« PredošláPokračovať »
the Roman hierarchy, not against the ancient dogmas of the Catholic Church. They accepted fully the teaching of the Roman Church with regard to the sacrament, but they maintained that communion should be administered to all in the two kinds. They declared, as I have previously mentioned, that the distinction which the Church of Rome had established in this respect between priests and laymen was unjust, and not founded on the teaching of Scripture. It may also be said that they attached more importance to the study of the Bible than priests usually did at that period. This had indeed been a characteristic of the Bohemian churchreformers from the beginning of the movement. The utraquists allowed the adornment of churches by pictures and statues, but sternly opposed the exaggerated veneration of such images, which had at that period become absolute idolatry. The calixtines strongly disapproved of the possession of secular property by the priesthood, as it led, according to their views, to immorality and the neglect of ecclesiastical duties. They wished that their priests, to whom marriage was permitted, should differ as little as possible from the rest of the faithful, and sternly reproved the exaggerated and sometimes almost sacrilegious veneration which the Roman priests at this period claimed. Following here also the example of Hus, the Calixtines endeavoured to extend the use of the national language in the services of the church, though they did not in this respect go as far as the Taborites. Though opposed to Rome on some points, the Calixtines attached great importance to the apostolical succession of their priests and their intention undoubtedly was to found a national Bohemian church forming part of the Catholic or universal church. As previously mentioned, immediately after the death of Hus the theological faculty of the University of Prague had by the Hussites been recognised as the authority on matters of religion. When in I421 Conrad of Vechta, archbishop of Prague, accepted the four articles of Prague, he naturally became the head of the Calixtine church. After his death a consistory became its governing body. Among the first administrators of this consistory were Mladenovic, the biographer
of Hus, and magister Pribram. The learned master Jacobellus, the real originator of utraquism, held some views which were more “ advanced,” if we may thus describe them. His teaching was on some points similar to that of the Taborites. Only once after the death of Vechta was the Calixtine church governed by an archbishop. As will be mentioned presently, after the treaty of Iglau the estates of Bohemia chose John of Rokycan as archbishop, but he was never recognised by the pope.
The position of the calixtine church was at all times a very difficult one. The calixtines were confronted by the bitter, relentless hostility of Rome, which demanded unconditional surrender. Even those moderate Calixtines who were ready to conform to the Church of Rome on all other points, were they but allowed to retain the use of the chalice, met with a stern refusal, though this concession has on other occasions'been made by the Church of Rome.1 There is little doubt that in this case German influence prevailed, and that the matter was treated from a political rather than from an ecclesiastical standpoint. While the conciliatory efforts of the Calixtines thus met with no success, they exposed them to the vehement enmity of the extreme church-reformers in Bohemia, and of the Taborites in particular.
Little was up to recently known of the Taborite community, and their own written documents having been destroyed, all contemporary knowledge of them has been derived from the works of their enemies. According to their main principle, the Taborites 2 admitted as truth nothing not contained in Scripture, and they rejected as false all the writings of the fathers of the church which deserved to be burnt as work of antichrist. After the year I422 the Taborites rejected the teaching of the Roman church with regard to the sacrament, which had been the teaching of Hus also. They believed that after communion, bread remains bread and
' For instance, in the case of the Greek uniates.
’ I must here acknowledge my indebtedness to Dr. Siegmund Winter, whose admirable Zivot cirkevm' v. Cechaeh (Church life in Bohemia), founded almost entirely on unprinted documents, contains the first reliable modern account of the community. of Tabor.
wine, but that Christ who is in heaven is through His divine grace present in the sacrament, and that those who piously receive communion partake of His divine grace. Of the sacraments the Taborites recognised only baptism, and they rejected all veneration of the Virgin Mary and the saints. They also repudiated aural Confession. When the faithful wished to confess, the Taborite priests said to them: Why do you run to us? We cannot forgive you your sins; go and make confession to God Himself. In distinction from Hus and the Calixtines, the Taborites rejected the doctrine of purgatory and therefore also the prayers for the dead. They were totally opposed to the traditional hierarchy of the Roman church, declaring that popes and cardinals were evil doers and instruments of Antichrist. They none the less at one time chose Nicholas of Pelhrimov, one of their most learned divines as bishop. His powers Were, however, very limited, and his position was similar rather to that of the bishops of the Bohemian brethren -—a community that in some respects resembled that of Tabor—than to that of the bishops of the Roman church. The political principles of the Taborites were strictly democrat ical. They acknowledged no differences of social rank. All members of the community called each other brothers and sisters, and the organisation was at first a communistic one, though this did not continue even to the end of the short-lived community. The battle of Lipany in 1434 marks the downfall of democracy in Bohemia, and with it that of the Taborite community, though the city itself was only captured in 1452 by the utraquist King George of Podebrad, who established there the services of the utraquist or Calixtine church.
