Eschatological Elements in Jan Hus's Ecclesiology and Their Implications for a Later Development of the Church in Bohemia

Ivana Noble 

Introduction

In this paper I am going to examine Hus's understanding of the church and, and three types of eschatology underlying his position. The choice of this theme has been motivated by several wider questions: First, what role is played by the institutional church in Hus's understanding? Is it worth to struggle for the improvement of the institution, or is the institution in the end dispensable? Does Hus make a distinction, like Joachim de Fiore did,[1] between the spiritual and the institutional church? Second, how does Hus relate the Kingdom of God and the church? Are they synonyms? And finally, how does he use apocalyptic imagery? When he speaks of the works of the Antichrist in his time, does it imply that he is convinced that the end of times is to happen in his generation? Or in other words, can we lead a line of thought from Hus to the later Hussite Chilliasm? This wider debate is of a considerable importance not only for the sake of drawing a historically accurate portrait of Hus's theology, but also for reconsidering his influence on the further developments of the church. I will approach the debate from the standpoint of Hus's response to the crisis of the church at the turn of the 14th and 15th centuries.

Then, after grounding of Hus's understanding of the church, eschatological elements in it will be examined. Or more precisely, I will look at what type of eschatology we find in Hus's writing while placing Hus into a wider theological and spiritual perspective. First, a basic eschatological typology of his time will be drawn, where a contrast between Augustine's, Bernard's and Joachim's eschatologies will be made. Then, eschatological emphases we find predominantly in Hus will be identified. I will concentrate mainly on his De ecclesia and Sermo de Pace at this stage, as these writings seem to be most representative of the theme, and also are sufficiently different to allow to see a development of Hus's own position.

In the conclusion I will revisit the initial question, namely, in which sense we can say that Hus's understanding of the church was eschatological? Answering this question will shed some light on sketching the further developments of the church in Bohemia. This will be done as an opening for a further research and debate rather than an attempt to grasp the complexity of the theme.

1.The notion of the church

When we trace Hus's understanding of the church, we have to be aware of the heavy influence of John Wyclif. However, as this theme was dealt with in other studies, [2] I am going to concentrate on Hus's writings, while recognizing that large parts of the text bear Wiclif's influence and their common references to various strands of biblical, patristic and medieval tradition. Hus opens his tract De ecclesia 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, s/he cannot love this spiritual mother unless s/he has got to know her at least in faith - and therefore s/he has to know her in faith and from there to honour her as a special mother.'[3]

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',[4] yet cannot be worshipped in the place of God. God dwells in her, 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.[5] This church is spread throughout the world, yet is one, and consists in ‘eccelsiam 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 predestined here on earth, who make their pilgrimage to the heavenly home and are still struggling, and suffering church is that of predestined in purgatory, who need to be purified and sanctified by grace in order to reach their home in heaven.[6] 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 later 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.[7] Yet for Hus's understanding the ultimate horizon is decisive already here and now, although our knowledge of it is limited. 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 aim, but rather to its opposite, and on their way they bear also the opposite qualities, according to which they can be recognised. Let us demonstrate this on his typology of faith and understanding of heresy and orthodoxy/orthopraxis.

1.1 Typology of faith

‘To believe in God is to love while believing, to walk in faith, to hold the faith, and to become an embodyment of his limb.', says Hus in the ‘Exposition of Faith'. [8] This Augustinian theme occurs throughout his Czech writings. In ‘The String of Three Strands' Hus offers 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.[9] And Hus adds that neither of the first two types bring salvation, ‘both are affirmed by good as well as by evil people, even by devils'.[10] 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 Holy Spirit, but fruitfulness of God's presence in the church,[11] according to him, comes fully from God as well as has to be fully embraced by a wo/man. A lack of acceptance on 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.[12]

1.2 Who is a heretic, who is a faithful Christian?

Heretic, according to Hus is 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[13] Hus emphasizes the element of practical following as vital for a Christian identity:

‘Only the one 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 devil's attacks, flesh and blood, against princes and authorities, against rulers of this world, who are rulers of darkness, against evil spirits, to put fire shots out and to be able to stand in a 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 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.'[14]

And a little further 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.'[15]Hus, J., "O šesti bludiech", in Drobné spisy české [DSC], Opera omnia IV, Academia, Praha, 1985: 271.[16]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.[17]Hus grounds his position on Leviticus, Isaiah and the Gospels, refering to Augustine, Hieronymus and Ambrose. Cf. DSC, 1985: 277-279.[18]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.[19]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 that 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.[20]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.[21]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.)[22] Cf. DSC, 1985: 286.[23] Cf. DSC, 1985:286. In "Dcerka" Hus adds that a consciense, however needs to be informed by the Scriptures. See DSC, 1985: 166-167.[24] Similarly, a 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'.[25]

