Easter 1

Jan Hus, the Czech Reformer

Josh Easter
Dr. C. Bass
THE-3463-1
Southwest Baptist University
November 29, 2012
 Easter 2

Background

The status of the Christian church in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries can accurately

be classified as very much divided and corrupted. This is the context surrounding the life and

ministry of Czech (then “Bohemian”) preacher and professor Jan, or John, Hus. Hus was a

student at the University of Prague and would later become dean of the faculty of philosophy

there in 1401. A year later, at the age of thirty-three, he would be appointed preacher at the

Chapel of Bethlehem.1 His preaching in the vernacular2, much of which was done here, was a

key aspect of Hus’s ministry. It was at the pulpit that Hus made his voice well-known as the

leader of the reform party. His sermons were textually based, relied heavily on allegory, and had

many quotations of Scripture and the Apostolic Fathers. He stressed conscience, rather than

intellect.3 He taught that the ultimate aim of religion was the absolute love of God.4 Hus’s

favorite subject to preach on was moral reform, particularly that of the clergy.5 Whereas the

primary focus of Wycliffe was spreading the Gospel, Hus was concerned with moral reform,

especially in regards to sexual sins, the demanding of a special payment for the priests6, simony,

and the selling of indulgences.7 Regarding this final problem, John XXIII declared a crusade

against Naples and determined that the funding for it would come through the sale of
1
Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (New
York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2010) 415-416.
2
This is one similarity with Wycliffe to be noted. Both found it important to bring the Word of God in
languages translated from Latin.
3
Matthew Spinka, John Hus and the Czech Reform (Hamden: Archon Books, 1966) 78.
4
Matthew Spinka, John Hus at the Council of Constance (New York: Columbia University Press, 1965)
31.
5
Ibid., Czech Reform, 5.
6
As a result, Hus refered to the priests as “the Lord’s fat ones” (Gonzalez, 417).
7
Spinka, Czech Reform, 29.
 Easter 3

indulgences. The pope promised forgiveness of sin, but Hus determined that only God could

forgive, and those that sell what comes only from God are usurping His power. Thus, Hus had to

fight it.8

Influences on Jan Hus

The Czech Reformation was initiated by Conrad Waldhauser, an Australian preacher that

was called to the city of Prague in 1363 by Emperor Charles IV. Like Hus, Waldhauser

emphasized the preaching and studying of Scripture. The preaching of Walhauser influenced

Milíč of Kromĕříž (d. 1374), who became known as the father of the Czech Reformation. One

can see in Milíč similarities of Hus: his sermons were thoroughly biblical as opposed to

scholastic; he attacked the greedy attitude and immorality of the priests; he also held that the true

Church was the congregation of the elect, which was predestined for salvation before the ages;

the Scriptures were the supreme rule.9 Milíč spurred another significant influence of Hus,

Matthew of Janov (1355-1393). Matthew preached reform in Prague holding true to the biblical

truths, using the Bible as his almost exclusive source of doctrine and preaching, and attacking the

greed of the clergy. Likewise, according to Matthew, the Church was the communion of

believers, including laymen believers.10

Of utmost importance, though, is the extent to which Hus followed the teachings of the

English reformer John Wycliffe, of which he became familiar in his undergraduate days.

Because Wycliffe was deemed a heretic, allegiance with him on Hus’s part could present the

threat of the same condemnation. Some scholars, such as Johann Loserth, go so far as to say that

8
Gonzalez, 418.
9
Spinka, Council of Constance, 23.
10
Ibid., Council of Constance, 24-25.
 Easter 4

Wycliffe was the only source of Hus, and that one is not really justified in claiming a Hussite

system of doctrine; Hus was merely a Wycliffite. Loserth claimed that Hus’s De ecclesia copies

word for word Wycliffe’s De ecclesia. However, most reject Loserth’s stance (claiming that the

men mentioned above are legitimate sources of Hus).11 As a matter of fact, in direct opposition

to Loserth, J. Sedlák showed that less than one-eighth of Hus’s De ecclesia traces back to

Wycliffe’s work of the same title. Upon further review, which now included the entire

Wycliffian corpus, Sedlák claimed that though Hus clearly depends upon Wycliffe to some

extent, he is fairly independent, for he only pulls bits and pieces out of Wycliffe’s works that he

agrees with, and does not follow Wycliffe’s ordering or train of thought. Furthermore, though

Hus would occasionally borrow direct quotes, he felt justified in adding, deleting, or changing a

word or phrase to fit his agenda of orthodoxy.12 In regards to Wycliffe’s forty-five articles, Hus

opposed the complete condemnation of them as heretical as we would openly accept nine of

them.

