he cites Liberius, Constantine II, and the legendary Pope Joan as historical examples. Barring some act of revelation, he adds, there is no way for Christians to know for certain if a pope even belongs to the predestinate. However, it seems clear in his mind that an avaricious pope whose lifestyle conflicts with Christ’s commandments cannot be a true successor of Peter. The same critical reasoning applies to cardinals who, like thieves and robbers “devour and consume in luxurious living the goods of the poor.”

There are similar abuses at all levels of the priesthood, says Hus. Those who put a price on the sacraments or who trade in episcopates, canonries, and parishes for profit are unworthy of their office. How, he asks, can priests take credit for the binding or loosing of sins? It is divine work that only God performs. A priest merely announces its eventuality in a ceremonious fashion.

The final chapters of The Church provide insight into Hus’s clash with church authorities. In 1409, says Hus, the archbishop of Prague, Zbyněk Zajíc of Hazmburk, obtained from Antipope Alexander V a bull forbidding local priests from preaching in private chapels. In defiance of that injunction, however, Hus continued to preach at Prague’s Bethlehem chapel and was threatened with excommunication. At present, Hus says, Štěpán Páleč, Stanislav of Znojmo, and other university doctors have turned against him and invent lies to destroy him. They even threaten him with execution, calling him a heretic. They claim that Hus swears only by Holy Scripture, interprets it according to his own fancy, spurns the opinion of the apostles and of the holy doctors, opposes God’s law, and incites the people to disobedience. Hus rejects all these assertions and affirms that “there is no such thing as obedience in the case of things unlawful.” In his view, Alexander’s bull against the use of private chapels for preaching was contrary to Christ’s teachings and hence invalid.

Christian Themes

Many of the ideas and Scripture-based arguments contained in The Church, especially in the early chapters, were directly inspired by writings of the fourteenth century English theologian John Wyclif. It has been estimated that Hus “borrowed” about 23 percent of his material for The Church, much of it verbatim or near verbatim, from fourteen of the Englishman’s treatises. In 1403 and 1412, theologians at the University of Prague critically examined Wyclif’s writings and derived from them a list of forty-five articles that they considered to be heretical. Hus strongly disagreed with their assessment, and in the final pages of The Church he insisted that the university’s theologians had failed to prove that a single one of the forty-five articles was in fact erroneous.

Church historians are quick to note that Wyclif was only one of several influences on Hus’s thought and that the Czech reformer was a discriminating reader. Placed on trial at the Council of Constance in 1415, Hus refused to condemn Wyclif’s teachings en bloc, but he did expressly reject the Englishman’s views on absolute necessity and remnance in the Eucharist. Although he reserved the right to disobey church officials whose commands were contrary to the lessons of Holy Scripture, he did not seek to abolish the institutional church. It would be naïve to think that Hus had intended for the borrowed passages to escape the notice of his curial opponents in Prague, especially as most of them were already intimately acquainted with the original texts. It seems far more likely that the Czech reformer’s insightful presentation of Wyclifian views was part of an intertextual strategy, a provocative barb of sorts, intended to deflate the theologians’ case against Wyclif and Wyclif’s admirers within the Czech reform movement.

Whatever his strategy may have been, history shows that Hus—not only in The Church but also in some of his other works—willfully linked his fate to that of his English predecessor. The Council of Constance reached this conclusion when it condemned Hus to burn at the stake by declaring him a heretic and a disciple of Wyclif.

Sources for Further Study

• Fudge, Thomas A. Magnificent Ride. The First Reformation in Hussite Bohemia. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998. An in-depth study of the Hussite reform movement in Czech society from about 1410 to 1437; places Hus in a larger historical context.
• Herold, Vil. “Jan Hus Heretic, a Saint, or a Reformer?” Communio Viatorum 45 (2003): 5-23. Examines the nature and extent of Wyclif’s influence on Hus.
• Shelley, Marshall, and Elesha Coffman, eds. Christian History 68 (2000): Jan Hus. The Incendiary Preacher of Prague. A richly illustrated issue devoted to Hus and his contemporaries, with brief articles by eight Church historians; intended for the general reader.
• Spinka, Matthew. John Hus: A Biography. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1968. An authoritative study of the events that shaped Hus’s life; discusses Hus’s major writings in Czech, his opposition to the sale of indulgences, and events at Constance.
• Spinka, Matthew. John Hus’ Concept of the Church. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1966. A survey of the Czech reformer’s life and his major works, with special emphasis on The Church; recommended reading.