The foundation of the church in loving and following Christ is in Hus's terms defined as living in the truth. It is accompanied by God's peace and by a just life: 'The divine peace does not allow a reconciled man to live in crime'.[26] This is, according to Hus, true of an individual, as well as of the church. Yet, we find in Hus's theology determinism. Belonging to the one holy catholic church or failing from her is decided in the ultimate horizon of God, and we act it out.[27] His determinism, nevertheless, does not close down the need and the possibility of a reform of the church. Influenced by John Wyclif's "anti-nominalism", which was not willing to accept demands of unexceptional obedience of the mediating authority of the ecclesiastical hierarchy[28] and by Conrad Waldhauser's and Jan Milíč of Kroměříž's appeal to understand ecclesiastical reform in moral terms,[29] Hus saw his early apologetical task in vindicating lex Christi as a foundation of true and just life of the church.[30] Bernhard Töpfer emphasizes lex Christi in Hus involves both the holy Scriptures and reason, which are to be united in knowing and doing the truth. Hus recalls Wyclif's argument in the text, which became a model for the Four Articles of Prague:

‘from our side, our intention is not to seduce people from the true obedience, but but the unity of people being governed by the law of Christ. Secondly, from our side we intend that the institutions of the Antichrist would not confuse people and would not divide them from Christ, but that the law of Christ and the habits of people agreed upon from the law of the Lord would reign in purity. Thirdly, from our side we intend that clergy would sincerely live according to the gospel of Jesus Christ, giving away all pomp, miserness and lechery. And fourthly, our side demands and commands that the militant church would be mixed just according to the parts, which the Lord instituted, namely from priests of Christ, who keep his law in purity, from the world's noblety exhorting to keep Christ's institutions, and from ordinary people serving both other parts according to the law of Christ.'[31]

Still, this view of Hus is accompanied by a more radical form of it. Limit situations provide him with a decisive criterion for keeping the lex Christi: first, when in 1411 in the polemic against John Stokes he composes a defence of Wyclif. He writes that Wyclif in all his writings passionately tried to bring people back to the 'lex Christi' and especially clergy, who were to put aside their 'pomposa dominatio' and as apostles follow 'vita Christi'.[32]

This transition from a principle to a personal authority became decisive for Hus's later position expressed mainly in his Czech writings addressed to a popular audience, and in his letters and small writings prepared for the Council. Following vita Christi strengthens the eschatological dimension in Hus, and makes the earlier typology less schematic. To follow the life of Christ, or in other words, to live as Christ lived, involves suffering, involves persecution, and might involve even death. Christ's victory is not limited to hear and now, and sometimes is not visible here and now. It is not a synonym of the church's ‘victory' in terms of gaining power in this world. When Hus appeals to the highest authority of Christ, he does not necessarily expect that Christ's judgment will have to come through the Council's judgment but neither the opposite. This perspective can help us to understand this gesture of Hus, when being silenced by the church:[33] 'I commit this my appeal to Jesus Christ, the most just judge, who reliably knows, defends and judges, makes visible and rewards the equitable cause of every man.'[34] Christ's judgment concerns the ultimate reality, which, according to Hus the realist, belongs to God alone and cannot be ‘created' by wo/men. The extreme situation freezes discussion over the problem of the right criteria for Christian belief and life. And Hus, similarly to Christians of the early period, when the church was persecuted, is left with the ‘utopia' of the Kingdom. With the Kingdom of God, which in the end does not have a place in this world, and a share among the powers of this world, including the church, if she ‘follows Constantine and not Christ' and destroy her messengers. Following the vita Christi includes possibilities of martyrdom, the strongest witness that our hope is in God and not in this world, yet this hope mediates salvation to this world.

1.3 Summary

To summarize, Hus speaks of the holy catholic church, whose head is Christ, and the ‘church of the evil ones, which is the body of devil, who is their head.'[35] And this polarised typology provides him with a hermeneutical key for reading present crisis of the church, first in the light of eschatological clarity penetrating through our present stage of affairs, later in a more moderate form, that involves emptying oneself even from such clarity here and now. When he deals with the questions of what prevents the church from a Christ-like discipleship, he, however, he states generally, disobedience to the divine law and not loving God, as he writes: 'No one truly loves God, who does not keep his commandments'.[36] And finally in the Speech on Peace, quoting Jn 21:15-17, he claims that such lack of love is destructive for the church, as the succession of Peter rests on love.[37] In his personal history questions of determinism are not raised, rather, we see a graduate process, in which the ultimate gains on importance, and finally is expressed in his martyrdom.