The Beliefs of Jan Hus

Because the problems surrounding Hus have so much to do with his alliance with

Wycliffe, it is necessary to look at the beliefs held by Hus, particularly as compared to Wycliffe.

Scholars can find much of Hus’s beliefs particularly in his De ecclesia, though as well, of course,

in his other works and sermons. First, in regards to communion, Hus’s orthodox view disagreed

with Wycliffe. The former held that the presence of Christ is in communion; Hus believed in

transubstantiation.13 The accidents of the material bread were not transubstantiated and are

11
Ibid., Czech Reform, 7-10.
12
Ibid., Czech Reform, 16-17.
13
Gonzalez, 416.
 Easter 5

therefore able to be taken by the unrepentant and unworthy, who do not come into communion

with Christ.14 Secondly, Hus affirmed the Augustinian doctrine of original sin and taught that

baptism is the cure.15 Thirdly, Hus differed from Wycliffe on the issue of property holding.

Wycliffe believed in apostolic poverty and claimed that popes that own property are heretics.

Hus, however, owned his own property and felt no guilt for it.16 Fourth, Hus differed from

Wycliffe on authority. Wycliffe “held [the Scriptures] to be the sole and absolute rule in matters

of faith and conduct. Accordingly, he rejected all tradition, and adhered to the patristic teaching

only so far as it was in accordance with the Scriptures.”17 Hus, however, accepted tradition as

the secondary source behind the canon. Moreover, he accepted the decisions of councils as

authoritative. Hus believed, though, that God was always to be obeyed before man. If the pope

or any secular authority ordered something that did cohere with Scripture, the Christian (lay or

clerical) had the right and the duty to disobey.18 He also held that the New Testament was more

authoritative than the Old Testament. In regards to the pope, Wycliffe asserted the total

abolishment of the papacy. Hus advocated that the church could survive without the pope, for a

time, as far as the needs for salvation are concerned.19 Furthermore, Hus saw, in agreement with

the orthodox Catholic view asserted by Augustine, that the baptism and reception of sacraments

from an unworthy priest was valid, yet the priest would bring sin upon himself. Furthermore, if

the recipient of these priestly functions knew of the priest’s unworthiness and still partook, he

14
Spinka, Czech Reform, 27.
15
Ibid., Czech Reform, 24.
16
Ibid., Czech Reform, 64.
17
Ibid., Czech Reform, 67.
18
Ibid., Czech Reform, 68.
19
Ibid., Council of Constance, 213.
 Easter 6

too brought sin upon himself.20 Wycliffe, on the other hand, held that if a priest was unworthy,

he ought not ordain, consecrate the elements, nor baptize.21 Finally, and most crucially, Hus

defined the Church as the body of the predestined elect22, the sons of God, with Christ as the

head. This was in opposition to the common view that the clergy made up the church, with the

cardinals as the body and the pope as the head. This discussion was a major issue for the

accusers of Hus at the Council of Constance. There Hus was condemned for denying the

authority, or even its very existence, of the Roman church (and therefore the authority of the

Council, which represented the Church of Rome).23

Nearly all of these beliefs of Hus were twisted in the Council of Constance to be put in a

Wycliffian light by Páleč and Hus’s other accusers.

The Trials and Tribulations of Jan Hus

Jan Hus faced many tribulations during his ministry days. The first came in August of

1408 when some of the clergy of Prague charged that Hus claimed he knew of the whereabouts

of Wycliffe’s soul. However, Hus countered with an Augustinian viewpoint that no one can be

certain of the predestination of a man. Nothing against Hus came out of these charges at this

time. However, “although the charge had been adequately answered on this occasion, it

nevertheless made its appearance, along with the rest of the accusations, at the trial before the

Council of Constance, where it did its work of prejudicing the minds of the judges against

20
Ibid., Czech Reform, 24.
21
Ibid., Czech Reform, 59.
22
“The doctrine that the predestined alone are the sons of God is, of course, orthodox; Augustine and
Thomas Aquinas, as well as Wyclif and Hus, were predestinarians” (Ibid., Council of Constance, 31).
23
Ibid., Czech Reform, 62.
 Easter 7

Hus.”24 Soon later, in 1409, Hus was called to be questioned by Master Mařík Rvačka (and Hus

was only allowed to answer “yes” or “no”). At this hearing, the accusers tried to find any sort of

heresy in Hus’s works ranging from 1399 to 1409. Thus, this is the first allegation of Jan Hus

being a heretic, particularly of Donatism and remanence. Fortunately for Hus, the inquisitor

could find no support for the claims made against Hus; therefore took no actions against Hus.

