Jan Hus in Ecumenical Discussion

Ivana Noble 

The task of this lecture is twofold. Firstly I aim to introduce Jan Hus (c.+1370-1415), a Roman Catholic Priest, University philosopher and theologian. He was one of the figures responsible for attempts at church reform at the beginning of the fifteenth century in Bohemia, and remains a controversial figure in the history of church. Hus was accused of being a heretic and burnt at the Council of Constance. Ever since there has been a discussion involving Protestant, Catholic as well as Orthodox theologians, as to whether he was a heretic or a saint.[1] We will look at his theology and trace some of the issues which divided his audience, but to be able to understand these issues, we will have to start with a sketch of the ecclesio-political situation of Hus's time and its impact on him. The second task is to place the conflicting issues round Hus's personality and work into a wider landscape, and to examine the role of controversial memories in building different strands of Christian tradition, to ask questions concerning the historical and symbolic role of people like Hus. My basic thesis in this paper is that for healing the divisions and overcoming the injustices and misunderstandings within the Christian family, purely historical research is insufficient, however important it is, and however much I agree that it has to represent the starting point, without which further steps are not possible.[2] So, historical research has to be complemented by a process of learning to read stories, symbols and images of other traditions, which also combine fragments of facts and multitudes of meaning, as our own tradition does, and whose stories, symbols and images shape their memory, their certainties, their wounds, and their expectations.

Personality of Jan Hus and His Time

Let me start with some factual information concerning Hus's background, his personal history and work. This will enable me to proceed to discussing key issues in his theology, which gave rise to controversial interpretations.

Jan Hus faced the deepening crisis of the church at the turn of the 14th and 15th centuries, which brought to the fore the problem of authority with a new urgency. In 1302 it was proclaimed that obedience to the pope is needed for salvation,[3] in 1378 there were elected two popes, Urban VI of Rome and Clement VII of Avignon, who were at war with each other and pursued each other with anathemas. In order to find a solution, the synod of Pisa (1409) suspended both popes and elected a new one, Alexander V. The latter was succeeded by John XXIII, who was accused of criminal actions, including naval robbery at the Council of Constance. The two former popes did not resign, and so there were three popes demanding obedience and taxes. The papal schism lasted forty years, led Christians into wars and provoked strong criticism.[4]

Influenced by John Wyclif's "anti-nominalism", which was not willing to accept demands of obedience without exception on the part of the mediating authority of the ecclesiastical hierarchy[5] and by Conrad Waldhauser's and Jan Milíč of Kroměříž's appeal to understand ecclesiastical reform in moral terms,[6] Hus entered the reform movement, first as a welcome critic of the vices in the church, who was invited by the archbishop to preach at the synods,[7] who had a stable place at Prague University, and who was under the protection of the king. Hus in this first period wrote mainly in Latin, for an educated audience, which sought church reform "from above". But he also preached in Czech at Betlehem Chapel, the centre of the reform movement in Prague, where a more popular audience gathered. In his sermons he helped lay people to form their own judgement based in the Scripture, and educated them in the foundations of Christian faith.[8] This audience, then, became decisive in Hus's later development.

Starting in 1409 Hus began to have problems.[9] Hus, as rector of the University protested against the public burning of Wyclif's writings,[10] and against the archbishop's forbiding of folk preaching, and thus came into direct conflict with him. And when the sellers of indulgences appeared in Prague, collecting money for the war between John XXIII and the king of Naples, Hus was at the centre of organizing a protest, which gained him an anathema, which was reinforced with an interdict: If Hus would not leave Prague, no sacraments would be administered there. In the years 1412-1414 Hus preached in the country, living with his friends at Kozí Hrádek, Krakovec and other places. He also wrote, mainly in Czech. Among his Czech writings the most famous are Homilies, Exposition of Faith, of the Decalogue and of the Our Father, Books on Simony,[11] and in Latin a book heavily inspired by Wyclif, De Ecclesia. Hus realised more and more how the application of a realist philosophy to church teaching, as Wyclif had taught him, recovered the voice of the Bible and of the Church Fathers in calling the church to be faithful to its own heritage, and most of all, to be faithful to God. Crowds of people followed Hus to hear his homilies in the country and he became the symbol of a dangerous alternative to the ecclesial status quo.

