 Remarks on the Works of John Huss From the Letters of John Huss by Emil de Bonuchos, translated by Campbell McKenzie. The writings of John Huss, which have been handed down to us, may be classed under four principal heads, his letters, his works and commentaries on the scriptures, his sermons, and, lastly, his moral and theological treatises. His letters have been given in this volume. His particular works on scripture are, first, a history of the life of Jesus Christ according to the four Gospels. Secondly, the history of our Lord's Passion is collected from the four Gospels and augmented by notes and commentaries from the most celebrated doctors of the church. Thirdly, the explanation of the first seven chapters of the first epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. Fourthly, commentaries on the seven canonical epistles of the apostles St. James, St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude. Fifthly, explanations and developments of the Psalms 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, and 118. All these writings reveal in their author a profound knowledge of the sacred books and of the works of the fathers, as well as a great zeal to diffuse the light of the scriptures and to draw from them salutary instruction. They indicate, besides, an independence of views which must have given umbrage to the clergy. It is thus that Hoss, in arranging the epistles of the apostles, names first that of St. James, who, he says, presided at the Council of Jerusalem. He assigns the first place to this epistle on account of the superior dignity which the apostle bears in the eyes of Christians by reason of three different claims. First, in addressing himself particularly to converted Jews, who were superior to the pagans, afterwards in consideration of his personal merit, for although Peter was the first of the apostles, nevertheless the first evangelical preaching is traced to St. James. And lastly, in consideration of the dignity of the place where he held his sea, which was Jerusalem, where the first preaching of God's word took place. These works of John Hoss on scriptures so different in their nature and so considerable in their extent are, however, like most of the theological writings of the epoch, prolix and diffuse. The author subdivides his matter without end, fatigues with his repetitions, and in his commentaries presents in general subtle explanations and interpretations, sometimes trifling and often forced, in order to discover in each word of the sacred books of the Old Testament the type of our Savior's words in the new one. The sermons and discourses of John Hoss collected in his works amount to about forty, amongst which several were pronounced before his rupture with the ecclesiastical superiors and his interdiction. In them might be already recognized that pure and ardent zeal for morality, and that horror for the vices of the clergy which animated his bosom in every circumstance of his life, a manifestation at once noble and rash in an age when the clergy were as powerful as they were corrupt, and which accumulated on the head of John Hoss such implacable resentment. In some sermons, delivered at a later period, and when he was already exposed to the attacks of his enemies, he expresses himself openly against the abuses springing from the doctrines of the Roman Church. He energetically censures the pomp and ostentation displayed in the festivals in honor of the saints. He reproves the lying flatteries of funeral eulogiums, and the prophet derived from them by the priest. He alludes to this verse, De Morbo Medicus Gaudet de Mortes Sacerdotes, and adds, What is the use of multiplying vigils in the house of a rich defunct unless indeed for empty praise? Neither he who pays nor he who is paid care much about the psalms that are sung. What utility is there in this pompous cortege of the rich at the burial of a corpse? Why are there so many priests sitting luxuriously on cushions around a coffin, whilst thou, O Christ, stoodst weeping over the tomb of Lazarus, and humbly invoked thy father? We do not weep, but make merry. We utter not pious groans, but vain clamors. John Hoss believed in purgatory, although he placed but little confidence in the efficacy of praying for the dead, and in the sermon already mentioned he supports his opinion on this point by the silence of the scriptures. We find no mention made of it, he remarks, except in the book of Maccabees, which is not placed by the Jews in the canon of the Old Testament, neither the prophets, nor Jesus Christ, nor the apostles, nor the saints who have followed their footsteps have explicitly taught that the dead should be prayed for, but they have publicly declared that whoever lived without crime should be deemed holy. For my part, I think that the introduction of this custom originated in the avarice of the priests, who, though but little desirous of teaching men to live well after the examples of the prophets of Christ and the apostles, carefully exhort them to make rich offerings in the hope of procuring celestial happiness and a speedy deliverance from purgatory. The first nine sermons collected in the works of John Hoss were preached by him in Prague at different periods, and are followed by 28 discourses relative to Antichrist, in which he openly designates the Pope, and when he repeats most of the arguments of the treatise on the anatomy of the members of Antichrist. The last two sermons of John Hoss are those which he composed on arriving at Constance, the one on faith and the other on peace. They breathe the desire of a reconciliation which his enemies repulsed, and he was not permitted to deliver them. The moral and theological treatises form the fourth part of John Hoss's works, and the most important of the whole, for they especially show his doctrines, and were those which furnished his