Actually, the inquisitor officially attested to Hus’s orthodoxy. But this would be ignored.25

Then, on June 16, 1410, the Archbishop Zbynĕk Zajíc ordered the burning of all

Wycliffian works and the ceasing of preaching in private churches (including the Bethlehem

Chapel). Regardless, Hus continued to preach on the grounds that the command of God, i.e.

Hus’s commission to preach the truth, trumps the commands of earthly authority. This

disobedience led to the excommunication of Hus, who by now was labeled the leader of

Wycliffism.26 Hus, however, still enjoyed the favor of King Václav, who seemingly turned the

tables in Hus’s favor by gaining a promise from the Archbishop to drop all charges (though

Zbynĕk would ignore his promise). It is important to remember that the king was only willing to

support Hus so long as the Czech reformer was not proposing any blatant heresy. To the dismay

of Hus and the king alike, heretical charges continued to surface. This was part of the reason that

Hus lost the kings support. The second, and more important, offense was the fact that Hus

openly denounced the bull of indulgences.27 The king allowed the sale of indulgences, and

therefore opposition to this was seen as disobedience to the king. These two issues eventually

caused the king to forsake his alliance with Hus, which then ultimately led to the demise of Hus.
24
Ibid., Czech Reform, 30.
25
Ibid., Czech Reform, 32.
26
Ibid., Czech Reform, 35-37.
27
Ibid., Czech Reform, 41-44.
 Easter 8

In his denouncement of the bull of indulgences Hus was alone. Stephen Páleč, now the

dean of the faculty of theology at the University of Prague, had forbiden all bachelors of divinity

to join Hus. Furthermore, the king ordered those of the faculty, who used to be friends of Hus

and former reformists but were now his enemies, to publish a defense of the papal indulgences

and declare Hus heretic. The news spread to the public, which sided with Hus and ridiculed the

pope and his indulgence sellers. Riots broke out in the churches and city squares; even monks of

the monastery of the Mother of God of the Snow participated. In response, the king forbade any

opposition to the sale of indulgences and beat those that rebelled. Still, three men who acted

extremely were beheaded for their actions. Thus, the reform movement became the popular

movement; Hus had gained the support of the commoners.28

The king was so enraged by the rebellious acts that he called for the theological faculty to

meet and comprise the prohibition of preaching heresies, of opposition to the papal bull of

indulgences, and of defending the forty-five theses of Wycliffe. However, once again Hus

continued to preach. In fact, his defiance went further in that he publically declared his

affirmation of some of the forty-five articles of Wycliffe.29

Opposition was clearly intensifying for Hus. Another blow came when “the Cardinal

Peter degli Stephaneschi placed Hus under a stricter ban. As Spinka notes, “by its terms, should

Hus fail to appear within the specified time at the curia, a general interdict was to be laid upon

any locality in which he should reside.”30 Hus decided to leave the city in an effort to save the

citizens and live in hiding. He probably went to the castle of Kozí near Tábor in southern

28
Ibid., Czech Reform, 45-46.
29
Ibid., Czech Reform, 47.
30
Ibid., Czech Reform, 48.
 Easter 9

Bohemia. Here he would have been deprived of a pulpit and therefore wrote literary work. His

most important piece during this time was his Exposition of the Faith, which was intended for

popular instruction. Exposition of the Decalogue and Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer would

later be added to this. Together the trilogy was meant to expound on what the common people

were to believe, what they were to do, and how they were to pray. It was in this time of hiding

that Hus also wrote Concerning Simony, a work denouncing the sin of the Church, as well as his

De ecclesia.31

The Fate of Jan Hus: The Council of Constance

After Pope John XXIII suspended the ban, Hus was called to attend the Council of

Constance. The reformer pretty much had to go, for just a year earlier he had included in one of

his sermons, “If I knew that it is God’s will that I die in Rome, I would go.” Hus came to

Constance believing that he would be treated as a free person under the imperial safe conduct,

able to leave the Council whenever he so chose to, and as one who was just there to express his

views and, if necessary, be rebuked. Hus even expected to preach to the Council and made

preparations to do so.32 This is what was promised to him by Emperor Sigismund; this is how

Hus envisioned the Council. However, the reality appeared as soon as Hus was thrown into

prison at the Castle of Gottlieben by the pope and was told that he was not allowed to speak at

the Council.33 Clearly the Council itself did not view it the same as Hus did.