As was inevitable in a moment of general intense religious excitement, considerable differences of opinions existed among the Taborites, as among the Calixtines. The best known of all Taborites, John Zizka of Trocnov, was the leader of a moderate division, whose members after his death assumed the name of Orphans. Though Zizka was an ardent democrat and hated with undying hatred Sigismund, whom he rightly considered responsible for the death of Hus, his attitude in matters of religion was very moderate and his views did not differ greatly from those of the Calixtines. His touching devotion to the memory of Hus rendered him unwilling to accept innovations of which the master might not have approved. An intermedial position among the Taborites was that held by Nicholas of Pelhrimov, the bishop of the community. There were, however, among the Taborites also enthusiastic priests whose fanaticism was oft en pernicious to the cause of churchreform. Such men were John of Zelivo, who has already been mentioned, and Martin Huska, surnamed Loquis, who is described as a man of great eloquence. The people surnamed him the “ prophet Daniel ” and the “angel of the hosts of the Lord.” Another fanatical preacher was Peter Kanis, whose teaching was mainly founded on chiliastic views.
In connection with these fanatics, I must according to the established custom, mention the sect of the Adamites, whose importance has been enormously exaggerated by writers hostile to the cause of Hus. Dr. Nedoma 1 has indeed proved that the Adamite sect had no connection with Hussitism, and he maintains that even the extreme Taborites, Martin Huska and Peter Kanis, cannot in any way be rendered responsible for the deeds of these obscene fanatics. Dr. Nedoma prints a letter addressed about the year 1409 to Archbishop Zbynek by master John, vicar of Chvojnov, in which the latter states that in his parish the diabolical custom had sprung up that men and women met secretly at night in the woods and took part in terrible orgies, of which the worthy priest states that he dares not describe them. This was, of course, some years before the beginning of the Hussite wars. It should be added that the Adamitic movement by no means originated in Bohemia. The forerunners of the Adamites were undoubtedly the “ turlupins " in France, and at the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth century we hear of similar complaints against the Adamites in Germany and other countries. When some of these fanatics settled in an island in the Nezarka river near Tabor they were mercilessly destroyed by Zizka. It would hardly be necessary to dwell on this matter were it not that all enemies of the Hussite cause have laid great stress on it. Pope Martin V., when proclaiming a crusade against Bohemia, did not hesitate to identify the whole party of church-reform with the Adamites. ZEneas Sylvius also in his Historia Bohemica has devoted to them a chapter 1 which is neither edifying nor trustworthy. The gifted author of Lucretia and Euryalus seems to have carefully preserved all tales concerning this matter that were current at the time. Though the Taborites were innocent of the worst accusations brought against them by their opponents, it cannot be denied that the more fanatical members of that party greatly injured the cause of church-reform. Proclaiming as they did the approach of the millennium, and denouncing as the imagining of Antichrist all secular and ecclesiastical authority, they undoubtedly encouraged communism and anarchy in Bohemia. This alone accounts for the bitterness with which the Calixtines and magister John of Pribram in particular, write of the Taborites. This bitterness is particularly evident in Pribram’s famed work entitled The Life of the Taborite priests.2 He has in consequence been attacked by modern Bohemian
1 In an able article—on the codex of Stara Boleslav—published in the Vestnik km! 0. spolecnosti nauk (Journal of the Scientific Society) for 1891.
1 See my Bohemia, a Historical Sketch, p. 172, n.
' As a proof of the intense bitterness of this feeling I will quote the opening words of the Life. Pribram wrote: “ We priests and preachers and other faithful Bohemians, both laymen and ecclesiastics, earnest and constant lovers of the Bohemian nation, cannot suffer any longer the many errors and diabolical imaginings of these Taborite priests, which they proclaim in a manner that is ever worse and worse, spreading thus hatred and fear throughout the wide Bohemian land. As we have against them neither judge nor champion, either secular or spiritual, we bring our complaints before the Almighty Lord God, and pray to Him fervently for help and justice. We appeal to the whole kingdom of heaven for help and for the punishment of these terrible sins. We beg the whole Holy Church and all faithful Bohemians to consider this matter; we beg you, we call on you, we exhort you. Listen earnestly to these most weighty warnings of the whole Bohemian land; listen, we beg you, that our warning and your heedlessness and disobedience bear not witness to your damnation and that irreparable harm befall not this land because of your delay. Verily with great sorrow and with unspeakable anguish of the heart we intend to notify and to announce to you the many terrible errors and misdeeds of these Taborite priests." (Pribram Zivot Knezi Taborskych—Life of the Taborite priests—in Vybor z Literatmy Castes—Selections from Bohemian Literature, ii. pp. 409-430).