enemies and judges with arguments and arms against him. The principal treatises are the treatise on the church, publicly read in the city of Prague, the refutation of the Bowl of John XXIII concerning indulgences for the first crusade, answer to Stephen Pollitz, answer to Stanislaus Genoima, refutation of the writing of eight doctors of Prague, the book of Antichrist, and the treatise on the abomination of priests and monks. All the doctrines and peculiar opinions of John Hoss are to be met with in his celebrated treatise on the church, and in his answers to Pollitz, to Stanislaus Genoima, and the eight doctors. It may be discovered on perusing them that on a great number of points which a century later separated the reformers from the Roman Catholic Church, Hoss shared the opinion of the latter, or at least did not believe that it was allowable to oppose it. He attacked it, consequently, much more for its abuses than for its errors. The horror which he felt at the sight of evil, and especially when it was committed by men who ought to set an example of every virtue to others, often carried him too far. Anger mingled its violence with his indignation, and in some treatises, amongst others the Antichrist, and the abomination of priests and monks, he forgets himself so far as to indulge in abuse and employ insulting and offensive expressions. Nevertheless, it would be unjust to see on that account an excuse for those who condemned him, for these treatises were not known to them, and were only made public after his death. Besides, the expressions to be blamed in them belong less to John Hoss than to the age in which he lived. They are to be met with in the writings of the most celebrated doctors and orthodox priests. And it seems that, in hazarding a language which astonishes our more sensitive ears, John Hoss had adopted for his authority the prophet Ezekiel, from whom he often drew his inspirations. Among the doctrines signalized as heretical in the works of Hoss are those on predestination and election. A heresy was seen in the definition which Hoss gives of the Catholic and universal church. This church, he says, is the assembly of all elect, past, present, and future, including also the angels. And lower down, he adds, no particular ty, no human election renders a person member of the universal church, but divine predestination alone. This predestination is, according to St. Augustine, election by the grace of the divine will, or preparation to grace in the present life and to glory in the future one. To these different passages has been opposed the necessity of the sacraments for obtaining salvation. And it has then been concluded that whoever admitted predestination gratuitous safety of election and grace, or communion with the universal church, could attribute no efficacy to the sacraments, to the communion of the external and visible church. Nevertheless, Hoss nowhere disputes the virtue of the sacraments, but on the contrary recommends their frequent use. This doctrine of predestination and election has often divided the Catholic church. It has been supported in every age by some of its most illustrious members, and has had for its interpreters St. Augustine and Gerson. The boldest opinions of John Hoss have almost all of them found partisans among men whom Rome venerates as saints and learned doctors. But he separated from them upon two principal points. In his eyes, as in those of Wycliffe, the authority of the church could only direct the faith and conduct as long as the decisions of the church agreed with scriptures. In the priest, whatever his external dignity might be, was not in the sight of God, the priest, bishop, or pope, and representative of Jesus Christ, but as far as he took for model and guide in his private life the example of our Savior. These two capital points on which we pose all the doctrine of Wycliffe are the real basis of all Christian descent. Hoss, as we stated in a previous work, acknowledged them without calculating their importance, without clearly understanding the abyss they opened between him and the church of which he believed himself to be a member. His opinion on this subject strongly manifests itself in all the above-mentioned treatises. Even his adversaries are forced to admit that he derived it from the unshaken conviction that morality and religion are inseparable, and that they who have the mission of representing Jesus on earth could not desire or order otherwise than what God himself had willed and commanded. On these two points he goes beyond the limits of the Roman church and openly subjects himself to the reproach addressed to him by one of the Catholic writers who judged him most impartially. It is greatly to be lamented, says the writer, alluded to, that such a man should have so frightful a destiny and so bitter a death, he who glowed with so ardent a love for Christ and his doctrine, who shown by the integrity of his life the sincerity of his heart, the ardor of his mind, his eloquence and other precious gifts, to so high a degree that he might have become an illustrious reformer. If, after the example of some very eminent men such as Gerson Daï or Clemangii, he had devoted his talents to the work of reform in the church itself and not out of its bosom, this reproach is best refuted by referring to John Huss's life and the history of his time, both form the subject of the work which this one completes and to which the reader has been often referred. It will be there seen that the reform of abuses could not be accomplished by those whose interests it was to perpetrate them, and that was the corruption of the external invisible church was then so profound that to introduce a reform in it it was necessary first to leave it altogether. Of all John Huss's treatises, that on the church is the most complete and celebrated. We must insert here an