Though the Council’s main concern was healing the schism, it also sought to exterminate

heresy. Jan Hus was a direct target for the latter, along with John Wycliffe and Jerome of

31
Ibid., Czech Reform, 48-49.
32
Ibid., Council of Constance, 67.
33
Ibid., Czech Reform, 51-53.
 Easter 10

Prague.34 Modern scholars are able to determine what took place at the Council via the Account

of Peter of Mladoňovice.35 It is important for one to bear in mind that the Council of Constance

was built upon and relied upon the previous trials of Hus. Thanks to these, the Council already

had presuppositions about Hus and his verdict. The Council revolved around Hus’s support of

Wycliffe and his writings, which were already condemned, burned, and forbidden observation.

Hus accepted nine36 of Wycliffe’s forty-five theses as orthodox. But since all forty-five had

already been condemned, including these nine, Hus was condemned as well. 37

Because Hus shared the view with Wycliffe of sola Scriptura, Páleč in his Antihus

charged Hus with the rejection of all ecclesiastical authority; Páleč charged that Hus accepted

nothing that was not Scripturally backed. This was in opposition to Páleč, who saw the authority

of the Roman curia as absolute and all of its pronouncements as supported by Scripture.38 Of

greater importance, and perhaps the main charge of heresy against Hus, was his definition of the

true Church. Hus held that only the predestined elect make up the Church. However, as shown

by Spinka, the Council had a counter:

If membership in the Church as the body of Christ depends on predestination, and since
no one can with certainty determine who is or who is not of the elect, what becomes of
the corporate and authoritative structure of the Church militant? How can one tell
whether the pope, the cardinals, the rest of the prelates, and even the priests ministering
the sacraments are of the predestinate and, therefore, worthily exercising the divinely
sanctioned authority? They might exercise their office de facto, without possessing the
spiritual qualification, as Hus repeatedly conceded; but in that case they did so
unworthily, no in accordance with the divine will.39

34
Ibid., Council of Constance, 67.
35
Ibid., Council of Constance, 67.
36
None of which concerned the papal office. (Ibid., Czech Reform, 55.)
37
Ibid., Czech Reform, 53-54.
38
Ibid., Czech Reform, 68.
 Easter 11

The ultimate charge brought before Hus consisted of twenty-nine theses, which were

based largely on Hus’s writings (especially his De ecclesia). Hus was given the opportunity to

recant on oath of his heretical articles. In other words, as Spinka puts it, “the Council insisted on

judging what was wrong as it seemed proper to it, and then demanded that Hus submit

unconditionally to this judgment, whether or not he were convinced of its correctness.”40

However, Hus could not do this because he felt as though his theses lined up with Scripture. If

he recanted, he betrayed truth, and truth is what Hus sought. Therefore, because Hus refused to

recant, he was deemed a heretic and sentenced to death.

On July 6, 1415, Jan Hus was executed. Prior to his execution, Hus was ridiculed.

Gonzalez provides a telling description:

Finally, on July 6, Huss was taken to the cathedral. There he was dressed in his priestly
garments, which were then torn from him. His tonsure was erased by shaving his head,
which was then covered with a paper crown decorated with demons. On his way to the
stake, they led him past a pyre where his books were being burned. When he was tied to
the stake, they gave him a last chance to recant, and once again he refused. He then
prayed aloud, ‘Lord Jesus, it is for thee that I patiently endure this cruel death. I pray
thee to have mercy on my enemies. He was heard reciting the Psalms [and singing aloud]
as he died.41
Finally, a wind blew the fire into Hus’s face and he perished. Once the original wood

and ropes had been consumed in the blaze, the body still remained intact. The executioners then

laid the stake flat on the ground and continued burning Hus’s body by adding more wood to the

fire. They then broke all the bones of Hus with clubs so that they too would be incinerated.