2. Types of eschatology^[1]

Now we will examine, where Hus's eschatological emphasis comes from. While using the word ‘eschatology', we have to recognise that it is only 19th century coinage for what earlier Western theology had included under a tract ‘on the last things'. The 19th century eschatology followed the main themes of the tract: death, judgment, heaven and hell. Only 20th century eschatology changed its focus, as it underlined the centrality of the Kingdom of God, and translated the ‘last things' from a category of time to a category of importance, ‘eschatological has become a convenient adjective corresponding to that decisive and definitive reality of God's rule and realm whose effects are not limited to the end in a merely chronological sense.'In this passage I will sketch eschatological models, whose influence we can trace in Hus, namely, that of Augustine, of Bernard and of Joachim.

2.1 Augustine's influence

Hus in his understanding of orthopraxis articulates elements we find it already in the late Augustine, and then in medieval Christendom, where it becomes apparent that the claims to orthodox doctrine do not suffice for the church to live and communicate the reconciled life transformed by the love of God in Christ. Hus's development of thought resembles that of Augustine.[38] The early Augustine, following Cyprian's thought, was convinced that the Spirit is not operative outside the Catholic Church.[39] But the experience of the Donatist controversy widened his horizon to the extent that he is able to speak of those who 'secretly belong to the new covenant'.[40] Augustine recognizes ambiguities involved in belonging to the Catholic Church. He says: 'But the Church, which is the people of God, is an ancient institution even in the pilgrimage of this life, having a carnal interest in some men, a spiritual interest in others.'[41] As was mentioned above, here Augustine signals his later views on the Kingdom of the City of God which is not identical with the Catholic Church as an institution, again, a stress, which had a significant impact on Hus.

Then, after the defeat of Rome, when the social certainties had gone, Augustine is more than previously concerned with hope for others. His understanding of what ultimately matters cuts deeper than a previous concern about who belongs to the right institution and holds the right teaching, these are included and changed in response to a new priority, how the hope of his fellow Christians may be sustained.[42] Thus Augustine's eschatology involves a theology of history based on an explanation of God's plan for humankind. In the City of God Augustine argues that the works of Divine Providence are independent of what we call prosperity and diversity.[43] Rome was defeated for her vices; nevertheless, God's plan for humankind continues. Orthodoxy involves orthopraxis, more of the personal side of Christ's presence in the church. As P. Brown states, Augustine is concerned with the process of healing, and within this process: 'The Catholic church existed to redeem a helpless humanity'.[44] Augustine's eschatology is dynamic, we are exposed to on-going transformation by the issues we struggled with, as much provide a challenge to them. Yet this process is related to God, ‘the unchangeable, and yet changing all things; Never new, never old, renewing all things... always active, always peaceful...changing works but not advice;'[45] a standpoint, which suited Hus's realist philosophy.

There is also a paradox, that in spite of Augustine's fighting against Donatism, he was profoundly influenced by a Donatist theologian Tyconius (c.330-390). And, again, this influence, without a reference to the source, was passed on to Hus. Tyconius employed a typological and symbolic approach to eschatology. Walter Klaassen summarizes:

‘He viewed every symbol as working in two ways, positive and negative. The church which he considered to be one body also included the antichurch. It could therefore represent both Christ and Antichrist. Thus the church was composed of true believers and hypocrites, and the hypocrites were identical with the Antichrist collectively.[46] The Antichrist was therefore already in the world, primarily in the false prophets and priests in the church. ...This corporate Antichrist destroyed by means of his sacraments. Thus priests who were lovers of the world and whose god was their belly could not be guides to salvation. The true believer should therefore flee from the sacraments they administered.'[47]

Augustine does not accept the sacramental consequences, but they reoccur in Hus. [48] But what we find in Augustine is the symbolic approach identifying the coexistence of the positive and the negative in this temporary life, for the ‘carnal interest in some men, a spiritual interest in others.', [49] for the Gospel being preached as well as betrayed until the end of the world.[50] And Augustine also works with the multiple images, while refusing to give a single literal value to the concepts like Antichrist. It can be a collective or a singular or both, according to Augustine, and also according to Hus, as we have quoted earlier.[51] The symbolic tone we find in Hus comes from Augustine's account of soul, of church and of world, where good and evil forces interplay, yet the sovereignity of the Lord can be suppressed only temporarily.

2.2 Bernard versus Joachim?

Now I will look at two competing eschatological models of 12 century[52] and their possible influence on Hus, especially in relation to his vision of the church, and I will ask a question, whether we can find a transition from Hus to the Chilliast movement.