analysis of it which will terminate this work. Analysis of the Treatise of the Church John Huss devines the universal church to be the assembly of all the predestined, past, present and to come, including the angels. The church, writes he, is the most excellent thing created by God. We ought not therefore to believe in the church because it is not God, but we should believe that there is a holy universal church of which Jesus Christ is the sole chief, the entire church, and for all its parts ought to honor God, but it ought not to wish that divine worship should be rendered her. Reprobates, says Huss, are not members of the church. It may occur that one is in the church without being of the church. Such may be the case with the popes, bishops, priests, and clergy, although they style themselves the church in particular because it is possible that they are reprobate. We may also belong to the church without being exteriorly in the church, like those who commence to be converted to the faith. Huss next examines the celebrated passage of St. Matthew, Daward Peter, and on this rock will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, etc. Matthew 16, 18, and 19. He considers in it four things. The church, its faith, its foundation, and its power. He examines first of all whether the Roman church is the universal one, as is affirmed by canon law, where the pope is called the chief, and the cardinals the body of the church. He denies this to be the case, for the reason that the pope and the cardinals do not compose the whole assembly of the elect. Daward Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, signifies, according to Huss, Daward the confessor of the true rock, which is Christ, and it is on this rock that I will raise my church by faith and grace. But this church does not consist in men constituted in powers and dignity, whether secular or ecclesiastical, because several popes have fallen into error and crime. Huss does not, however, contest great privileges to the Roman church, because St. Peter founded it, and he does not oppose the pope and the cardinals holding the principal rank in the church, provided they follow the example of Jesus Christ, and that, stripping themselves of pop and ambition, they serve with humility the common mother of all believers. Yet the Roman church can hardly be termed a universal one, because in reality it is a particular church, the first and most ancient being that of Jerusalem, and the second that of Antioch, of which the faithful were first called Christian. As to faith, Huss distinguishes several kinds. The true faith, says he, is a faith formed by charity. This, when persevered in, is the foundation of all the other Christian virtues. It ought necessarily to be founded on truth, which enlightens the understanding, and on authority, which strengthens the soul. This authority can be only that of God speaking by his word. If the Christian is convinced that a truth has been dictated by the Holy Ghost in the scriptures, he ought, without hesitation, to declare his opinion, and expose his life for it. The obligation is not the same with regard to the words of the saints and pope's bulls, one is not held to believe them, but only so far as they agree with the holy scriptures. We may, besides believing them as in opinions, because the pope and his court might err through ignorance of the truth. It is, then, one thing to believe in God because he cannot err or be deceived, and another to believe in the pope, who is liable to err, is one thing to believe in the holy scriptures, and another to believe in a bull, because the latter is of human invention. It can never be permitted not to follow the scriptures or to oppose them, but it is sometimes allowable not to believe in a bull, and even to oppose it, as, for instance, when it has originated in avarice, when it raises to dignity unworthy persons, or oppresses the innocent, in a word, when it is contrary to the instructions and commandments of God. As regards the foundation of the church, there is but one, which is Jesus Christ. If the apostles, therefore, are called the foundations of the church, it is in a figurative manner as being subjected to Jesus Christ, because it is He who has built the church, and St. Peter is only its basis and foundation, in the same manner is the apostles, His colleagues. It must be admitted that Jesus Christ, who is the cornerstone of the church, established Peter in humility, poverty, and faith, and that it was by these virtues He elevated the church which He governed. But to pretend from these words, on this rock I will raise my church, that Jesus Christ intended to found the entire church in the person of Peter, is to believe what is contrary to faith and reason. St. Peter never boasted of being the head of the whole church, because He never governed the whole of it. Yet there may be allowed to Him, with some of the fathers, a priority of order over other apostles, on account of the excellence of His virtues. And, in this sense, the words of the Blessed St. Dennis are true. St. Peter was the chief of the apostles, which does not mean the chief of the universal church. The Bishop of Rome may be looked upon as the vicar of St. Peter, and the first in the church which he governs, if he imitates the virtues of this apostle. But if he follows an opposite path, he is only the forerunner of Antichrist. Huss supports his opinions by citing several of the fathers, and amongst them St. Bernard, St. Jerome, St. Gregory, and St. Chrysostom. It is not the post which he holds that makes the priest, says the last named Saint, but the priest which makes the post. It is not the place which sanctifies man, but the man that sanctifies the place. Lastly, as relates to the power of the priests, it is purely spiritual. It consists in instructing, in condemning the culpable by spiritual