Once the head was found, it was crushed into little pieces and thrown back into the fire. Upon

finding the heart, it was impaled and placed on the end of a sharpened club and roasted in the

39
Ibid., Council of Constance, 69.
40
Ibid., Czech Reform, 74.
41
Gonzalez, 419.
 Easter 12

fire. Then, to top things off, Hus’s clothes and shoes were thrown into the fire as well. Finally,

all that remained was ash, which was gathered and loaded into a cart to be dispersed throughout

the Rhine River.42 Still, some devoted Czechs gathered and took some of the soil around which

Hus died in order to have a memorial of the crime committed.43 After the death of Hus, the term

“Hussite” was used of Roman Catholics as a term synonymous for almost any heresy, not just

that of Jan Hus.44

A Very Brief Look at the Aftermath of Jan Hus

Following the death of Jan Hus, his legacy lived on in his followers, the Hussites. This

group sub-divided into two: the Calixtines (or Utraquists) and the Taborites.45 True Hussites,

like Hus himself, would only accept what the Bible taught. Also, the Hussites demanded that the

bread and wine of communion would be given to the laity.46 This was in direct contradiction to

one of the outcomes of the Council of Constance. At the Council, it was determined that laymen

were not to partake of the wine.47 For both religious and political reasons, the Hussites would

engage in what would be termed “The Hussite Wars” (1420-1434). The Hussites were

42
Spinka, Council of Constance, 233-234.
43
Gonzalez, 420.
44
Jarold Knox Zeman, The Anabaptists and the Czech Brethren in Moravia 1526-1628: A Study of Origins
and Contacts (Paris: Mouton & Co. N.V., Publishers, The Hague, 1969) 142-143.
45
Ibid., 46.
46
Gonzalez, 420.
47
Cornelius Krahn, Dutch Anabaptism: Origin, Spread, Life, and Thought (Scottdale: Herald Press, 1981)
45.
 Easter 13

surprisingly successful in their battles against the armies of Emperor Sigismund and the Pope

Martin V. Because the pope could not defeat the Hussites in battle, he called for the Council of

Basel in 1431. However, because he died before the Council took place, so his successor,

Eugenius IV, took control of it.48 The Council, which lasted until 1438, met to reform the

Church, to heal the schism, and to finally settle the Hussite heresy. The settlement of the Hussite

heresy would come about by a military victory against the resistant Taborites (the Calixtines

peacefully united with the Roman Catholics).49

It is well worth noting that Jan Hus can be described as a Protestant Reformer before the

Protestant Reformation. He was heavily cited by members of this Reformation as many of his

beliefs were shared by the Reformers, particularly by Martin Luther.50

Conclusion

Unfortunately for Jan Hus, he was a man with ideas that his time was not ready for.

Much of his thinking would reappear a century later and would have received more acceptance

then. In the Czech Republic, Hus is remembered for his zealousness in search for truth and his

fearlessness in the face of the powerful Church. Hus was an eloquent preacher whose ultimate

goal was to stay in line with Scripture. In order to do this, however, the land needed to be

purged of immorality, especially that of church leaders. Hus’s promotion of a moral reform was

not well accepted by the people his day, though. Unfortunately, his name often gets overlooked

today by those that study the surface level of the Reformation. Though he was not present at the

48
Spinka, Council of Constance, 71.
49
Henry Bettenson and Christ Maunder, Documents of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1963) 150.
50
Spinka, Czech Reform, 3.
 Easter 14

tables with the later Reformers, Hus played a large part in the developments of the Protestant

Reformation and therefore many beliefs still held today.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bettenson, Henry, and Chris Maunder. Documents of the Christian Church. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1963.

Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation.
New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2010.

Krahn, Cornelius. Dutch Anabaptism: Origin, Spread, Life, and Thought. Scottdale: Herald
Press, 1981.

Spinka, Matthew. John Hus and the Czech Reform. Hamden: Archon Books, 1966.

________. John Hus at the Council of Constance. New York: Columbia University Press,
1965
 Easter 15

Zeman, Jarold Knox. The Anabaptists and the Czech Brethren in Moravia 1526-1628: A Study
of Origins and Contacts. Paris: Mouton & Co. N.V., Publishers, The Hague,
1969.