It is noticeable that in Hus we find a growing affiliation to Bernard. While De ecclesia is dominated by references to Augustine, in Sermo de Pacethe positions reverse. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153), the most influential leader of the Cistercian movement, influenced Hus's eschatology in the place which is given to the reform of the church institution among the things which are of ultimate importance.[53] And although we find in Hus's Sermo de Pace a reference to Bernard's distinction between following Peter and the saving commandment given to him: ‘tend my sheep' (J 21:16), and following Constantine, ‘who walked decorated by precious stones in silk ornates, dressed in gold, riding a white horse, accompanied by guards or by bustling servants',[54] the church institution does not come from Constantine, but from Christ. When Hus is wrestling with the problem of the highest authority, and in the end describes it to Christ, he, at the same time, feels at home with Bernard's critique of the church, which does not touch its authority in general, but powerfully opposes her particular deviations. Thus in the early 1130s, Bernard interprets the papal schism as a rivary for the bride of Christ, in terms of Pope standing against Anti-pope.

A younger contemporary of Bernard of Clairvaux, Joachim of Fiore (c.1130-1202) was a monastic exegete, apocalyptic theologian and mystic, who claimed to receive a gift of spiritual understanding of the meaning of history. With him we have to ask a question, if, and if so, then in which aspects, we can trace an implicit influence of Joachim on Hus, whether in a perception of history and its finality, or in a critique of papacy and the employed symbol of the Antichrist, or in understanding of the last times and the second coming of Christ. As will be shown, Joachim saw his role, similarly to Augustine to interpret earlier texts with a new light, yet his eschatology is far more apocalyptic than that of Augustine.

History in Joachim's exegesis appears as a three-fold work of the Trinity, embodied in three ages: of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Joachim stated: ‘the first, in which we were under the law; the second, in which we were under grace; the third, which we expect very soon, under a more ample grace.'[55] The first age, ruled by the law, lasted until Jesus's first coming; the second age, ruled by grace, then was expected to close shortly after Joachim's days, as according to him, the signs of the end announced in the Gospels were fulfilled. The third age, ruled by a fuller spiritual illumination, by freedom and love, thus, was at hand. The three ages overlapped, Joachim did not identify them in terms of years, but in terms of human generations. [56] He used triplets to demonstrate the differences among the ages and the progression from lesser to greater integration: knowledge-wisdom-complete understanding; servitude of slaves -service of sons-complete freedom; plagues-actions-contemplations; fear-faith-love; starlight-dawn-full daylight; nettles-roses-lilies; water-wine-oil.[57] Klaassen stresses that Joachim ‘combined in his writings a typological and symbolic exegesis with a view of history on the move.'[58] It was vital for Joachim, that things can change, that they do not have to continue as they are till the end. Bernard McGinn shows this type of Joachim's longings for a more perfect time on religious life:

‘Such hopes usually centered on the image of the "apostolic life," the imitation of Christ and the apostles, and were for the most part, backward-looking, given life by their attempt to revive a golden past. For Joachim, however, the renewal of monasticism was to be a new eruption of the power of the Holy Spirit within History - a renovatio from the future rather than from the past.'[59]

We can trace a similar need here to Augustine one, when he is searching to make sense of the fall of Rome. But his outcome is different. Joachim was a witness of a century old conflict between the Church and the Empire, of the fall of Jerusalem in 1187, and of Islam gaining on power. He was convinced that the end of all things to come in his generation.[60] Joachim speaks in length on the tribulations of Antichrist and on the age of the Spirit, which is significant for our search for roots of eschatological elements in Hus's orthopraxis. I will concentrate here on the comparison between Joachim's and Bernard's approaches in order to prepare a ground for identifying which of their models more strongly complement that of Augustine. There I will concentrate mainly on Hus's last writings, when his personal limit situation radicalizes the need to express what is of ultimate importance.

Let me start with an examination of what are the differences in expectations of the development of the church-world relationship according to believed "God's plan". As Pelikan says, Bernard's vision of the church ‘was "extremely spiritual" and yet included its spotted actuality'[61] in Joachim's vision of the church ‘all of human history was "the progressive assimilation of society to the mystical body of Christ"'.[62] In Bernard ‘s vision, which we find strongly echoed in Hus's writings, On Peace in particular,[63] there is a strong parallel with the Dionysian angeology, both in its hierarchical structure and in the orders of God's care. For Bernard ‘the church of the elect'[64] represents a primary concern of God. Therefore,'the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace'[65] is a condition for mediating salvation to the world. Pelikan emphasizes: ‘The tension between the church as an object of faith and hope and the church as an object of criticism Bernard manifested but did not resolve'.[66] Joachim incorporated this tension and offered an eschatological solution to it, the institutional church suffers a loss of spiritual vitality, therefore she has to be ‘resurrected, as it were from the grave.'[67] According to Joachim, during the transition from second to the third age, when the church was to suffer the greatest tribulation of Antichrist, she would make the transition from the ecclesia activa to the ecclesia contemplativa in the brief time left before the Last Judgment. In this third age of the new "spiritual" church ‘men will cease being zealous for those institutions that have been established temporarily [pro tempore et ad tempus].'[68] This new church will include, according to Joachim, both Christians and Jews, who would finally be converted to Christ. The sacraments will be left behind as well as the observances of the Law, and so would both institutions, as God would arise ‘a new leader, a universal pontiff of the new Jerusalem,'[69] In this vision the kingdoms of the world will return with their fruits to the kingdom of God.