Thus in 1414 he was invited to the Council of Constance, which was to renew order in the Church. The promises of safe passage, as well as of a public hearing there were broken: he was imprisoned after his arrival, accussed of heresy and without being afforded any possibility of a public defence he was found guilty, and on July 6 1415 burnt as a heretic. This event provoked a strong reaction in Bohemia, and gave rise to protests which grew into the Hussite movement. As Hus was not recognized as a reformer by the Council Fathers, so their effort to reform the church was doubted by the church in Bohemia. Thus two initiatives to reestablish order in the church did not coincide,[12] and the opposition between them was strengthened by the crusades, the Hussite wars and by the "memories of division and of violence" on both parts.[13]

2. Hus's theology

In this part I am going to examine some of the controversial issues in Hus's theology, which involve his understanding of the church, of faith, practice and heresy, of the mediating authority of the church and the immediate authority of Christ.[14]

2.1.The notion of the church

When we trace Hus's understanding of the church, we have to be aware of two things. First, Hus, as a good medieval theologian, builds his treatises as commentaries on biblical and patristic sources; second, the structure and themes of his main work on the church, De ecclesia, are heavily influenced by John Wyclif.[15] Hus opens this tract with a statement:

‘As every Christian here in the world is to believe faithfully the holy and catholic church and to love the Lord Jesus Christ, the bridegroom of this church, and to love the church, his bride, he cannot love this spiritual mother unless he has got to know her at least in faith - and therefore he has to know her in faith and from there to honour her as a special mother.'[16]

Hus does not doubt the role of the church in the process of salvation. He adheres to the credal faith and interprets it first in reference to Augustine. Knowing the church in faith and loving and honouring her as a special mother is, according to Hus, from the very beginning rooted in the loving relationship to Jesus Christ. The holy catholic church is ‘the highest of all creation'.[17] Then Hus emphasizes what seems obvious, that the church cannot be worshipped in the place of God. He states that God dwells in the church, and eternally will: she is the ‘bride of the Lord Jesus Christ', the ‘body of Christ', the ‘house of God built to serve its Lord.[18] This church is spread throughout the world, yet is one, and consists in ‘ecclesiam triumphantem, militantem et dormientem'. The triumphant church is that of saints resting in their heavenly home after having struggled against Satan and winning, the militant church is that of the predestined here on earth, who make their pilgrimage to the heavenly home and are still struggling, and the suffering church is that of the predestined in purgatory, who need to be purified and sanctified by grace in order to reach their home in heaven.[19] Thus, the church's unity is eschatological, but Hus argues against what he calls an Aristotelian understanding, that the church is the gathering of all people. There is a church of sheep and of goats, according to him, but only the former is the holy church, the latter is the church of the repudiated. The church as we experience her here and now, is ecclesia permixta, where the good and the ill grow together until the harvest.[20] Yet for Hus's understanding the ultimate horizon is decisive already here and now, although our knowledge of it is limited.

One of the controversial moments is the fact that Hus's definitions operate with a polarised typology: the church of the predestined - the church of the damned, or the church - the antichurch, and this typology can be found also in his understanding of Christ - Antichrist, and we could also say faith - antifaith. The antitypes bear some features of the types, but ultimately do not lead to the same goal, but rather to its opposite, and on their way they bear also the opposite qualities, according to which they can be recognised.

2.2. Faith, practice and heresy

This polarised typology can be traced also in Hus's distinctions between true faith and practice and heresy. Perhaps here we have to start asking whether his approach is extremist - or whether it is an attempt to find tools for dealing with an extreme situation.

Hus expands the notions of orthodoxy and heresy to the practical element of a Christian life. In ‘The String of Three Strands' Hus offers a more detailed typology as he distinguishes three types of faith: (i) belief that God is; (ii) belief that what is said about God is true; (iii) faith, loving God above all things.[21] Neither of the first two types of faith bring salvation, according to him, ‘both are affirmed by good as well as by evil people, even by devils'.[22] They can be found also in the anti-types of Christ and church. Only the third type of faith brings salvation. Hus is aware that this is the gift of the Holy Spirit, but the fruitfulness of God's presence in the church,[23] according to him, comes fully from God at the same time that it has to be fully embraced by the person. A lack of acceptance on the human side, when combined with a Christian verbal profession, is expressed by Hus in terms of heresy. Then, positively, Hus says that faith, loving God above all things, is recognisable according to God's peace, when truth and justice meet.[24]

A heretic is, then, according to Hus, a false Christian, someone who claims to follow Christ, yet either in teaching or in practice follows Antichrist. Already in his Synodal sermon in 1407[25] Hus emphasizes the element of practical following as vital for a Christian identity:

‘Only that person can be called a true Christian, who keeps God's commandments and resembles Christ in his morals. The one who is finally strengthened by the virtue and by the power of Christ to oppose the devil's attacks, flesh and blood, princes and authorities, the rulers of this world who are rulers of darkness, evil spirits, is able to put out balls of fire and to stand in perfect opposition on the dark day; ...However, a false Christian rejects the commandment of the Apostle, and having received the name of Christ he takes on himself the weapons of the devil and leads the fight of the Antichrist, he confesses that he knows God, but rejects God in his actions, he is a false Christ and a true Antichrist; and there is not just one, but many of them.'[26]

And a little further on Hus adds, that ‘everyone who sins in this way, who denies God, is vile and unsubjected, incapable of all good actions, is to be considered a heretic.'[27]Hus, J., "O šesti bludiech", in Drobné spisy české [DSC], Opera omnia IV, Academia, Praha, 1985: 271.[28]Hus makes a distinction: ‘to believe in' - which he reserves to God as a supreme confession, which involves loving and following; and ‘to believe about' - which he uses when speaking of believing about the church etc. He refers to Augustine in his usage. Cf. DSC, 1985: 273-274.[29]Hus grounds his position on Leviticus, Isaiah and the Gospels, refering to Augustine, Hieronymus and Ambrose. Cf. DSC, 1985: 277-279.[30]The position that if onewould be led into sin, the obedience to God comes before the obedience to other authorities, is again well grounded in the Scriptures and in the Latin as well as Greek Fathers. Cf. DSC, 1985: 279-282.[31]According to Hus a curse or an excommunication are effective only when a deadly sin on the side of the one who is affected by it is involved. Hus, then refers to Augustine claiming that a curse or an excommunication are to be treated as a medicament, not as means of destruction, that they are to proclaim thatt one cannot communicate with the church of God unless one is healed from one's sin, and emphasizes the authority of one's conscience in this process. Cf. DSC, 1985: 282-287.[32]This chapter is the longest one, Hus criticizes especially selling and buying of priesthood and of bishoprics. However, it has to be said, that here Hus moves out of Augustine's position to a Donatist one, as he opens up a possibility of losing priesthood (see 295-296) because of staying in this heresy. Hus in this refers to Innocenc (see 294), but radicalizes his claim. Cf. DSC, 1985: 288-296.[33]Augustine defines as a heretic the one ‘who for the sake of some temporal advantage, and chiefly for the sake of his own glory and preeminence, either gives birth to, or follows, false and new opinions.' (The Value of Believing 1, in Dods, M. (ed), The Works of Aurelius Augustinus. Vol ??? T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1871-6.)[34] Cf. DSC, 1985: 286.[35] Cf. DSC, 1985:286. In "Dcerka" Hus adds that a consciense, however needs to be informed by the Scriptures. See DSC, 1985: 166-167.[36] Similarly, Christian faithfulness is expressed also in combining teaching and practice. In the "Exposition of Faith" Hus defines a Christian as a "truth fighter". He writes:

‘So, faithful Christian, search truth, love truth, speak truth, keep truth, defend truth even till death, because the truth will release you from sin, from the devil, from the death of the soul, and at the end from the eternal death, that is the eternal separation from the grace of God'.[37]

A. Molnár concludes: "The truth Hus talks about here is the truth of God, in its liberating aspect identical with the personality and work of Jesus Christ."[38] Here we encounter a transition from a principle to a personal authority: the power of truth has been incarnated. The person of Christ gives fulfilment to other authorities. Following the life of Christ brings, according to Hus, reconciliation and peace that one cannot gain otherwise.[39]

[1]The dispute over Hus's place within church history from the ecumenical point of view is represented in a Colloquium, 'Jan Hus among Epochs, Nations and Confessions,' held in Bayreuth in 1993. It was preceded by the work of many theologians and historians, among others Stefan Swiezawski on the Catholic side,and F.M. Bartoš and A. Molnár on the Protestant side. This was inspired by the wish of Pope John Paul II, who during his visit to Prague in 1990 appealed to Czech theologians to prepare a reevaluation of Hus's case. The response of Orthodox theologians lies in the fact that the Orthodox Church in Bohemia holds a memorial of Jan Hus, martyr and saint, on July 6th.

[2]Here I find inspiring Gregory of Nyssa's appreciation of historia seeing it as a foundation whilst at the same time aware of the need to progress from this starting point to theoria. For Gregory historia means a paraphrase of the Biblical story, and theoria an application of the story by means of contemplative reading to discern its spiritual import. See Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of Moses. Paulist Press, New York, Ramsey, Toronto, 1978. I will try to extend the meaning of historia and include into it historical research concerning facts about any given personality or situation, and from there proceed to a symbolic reading.