punishment, in absolving the penitent, and announcing them the remission of their sins. It dwells actually in Jesus Christ, and has been given, in the person of Peter, to all the church militant. Priests are only the ministers of the church, and are not able to bind or lose, remit or retain sins if God has not previously done so. And the people greatly err if they believe that the priest first bind or unbind, and that God only does so after them. As if God executed the sentence of priests, whereas the priest ought to execute the judgment of God. Error, whereas priests ought to execute the judgment of God, only in accord with Jesus Christ. There are two kinds of power, one legitimate, which should be obeyed, the other pretended, and usurped, which ought to be resisted. Such is the power of the simoniacs, who, through interest, take advantage of the keys in order to condemn the innocent and absolve the guilty, who buy and sell holy orders, bishoprics, canonries, and livings, who make a traffic of the sacraments, who live in avarice and voluptuousness, and sully the authority of the priesthood. Huss maintains that the power of binding or loosing was equally given to all the apostles, and contests the rites of the popes to bear the title of universal bishop, and most holy. They have no right, he says, to decorate themselves with it. And he cites as proofs the example of the apostles, the canons, the councils, as well as the scandalous lives of several popes, in whom there was no holiness. As to the cardinals of whom it was said they form the body of the church, it would be necessary, in order to acknowledge it, to know by revelation that they are predestined to salvation, and that they live as becomes the successors and vickers of the apostles. But do they show themselves as such? Those men who accumulate livings gain favors by presence after the example of Gisi, who go early in the morning dressed in splendid clothing to visit the pope, mounted on horses, richly comparisoned, not on account of the distance or difficulty of the roads, but to display their magnificence to the eyes of the world, in opposition to the example of Christ and his apostles, who visited on foot, and in humble clothing, the towns and villages preaching the gospel and announcing the kingdom of God. The church, says John Huss, may be governed without the pope and cardinals, as was the case during three hundred years. It was Constantine who established, in the third century, the universal domination of the Roman Pontiff. Before the donation, the Bishop of Rome was like the other bishops, and for that reason, the Roman Pontiffs, who succeeded Sylvester, fearing to lose this preeminence, besought the emperors to confirm it. John Huss afterwards, quotes Gratian's decree, confirmed by Louis le Dubinaire, and adds Saint Peter never required that Louis le Dubinaire should bestow on him the temporal domain of Rome. He was in possession of the kingdom of heaven, and consequently greater than Louis. Would to God that Peter had replied to him, I accept not your concession. When I was Bishop of Rome, I did not envy Nero, the domination of Rome, and I had no need of it. I believe it to have been injurious to my successors. It turned them from preaching the gospel, from prayer, and observing the commandments of God, and filled them with pride. It is the law of God, and not the arbitrary will of the pope and the cardinals, that ought to regulate ecclesiastical judgment. The adversaries of Huss considered this position of his as a crime. He defends it against them, and makes it a point of honor to acknowledge only the scriptures as authority, although he respects the holy doctors when their decisions are in harmony with the Divine Word. He rejects the application to Christians of certain passages of Deuteronomy in which God orders the Israelites to have their disputes judged in the place he had chosen and sentences with death whoever should not submit himself to the pontiff and to the judge. It is here a question, says John Huss, of civil affairs rather than of religious ones, and the spirit of the gospel which, only employing persuasion, differs greatly from the ancient law, which was one of rigor. If these distinctions were not established, it would follow that Jesus was justly condemned, because the High Priest Anas and Caiaphas presided in the places designated by God himself. Huss likewise rejects the accusations of wishing to excite the people, and induce them to disobedience toward their superiors, viz, the popes, bishops, priests, and all the clergy. He distinguishes three kinds of obedience. First, spiritual obedience, which is that which all Christians, without exception, are expected at all times to render to the law of Jesus Christ. Secondly, secular obedience, which is that which is due to civil laws admitting them to be conformable to the law of God. Thirdly, ecclesiastical obedience, which is that paid to the laws invented by the priests of the Church without any express authority of the scriptures. This letter, he says, is only obligatory as far as the things prescribed or forbidden are in conformity with what is ordered or prohibited by the Word of God, and he draws this inference, that he who knows of a certainty that the commandments of the Pope are contrary to what is counseled and commanded by Jesus Christ, or tends to be the ruin of the Church, ought boldly to resist them for fear of sanctioning a crime by his consent. He invokes, in support of this opinion, the authority of the canon law, as well as the fathers from whom he quotes many passages extracted especially from Nicholas Lyra and St. Augustine. In the last chapters, Husson vays energetically against the abuse of excommunication, suspensions, and interdicts. One ought not to be excommunicated, continues Huss, but on account of a mortal sin which separates from the grace