Joachim claimed a possibility of unmediated grace, in other words, that viri spirituales (spiritual men) would be taught directly by God, a statement we find throughout the mystic tradition, still, for Joachim, this was to include simple people beginning to think and to speak for themselves, to be illuminated in questions of faith. Here, indeed, is much similarity between Joachim and Hus, especially as he moved from the position of being a welcome critique of the church speaking to her representatives to preaching the need of reform to the crowds. Yet, Joachim in a contrast to Bernard makes a split between the spiritual and the institutional, and claims that the spiritual will overcome the institutional, while in Bernard these two will remain inseparable. Joachim's eschatology leads into ceasing to be worried about the institutional church, as it will die out anyway, and to concentrate on the "spiritual church", which will remain. In Bernard's model, however, it is one church, and its reform has to involve the reform of the institution.

The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) condemned Joachim's trinitarian doctrine, which opposed Peter Lombard and claimed that all three persons operated throughout the history as one. This overshadowed with a suspicion also his eschatology and his theology of history. Thus, although his thought was known in Hus's time, he would be rarely directly quoted. Therefore the plain fact that we do not find in Hus direct references to Joachim does not resolve the question, whether he was influenced by his thought or not. This has to be investigated on the ground of themes and methods we find in both thinkers. There are important differences. Joachim's final orientation on contemplation does not accord with Hus's stress on justice.

3. Conclusion

Hus's ecclesiology was influenced by all three types of eschatology, although we find direct references only to that of Augustine and that of Bernard. He combines different elements of those, and, again, a different type of eschatology can be found in the various strands of the church inspired by the figure of John Hus.

3.1 Augustine's influence

Hus takes from Augustine his typological and symbolic approach (partly coming from Tyconius), but unlike in Augustine, Donatism affects Hus's sacramental theology, as he states that it is possible to lose priesthood because of staying in heresy.[70] He is influenced by Augustine's symbolic interpretation of the apocalyptic themes, according to which, ‘The sign of the End, the Antichrist, and the apostasy of Christian leaders... are always with us. We all constantly live in the time of the End.'[71] Also, Antichrist can be a singular or plural or both, but never a single identification. Alongside with Augustine Hus is convinced that in the soul, in the church, in the world history good and evil interfere, the Gospel will be preached and betrayed, yet it does not do away with God's sovereignity.

Augustine's eschatology mediated by Hus can be found among the Praguers and in the later Utraquist ecclesiology, which struggled for a faithfulness to apostolic tradition within the Roman Catholic Church. Jan Rokycana, a personal friend of Hus and a leading figure of the Hussites after 1434, one of the four delegates to the council of Basel, however, strengthened the Donatist line in his preaching.[72]

3.2 Bernard's influence

Still more explicitly then Augustine Bernard states that the church institution does not come from Constantine but from Christ, and will be here till the end, and thus a reform of the church is the reform of the institution. This involves a critique of the church vices, yet most definitely from the position of within the church institution. This is again a position we find in Hus, and interestingly, the more his is in the conflict with the actual representatives of the church institution, the stronger affiliation to Bernard. In Hus and then most explicitly among Moravian Brothers we find also Bernard's stress on obedience to the law of Christ informing one's conscience. Petr Chelčický, in particular, bases his protest against Taborites' engagement in wars, their usage of violence against violence, and their self-identification as "warriors of God".[73] Moravian Brothers' emphasis on their being called "unity" rather than a "church", as the church consists of many "unities", their seeing themselves as "brothers of the Law of Christ",[74]

represents their independent ecclesiological position.

3.3 Joachim's influence

Hus's perception of history and its finality, its evolution dynamics, and just the constructive belief that things can change, accords with that of Joachim, although, as I said, we do not have a strict referential evidence for that. This strand is most strongly developped by the Taborites, alongside with the belief that the age of the Spirit is dawning, in which all lay people will be direct recipients of her gifts. The Taborite stress on living out the utopia of the Kingdom here and now bears Joachim's emphasis on the viri spirituales, who would under God's Spirit put into practice once again the communal ideal of the early church. It is not surprising that a Chilliast movement also developped within the Taborite framework, yet was by the main stream Taborites considered to be heretic. Taborites also allowed most directly for an identification of particular groups of their enemies with the Antichrist, by which they justified their fighting against them in the name of God.[75] Yet neither the Chillisat nor the identifying position is mediated by Hus. Hus's notion of Antichrist comes from Augustine and not from Joachim, and so his understanding of the last times and of the second coming. His emphasis on the role of lay people is combined with a critique of papacy, which comes from Bernard, and does not do away with the institutional and hierarchical church.[76]

3.4 Summary

In Hus's ecclesiology we find a tension between eschatological universality and present particularity. Hus as a philosophical realist assumes one universal ideal of the church towards which our particular journeys are to lead, but besides this philosophical underpinning, there is a strong desire to recognise and to reach the ultimate here and now, to reform the church, so that the values of the Kingdom could be shared among her members. A motive taken on by the Taborites and by Moravian Brothres.