[3]This was claimed by pope Boniface VIII in his bull 'Unam sanctam'. It says: "Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, diffinimus omnio esse de necessitate salutis." DS 875

[4]See also Bartoš, F.M., Čechy v době Husově 1378-1415 [Bohemia in the time of Hus 1378-1415], Laichter, Praha, 1947.

[5]John Wyclif (1329-1384) represented the second wave of anti-nominalist thought, reacting against Ockham and Scotus and against their scepticism about the employment of the direct transcendent authority of God in the life of a Christian.

[6]Conrad Waldhauser was invited by the archbishop Arnošt to come to preach in Prague in 1363. His sermons, as well as influencing his followers (among others Jan Milíč of Kroměříž and Matěj of Janov) initiated reform in Bohemian Christianity. In Hus's time also Masters of the Prague University took part in public preaching. See Novotný, V., Mistr Jan Hus. Život a dílo [Master Jan Hus, Life and Teaching] Vol. I, Laichter, Praha, 1919, 41-47;Duka, D., "Předchůdci Mistra Jana Husa (Konrád Waldhauser, Jan Milíč z Kroměříže, Matěj z Janova) [Predecessors of Jan Hus (Konrád Waldhauser, Jan Milíč z Kroměříže, Matěj z Janova), in Jan Hus mezi epochami, národy a konfesemi [Jan Hus among Epochs, Nations and Confessions; HENC], Česká křesťanská akademie and HTF UK, Prague, 1995, 51-53.

[7]See Hus, J, "Synodální kázání" [Synodal Sermons] in Sebrané spisy latinské [Collected Latin Works] Vol. 1, Bursík, Praha , 1904, 135-244.

[8]The lay education took as its main themes sermons on the Decalogue, on Our Father and on Creed. See Bylina, S., "La catéchisation du peuple en Boh me aux XIVe et XVe si cles" in The Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice, Vol. 3, Eds. Z.V. David and D.R. Holeton, Academy of the Sciences of the Czech Republic Main Library, Prague 2000, 25-33.

[9] It was the year when he was elected a rector of the University, just after the king Václav IV issued the "Decree of Kutná Hora", limiting the influence of the German Masters and leading to their leaving to Leipzig to found their own University. This king's decree provoked an angry reaction from the archbishop Zbynek, and created a tension in which Hus had to operate.

[10]See Hus, J., "Obrana článků Viklefových" [Defence of Wyclif's Articles], in Sebrané spisy latinské [Collected Latin Works] Vol. 2, Bursík, Praha , 1904, 267-332.

[11]Published in the collections Magistri Iohannis Hus Opera Omnia I: Výklady [Expositions]; IV: Drobné spisy české [Small Czech Writings], Academia, Praha, 1975, 1985.

[12]The nominalism of the Fathers of Constance gave rise to conciliarism, as opposed to papalism, which was still shared by the more conservative realist theologians of that time. But as for Gerson or Peter d'Ailly the Council was to be the highst authority, they were not ready to allow exceptions based on a realist claim to the direct relation to the authority of Christ. If they made a precedent here, then anybody could find ways round obeying the Council, and the task of achieving unity would become practically impossible. For Hus, a realist, the authority of the Council had to be subjected to the authority of Christ not only eschatologically, but here and now, as otherwise, the authority of the Council would lose its ground, its referentiality, and cease to be valid. Thus he felt himself to be an equal partner for the Council Fathers and thus equipped to discuss on the basis of Scripture and Tradition what Christ demands of the church. But he was not ready for an enforced subjection to opinions he was not convinced of. For more detailed argumentation, see Dolejšová, I., "Hus a Páleč: Realismus versus nominalismus" in HENC, 1995, 84-85.

[13]This can be traced not only in historical documments, but also in art - and here not only in portraits of Hus as a heretic, but also of the Council as gathering of the forces of the Antichrist - see e.g. the painting "Hus před Kostnickým koncilem" [Hus in front of the Council of Constance] by Brožík.

[14]Parts of this section have been published in my articles: "Eschatological Elements in Jan Hus's Ecclesiology and Their Implications for a Later Development of the Church in Bohemia" in Verborgener Gott - verborgene Kirche? Dei kenotische Theologie und ihre ekklesiologischen Implikationen. Ed. Brosseder, J., Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Forum Systematik, Bd. 14, Stuttgart, Berlin, Köln, 2001, 138-155; "Eschatological Elements in Hus's Understanding of Orthopraxis," in The Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice, Vol.4, Eds. Z.V. David a D.R. Holeton, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic Main Library, Praha, 2002, 127-141.

