14]
Schaff, John Huss, 30.
[15]
Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of
Christianity, 417-418.
[16]
Jan Hus, The Church, Translated by David S. Schaff. (New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons, 1915), 194.
[17]
Schaff, John Huss, 264.
[18]
Schaff, John Huss, 266.
[19]
Herold Vilem, and Zdenek V. David, “Jan Hus: a Heretic, a Saint, or a Reformer?”,
10.
[20]
Lubomir Batka. “Jan Hus’ Theology in a Lutheran Context.” Lutheran Quarterly
23, nο.1 (March 1, 2009): 20.
[21]
Paul Kubricht. “The Impact of Historical Interpretations on the Popular Press:
the Case of John Hus in Modern Czechoslovakia.” Fides Et Historia 12,
no.1 (September 1, 1979): 31.
[22]
Thomas A. Fudge, “ “The Shouting Hus”: Heresy Appropriated as Propaganda in the
Sixteenth Century.” Communio Viatorum 38, no. 3 (January 1, 1996): 198.
[23]
Wandycz, The Price of Freedom, 43.
[24]
Wandycz, The Price of Freedom, 36.
[25]
Herold Vilem, and Zdenek V. David, “Jan Hus: a Heretic, a Saint, or a Reformer?”,
10.
[26]
“Vatican Reconsidering Views on Jan Hus.” Christian Century 113, no.11
(April 3, 1996): 368.
[27] Thomas
A. Fudge, “The Shouting Hus”, 207.
[28] Thomas
A. Fudge, “The Shouting Hus”, 197.
No comments:
Post a Comment