There are also apocalyptic elements in Hus's ecclesiology, but not coming out of a prospective theology, rather from an analysis of experiences of limit situations. Hus employs Augustine's vocabulary which enables him to spell out the variety and the symbolic power of the apocalyptic imagery. Yet, Hus's work with types and antitypes, especially in his early and middle writings, allows for an easier identification of the type or the antitype here and now, than that of Augustine. In the latest writings, most of all in On Peace, Hus shows a need of theological reflection as a permanently open, committed discourse, and, although he cannot defend his position at the Council, it becomes influential for his followers.[77]

Finally, Hus moves to a recognition that eschatology represents the horison within which the utopia of God's Kingdom in the church can be generally realized, where the following of vita Christi can be embodied and his final authority, thus, be relied on. In Hus's life it takes an expression of moving from an idea that priesthood will guarantee him a comfortable life, to keeping the lex Christi, to following the vita Christi, including its limit position, martyrdom. This very act united Hus with the church he honoured, the church of martyrs and saints, the spiritual mother eager to love her Lord Jesus Christ, and not surprisingly, did not cease to inspire not only the Utraqists, the Taborites or the Moravian Brothers, but also Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians, who also perceive the figure of Hus as belonging to "their" church.

---

[1] Joachim de Fiore (c.1130-1202) a monastic exegete, apocalyptic theologian and mystic was an abbot of the Cistercian house of Curazzo, Calabria, who left his monastery and found his own congregation with a more contemplative emphasis at San Giovanni in Fiore in the Sila mountains. He is known for his theology of history, as will be refered to later.

[2]More recently, see Herold, V., ‘How Wicliffite 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 [Wiclif, Hus and a Problem of Authority], in Jan Hus mezi epochami, národy a konfesemi [Jan Hus among Epochs, Nations and Confessions; HENC], Česká křesťanská akademie and HTF UK, Prague 1995, 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.

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

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

[5]DE: 4, 6, 1.

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

[7]DE: 11.

[8]Hus, J.,'Výklad viery', in Výklady [Vy], Opera omnia I, Academia, Praha, 1975:69.

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

[10]Hus, DSC,1985:149.

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

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

[13]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.'

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

[15] Hus, SSL I, 1904: 169.This theme is developped and actualised in Hus's Czech writings, in On Six Hereses in particular. Hus analyses what he sees as hereses of clergy in his time, and similarly to his approach in the Latin writings, keeps teaching and action together. Thus, he speaks first on ‘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.'

[16] The second is ‘a heresy is of believing', where Hus opposes 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.

[17] Third, ‘a heresy on forgiving sins', claiming the forgiving power is of priests and not of God.

[18] Fourth, ‘a heresy on obedience', which consists of the demand to obey ‘elders, bishops, lords, fathers and other spiritual as well as worldly rullers in all they command, wheather ill or good.'

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

[20] And, finally, six, ‘a 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 brought to a conviction that it is possible to treat things of God given for salvation as a material possession.

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

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

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

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

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

[26]Hus, SP, 1963:41.

[27]At this point Hus is closest to Calvin's later reading of Augustine and building up his predestination theory. Cf. DE: 18.

[28] 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.

[29]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., 1919, Master Jan Hus, Life and Teaching I, 41-47.

[30] Cf. Töpfer, B., 1995, 100.

[31]Hus, 1904: 354. The latin text goes as follows: ‘cum nostre partis non est intencio seducere populum a vera obediencia, sed quod populus sit unus a lege Christi concorditer regulatus. Secundo, intencio nostre partis est, quod constituciones antichristiane non efatuent aut dividant populum a Christo, sed quod regnet sincere lex Christi cum conswetudine populi ex lege domini approbata. Et tercio, intencio nostre partis est, quod clerus vivat sincere secundum ewangelium Ihesu Christi, pompa, avaricia et luxuria postergatis. Et quatro, optat et predicat nostra pars, quod militant ecclesia sincere secundum partes, quas ordinavit dominus, sit commixta, scilicet ex sacerdotibus Christi pure legem suam servantibus, ex mundo nobilibus ad observanciamordinacionis Christi compellentibus, ex wlgaribus utrique istarum parcium secundum legem Christi ministrantibus.' DE, 1958: 148-149.