[15] This theme was dealt with in other studies. More recently, see Herold, V., ‘How Wycliffite was the Bohemian Reformation?', in The Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice, Vol. 2, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic Main Library, Prague, 1998, 25-38; Hudson, A., Premature Reformation, Oxford, 1988; Molnár, E., ‘Viklef, Hus a problém autority [Wyclif, Hus and a Problem of Authority], in HENC, 104-117; Töpfer, B., ‘Lex Christi, dominium a církevní hierarchie u Jana Husa ve srovnání s pojetím u Jana Viklefa' [Lex Christi, dominium and ecclesial hierarchy in Jan Hus in comparison with John Wyclif], HENC, 96-103.

[16]Hus, Tractatus de ecclesia [DE], Komenského evangelická fakulta bohoslovecká, Praha, 1958, 1.

[17]DE: 4. Hus refers to Augustine's Enchiridion.

[18]DE: 4, 6, 1.

[19]Cf. DE: 8. Again this typology is taken from Augustine.

[20]DE: 11.

[21]Hus, DSC, 1985:149. See also Dolejsova, I.,'Hus and Páleč', in HENC, 1995: 84-85.

[22]Hus, DSC,1985:149.

[23]For the distinction between the validity and fruitfulness of sacraments, see Leeming,B., Principles of Sacramental Theology. Longmans, London, 1960:147.

[24]Hus elaborates the criteria for justice later in the Sermo de pace [SP], Kalich, Praha,1963: 51-70.

[25]Hus preached on Eph 6: 14-15: ‘Stand therefore, and fasten the belt of truth around your waist, and put on the breastplate of righteousness. As shoes for your feet put on whatever will make you ready to proclaim the gospel of peace.'

[26]Hus, J., Sebrané spisy latinské I, [SSL I]ed. V. Flajšhans, Bursík, Praha, 1904:162

[27] Hus, SSL I, 1904: 169.This theme is developed and actualised in Hus's Czech writings, in On Six Hereses in particular. Hus analyses what he sees as the heresies of the clergy of his time, and similarly to his approach in the Latin writings, keeps teaching and action together. Thus, he speaks first of ‘a heresy of creation', which is that ‘foolish priests think that they can create the body of God as many times as they like, and that they are creators of their Creator.'

[28] The second is ‘a heresy of believing', where Hus opposes the requirements ‘to believe in the Virgin Mary, in saints and in popes' as if these stood above the faith in God, which has to come first.

[29] Third, ‘a heresy concerning the forgiveness of sins', claiming that the power of forgiveness belongs to priests and not to God.

[30] Fourth is ‘a heresy concerning obedience', which consists of the demand to obey ‘elders, bishops, lords, fathers and other spiritual as well as worldly rulers in all they command, whether ill or good.'

[31] Fifth, ‘a heresy concerning a curse', that a curse or an excommunication is effective even if an unjust person condemns the just one.

[32] And, finally, ‘the heresy of simony', selling and buying holy things, where the one who sells, ‘has an evil desire to get some temporary material reward for a spiritual thing' and the one who buys is convinced that it is possible to treat things of God given for salvation as a material possession.

[33] In the fifth point, there is an important recognition, namely that for an evil action to be a heresy, the conscious agreement of the person involved is needed

[34]. Hus speaks of the ‘witness of our conscience'

[35] and quotes St Gregory: ‘Where conscience does not accuse, or whom it defends, then one is free among the accusers.'

[36] Hus, J., "O šesti bludiech", in Drobné spisy české [DSC], Opera omnia IV, Academia, Praha, 1985: 271-296.

[37] Hus,J., Výklady [Expositions], Opera Omnia I, Academia, Praha, 1975:69.

[38]Molnár, A., Na rozhraní věků [At the Boundary of the Ages], Vyšehrad, Praha, 1985:12. Similarly J.B. Lášek states: "'The truth is the truth of the living God, that is Christ Himself." Jan Hus: Svědek Kristův [Jan Hus: The Witness of Christ], Blahoslav, Praha, 1991:17.

[39]Later, in Řeč o míru [Speech on Peace], which Hus prepared as a defence for the Council of Constance, he quotes Job 9,4 (in the Vulgate version): "Quis ei restitit, et pacem habuit?" (Who opposing Him [God] could retain peace?) (1963:31).