absolutely denied it, declaring that he had constantly affirmed that what the people saw at the elevation of the host in the form of bread and wine was the body of Christ, and this they saw by faith.
As for the charge of extravagance in dwelling upon the lives of the clergy, he quoted the Old and New Testaments to show that he had followed the examples set forth therein. The Master had exposed the sins of both people and clergy, and, instead of flattering the Pharisees and scribes, called them a wicked generation and pronounced the devil their father. Huss’s Reply, which was elaborate, is written in a spirit of strong assurance.
The advocacy of the new views was not confined to sermons and tracts and university discussions. As the Flagellants and the Lollards had their popular songs, so at Prague at this time a new hymnody came into being and popular songs were sung embodying views expressing the religious sentiment of the people, but also ridiculing the bishops and the inquisitorial party. All of them, with the exception of four, were forbidden to be sung by the archbishop.[1]
The next step on the archbishop’s part was to prevent the working of Wyclifite infection by destroying all copies of Wyclif’s writings. The action of the university and Huss’s attitude toward Wyclif indicated plainly enough that Wyclifite teachings were current. Huss’s Reply did not satisfy the conservative wing of the clergy. They followed him in his walks and attended his chapel to catch heretical sentences and to put them down for use against him. Nothing but the complete humiliation of the Bethlehem preacher would satisfy some of these sleepless guardians of the truth and orthodox teachings. Zbynek had to choose between this wing and the popular preacher, and in choosing the latter he would risk the censure of his superior, the pope. The conditions forced him to become a Wyclifist himself and jeopar-
- ↑ Documenta, 333.