[32] 1966:63. Cf. Töpfer, 1995: 99; Molnár, A., On the Boundary of Ages, Vysehrad, Prague, 1985: 19.

[33] Hus wrote his final appeal to Christ in October 1412, when the pope pronounced an interdict on Prague until Hus left the city.

[34]Hus's odvolani ke Kristu, (1965:30.32).

[35]Cf. DE: 40, where Hus refers to St Gregory.

[36] Hus, DSC, 1985:154.

[37]Hus, J., 1963, Speech on Peace: 57.

[38] In his early period Augustine proposes that orthodoxy can be measured in terms of an attitude towards the Catholic Church. In Of True Religion he states: ‘religion is to be sought neither in the confusion of pagans, nor in the offscouring of the heretics, nor in the insipidity of schismatics, nor in the blindness of the Jews, but only among those who are called Catholic or orthodox Christians, that is, guardians of truth and followers of right.' (1953:11) In the middle period this belonging is not enough, one has to follow the teaching of the Catholic Church. When he succeeded to the bishopric of Carthage, the African Church was split almost in half: out of 570 African bishops meeting in conference in Carthage, 284 were Donatists and 286 were Catholic. Augustine was confronted with a serious division of the church, and had to oppose an extreme determinism of Manichees on one side, claiming that decision making and responsibility for moral evil are not in human hands, and on the other side Pelagians and Donatists saying to a church disunited after periods of persecution, that her holiness is dependent on the actual quality of her members, in other words, that only those who have not failed can call themselves a church and thus operate as means of salvation. And after having made every effort at reconciliation, Augustine goes as far as using forcible measures against those who ascribed salvation only to "their" church and used violence against others. Augustine's last period is a response to the fall of Rome, and most strongly pronounce an eschatological hope as well as a theology of history. Cf. Kirwan, Ch., Augustine, Routledge, London, 1989: 209. Leeming, 1960:145.

[39] 'He that holds not to this Unity, does not hold the Law of God, does not hold the Faith of the Father and the Son, holds not Life and Salvation.' Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church.The Manresa Press, London, 1924: VI.

[40] Augustine, ‘Seven Books of Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo, on Baptism, against the Donatists', in The Works of Augustine III: Writings in Connection with the Donatist Controversy. T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1872:I/xv/24.

[41] Augustine, 1872:I/xv/24.

[42] Augustine was confronted with a crisis not only of the Church, but of the whole Empire: the defeat of Rome, believed by many to be the eternal city. Augustine is faced with accusations from the side of pagan Romans who blamed Christians for the loss of political certainties and nervous Christians who thought that the fall of Rome signalled the apocalyptic end of time. Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History had introduced the idea of the sacred Empire, which is taken up by Markus: 'The one true Empire, in his view, was the political expression of the one true worship of one true God, and the Empire thus assumed an important place in God's plan for the redemption of men and was the continuation of the sacred history related in the Scriptures.' (1988:410) The fall of Rome thus meant for the Christians who shared Eusebian political theology the end of the divine plan with human history.

[43] Augustine, The City of God, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1972: I.8.

[44]This task becomes even stronger when Hippo is surrounded by the Vandals plundering Numidia. The latter were famed for their brutality, which made many of Augustine's ecclesiastical contemporaries desert their flocks. Augustine, however, decides to stay. Cf. Brown,P., Augustine of Hippo, Faber, London, 1967:406-407.

[45]Augustin, 1990, Vyznání, Kalich, Praha: I/iv,13-14.

[46]Compare to Rauh, H.D., Das Bild des Antichrist im Mittelalter: Vom Tyconius zum deutschen Symbolismus. Aschendorff, Münster, 1973:107-109.

[47]Klaassen, 1992:4.

[48]See Hus's elaboration on the heresy of simony, DSC, 1985: 295-296.

[49] Augustine, 1872:I/xv/24.

[50] R.A. Markus shows the ambiguity of Augustine's position saying that on one side, Augustine holds that 'the Church would continue to bear witness to its Lord until the end. But the shape of this witness and the historical form of the Church's existence, the human structures within which its life is carried on, were changeable.' (1970:157) On the other side: 'the Gospel continues to be betrayed in these "Christian times", as it always must continue to be betrayed.' (1970:157)

[51]Cf. Hus, SSL I, 1904:162

[52]Pelikan writes: "During these two centuries we must look not primarily to the systematic theologians and summists, nor to the canonists and lawyer-popes, but to the monastic exegets and expository preachers for a comprehensive doctrine of the church." (1978: III, 298)

[53]Bernard wasinfluenced not only by Augustine and Gregory the Great, but also by Origen and other Eastern Fathers, and passed this influence on to Hus.

[54]Hus, 1963:57.

[55] Joachim, The Book of Concordance, (Concordia) 5.84.