of God. The major excommunication is pronounced against a public sinner, and it is that which was pronounced against myself. But blessed be God, who has not given to this excommunication the power of taking away justice and virtue from a just man, and of making him become a sinner. I am more afraid of the greatest of all excommunications, viz that by which the sovereign pontiff in presence of angels and men will eternally excommunicate the wicked from all participation in eternal beatitude. It is on that one that he who judges should reflect through fear of excommunicating unjustly, for whoever shall excommunicate a man from temporal interest or pride, or in order to revenge himself of some injury, and against his conscience, excommunicates himself. As to suspension, it is God who pronounces it against every bad priest who lives scandalously and criminally. It follows from hence that there are but few preachers whom God does not at presence suspend from the ministry of his word, because there are few who do not reject the knowledge of the scriptures and contradict by their lives the duties which they teach unto others. Huss concludes from this that he was forced to preach against the voices of the clergy. Woe unto me, he exclaims, if I had remained silent for according to the canon law, not to oppose an error is to approve of it, and to neglect denouncing the perverse when it is in your power to do so is to show ourselves their accomplices. Afterwards, passing to the subject of interdicts a punishment which ecclesiastical dignitaries may inflict on a country or a town simply for the fault of one individual and forbidding divine service to be celebrated in the place without distinguishing the innocent from the guilty, John Huss adds, one of the manifest proofs that these censures which are called fulminations are derived from antichrist is that they are cast against those who preach the gospel and expose the corruption of the clergy. Interdicts began after the year 1000 and by the rage of Satan when the clergy had become fat on the misfortunes of the world and had grown in voluptuous pride and impatience of submitting to any restraint. Huss calls to mind the worldly motives which led the Pontiffs Adrian IV, Alexander III, Innocent III, Boniface VIII, Innocent IV and Clement IV to interdict towns and countries in the 13th or 14th centuries and concludes by quoting against this custom an admirable letter of St. Augustine to a young bishop who on account of the ill conduct of a holy father had excommunicated his whole family. This is the letter. Instruct me, I pray you, by strict reason or scripture in what case should you know of any the child should be excommunicated for the sin of the father, the wife for that of the husband, the servant for that of the master, and even the children that may be born in the house thus excommunicated. Since, as long as it remains so, it is impossible to procure for the children even when in danger of death the grace of regeneration produced by baptism. The chastisement which God inflicted on several of the empires who had despised his law and in which he included all belonging to them was an external punishment which fell only on the body in order to fill the living with dread. But the excommunication resulting from the power given us by these words that which you shall have bound on earth shall be bound in heaven falls even upon the soul and it is said of souls the soul of the father belongs to me as likewise the soul of the son and that which has sinned shall die. Perhaps you have heard of some bishops of great repute who anathematized sinners with the whole of their families but if they were asked to explain their conduct it is likely they would be embarrassed to assign a good reason for it and as I should not myself have known how to answer a similar inquiry I have never on that account dared to act in this manner however great might have been the crimes committed against the church. Nevertheless if God has revealed to you that this may be done with justice I shall not despise your youth and your little experience of the weight of episcopacy. Behold me then an old man as for many years a bishop ready to learn from a young man my colleague a year since only how I should justify myself before God and men if I inflicted a spiritual punishment on the innocent souls for the sins of others. John Haas after supporting his argument by the imposing authority of St. Augustine energetically addressed the doctors his adversaries and asked them if they believe in their conscience that it is an unimportant thing keeping the middle path between good and evil to deprive the innocent of the sacraments and of sepulchre to prohibit divine service and give rise in consequence to so much scandal calumny and hatred oh doctors he exclaims to what church belongs this language is it that of an apostolic church say whether it be the language of an apostle or of a saint assuredly it is not that of Jesus Christ of the chief of the holy church in whose word is contained every truth useful to the church Haas terminates his celebrated treatise by alluding to the condemnation of the 45 articles of wickliffe by the doctors without there being able to demonstrate that any of these articles were heretical erroneous or scandalous he expresses his astonishment at his adversaries abstaining from opposing too openly at prog wickliffe's proposition which authorizes lay lords to strip of their wealth ecclesiastics of depraved morals their silence says he like the priests and Pharisees and fear prevents them from condemning this article but what they dreaded has occurred and will again come to pass they shall lose their temporal wealth god grant they may preserve their souls end of remarks are the works of john haas and of the letters of john haas by emile de bono shows translated by cambell mckenzie