[56] The first began with Adam, the second with King Uzziah, the third with Benedict of Nursia. See Joachim, Exposition on the Apocalypse, f.5a-b.

[57]Cf. Concordia f.112a, in Klaassen, 1992:13.

[58]Klaassen, 1992:15.

[59]McGinn, 1980:108; Compare to Reeves, M., Prophecy in the Later Middle Ages: A Study in Joachimism. Oxford, 1969: 505-508.

[60]Cf. Joachim, ‘Letter to All the Faithful' and ‘Letter to the Abbot of Valdona' in McGinn, B., Apocalyptic Spirituality. SCM, London, 1980:113-119.

[61]Pelikan, J., The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, III: The Growth of Medieval Theology (600-1300). The University Press of Chicago, Chicago, London. 1978, III:298.

[62] Pelikan, 1978, III:298; Pelikan refers to Bloomfield, M.W.,1957, "Joachim of Flora: A Critical Survey of His Canon, Teachings, Sources, Biography and Influence." Traditio13 (1957): 249-311,265.

[63]In Sermo de pace Hus refersto Bernard 11times.

[64]Bernard, Sermons on the Song of Songs Cant 68.1.2.

[65] Bernard, Apol 4.7.

[66] Pelikan,1978, III:301.

[67] Joachim, Ev.3 (FSI 67:251).

[68]Joachim, Ev 3.

[69] Joachim, Conc 4.31.

[70]See "On six Hereses", in DSC, 1985: 294-296. Although Hus refers to Innocens, he radicalizes his claim.

[71]Klaassen, 1992:x.

[72]Josef Smolík points out that Rokycana might have been influenced in this by Valdenians, and that his donatist emphases did not accord with Hus's position. See ‘Hus a bratří' [Hus and Brothers], in HENC, 1995, 241-248: 241. See also Fudge, T.A., ‘Reform at the Lower Consistory in Prague 1437-1497, in The Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice, Vol. 2, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Main Library, Prague, 1998, 67-96.

[73]Fudge shows, however, that Moravian Brothers saw their origin rather in Utraquism than with Chelčický, yet Rokycana's teaching was not acceptable for them. Their desire for the pure church led to schisms, first in 1457, from the Roman Catholic Church, later, in 1495, there was an internal schism, when the dissenting purists splited from the rest of the Unity of Brothers. See Fudge, 1998: 67-68, 91-94. See also Smolík, 1995: 241-242.

[74]Cf. Filipi, P., ‘Několik poznámek ke kenotické eklesiologii Jednoty bratrské' [A couple of notes on kenotic ecclesiology of Maravian Brothers], a manuscript of 17.7.2000.

[75]Fudge gives a very good account of the meaning of Tabor as the dynamics of topos and utopia: ‘Tábor has nothing to do with geography; Tábor is then not to be exclusively related to that town in south of Bohemia which existed so long as a center of radical Hussite religion. Indeed, Tábor is an idea, an idea encompassing a vigorous and vibrant agenda of ecclesiastical and social renovatio and reformatio. That idea could neither be contained in any one place nor identified with any particular creed or mandate. Tábor shifted and went wherever its adherents went. Tábor was Žižka. Tábor was Václav Koranda the Elder. Tábor was the "little bishop" Mikuláš of Pelhřimov. Tábor was Jan Čapek. Tábor was the priest Želivský. Tábor was the "warriors of God". Tábor was an idea born in the ashes of Jan Hus, cultivated by the memories of Jan Milíč of Kroměříž and Matěj of Janov, and fuelled by the zeal of countless reluctant heretics.' Fudge, 1998: 72.

[76]Joachim's influence can be also traced in Comenius's ecclesiology and its emphasis on new and permanent reformation with open door for all nations of the world. Filipi points ot that from here Comenius developed his project of general remedy (emendatio rerum humanarum), which included pedagogical, irenic and ecumenical efforts, including a plan of a "consilium oecumenicum". The death of the unity of Moravian Brorthers he sees as a gift related to this new rising universality, for the new unity, which the Lord gathers from all nations above the heaven. See Filipi's manuscript.

[77]Filipi shows that the Taborite herritage: ‘theology is open and must remain eschatologically open, pointing to the coming Christ; otherwise it is not a theology, but its misuse justifying the status quo of the church,' was passed also on to the Moravian Brothers and developped in two ways, first, in their perception of a need for critique inspired by the Scriptures and leading to a dialogue with other "unities", Luther, Bucer and Swiss reformers in particular; second, in the absence of anathemas in all versions of their confessions. Filipi states: ‘The brothers did not feel a need to limit themselves, to express their knowlegde of faith in an exclusivist manner, the truth, which they have learnt and which they express unites them with other confessing Christians.' See Filipi's manuscript.