A Study of Peter Chelčický's Life and a Translation from Czech of Part I of His Net of Faith (1947)/Part 1/Chapter 4

by Enrico Molnár

Layout 2

CHAPTER IV

PETER CHELC̄ICKY̍ AND THE HUSSITE REFORMATION – THE PARTING OF THE WAYS

Hate everything that hinders love.

—Hans Denck.

The story of Chelc̄icky̍'s growth to independence is a chapter in which we are still missing several links. At the present day, the available and known material enables us the reconstruction of his gradual estrangement from the Hussite Reformation in approximately the following sequence:

 

I. THE ESTRANGEMENT FROM THE TABORITES

 

1.

In another place¹ we spoke of the year 1419 which was so decisive in Chelc̄icky̍'s life. This is the year in which there occurred the initial rift with the Taborites because of his insistence on total non-violence.² You will remember that he then asked the masters of the Prague University the question whether it is permissible for Christians to take part in war. He was not satisfied with their conservative answer, and became disappointed especially in Master Jakoubek of Str̄i̍bro, then head of the University, who had formerly maintained a pacifist position.³

2.

The issue of non-violence was still a matter of public discussion in A.D.1421 in which year Chelc̄icky̍ wrote his pacifist contribution O boji duchovni̍m (About the Spiritual Warfare), and a little later, O ci̍rkvi svate̍ (About the Holy Church). These writings were addressed to the Taborites and were considerably read by them as well as by the growing circle of his followers. "They are the first books which we have preserved of the new nascent community."⁴ In his book About the Spiritual Warfare, written as an exposition of Ephesians 6: 10–20, where in the Christian is exhorted to "put on the whole armour of God," for his "warfare is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, . . . against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in heavenly places," Chelc̄icky̍ shows how long he identified himself with the teachings and endeavors of the "Taborite Brethren" until the day when, incited by excessive chiliastic notions, they began an extermination war against all "unfaithful ones." By doing this they vitiated precisely those principles he cherished most, and he began to doubt the ethical justification of their position.⁵ Here, for the first time as far as we know, Chelc̄icky̍ expounds the fundamental pacifist thesis that a Christian must abstain from physical war and violence, since his main duty is the "spiritual warfare" against the evils of this world, violence being one of those evils.

3.

The events of the year 1422 add weight to the "Za̍horka" theory discussed earlier.⁶ For in this year there was held in Pisek a convocation of the Taborites at which occasion a first major disagreement between the Taborites and General John Z̄iz̄ka is recorded. Disturbed by these unfortunate events, many of the leading Hussites went to see Chelc̄icky̍ whose influence was then already gaining momentum. The Za̍horka theory lends plausibility to the startling spectacle of the most important spiritual leader of the Taborites, Bishop Nicholas of Pelhr̄imov, going way out to visit Chelc⃰icky̍.⁷ The memorable took place in Vodniany, a small county seat near Chelc̄ice. They discussed theological questions concerning the eucharist while they were "sitting on the pond-dike." The purpose of the bishop "was to convince Chelc̄icky̍ that they (the Taborites) had nothing in common with the sect of the Beghards as they had been accused."⁸

Without this theory it would be more difficult to explain why the "grand old man" of Ta̍bor deemed it necessary to have Chelc̄icky̍ (Za̍horka?) accurately informed on theological minutiae. Otherwise, why should a mighty bishop be concerned about the opinions of a particular peasant in a wretched forgotten coign of Bohemia?

4.

This meeting gave Chelc̄icky̍ the impetus to write his tractate O c̄tyr̄ech bytech (About the Four Essences),⁹ addressed to the Taborite clergy, "a document memorable because of its desorientation in the question of the eucharist, but even more because of its slow emancipation from the Faborite eucharistiology."¹⁰

5.

This book and the previous writings caused quite a stir; the Taborites were saying that Chelc̄icky̍ was busying himself in a denigration of their theology. Therefore, Bishop Nicholas and Va̍clav Koranda¹¹ invited Chelc̄icky̍ to come to Pisek. The latter accepted the invitation and during their conversation in Pisek Chelc̄icky̍ admitted that he was too harsh in his judgment.¹² The Bishop gave him some of his Latin writings as well as other works held as authoritative by the Taborites.¹³ Afterwards, in studying the Bishop's writings, Chelc̄icky̍ came to the realization that Bishop Nicholas wrote differently and spoke differently.14

6.

Probably in 1424 Chelc̄icky̍ wrote his final answer to Bishop Nicholas,¹⁵ the Replika proti Mikula̍s̄i Biskupci Ta̍borske̍mu¹⁶ which put an end to his friendly but strained relations with the Taborites.

 

. . . I think it was three years ago that you were at Vodniany with the priest Lucas, and there you sent for me and asked me to tell you what I had heard about you since there were some that spoke well of you, and others ill. . . . Then, after a long time, you sent for me again. . . . I like the things you said to me . . . and I said asked you to write out for me your views. . .¹⁷

 

In this Reply Chelc̄icky̍ refutes the latter's accusation that he extorted from him, under a false pretext, some of his writings. At this date (1424) Peter Chelc̄icky̍ knew much more about the issues involved in the eucharist than when he wrote about the four essences (1421–2), and he admitted this candidly:

I did not ask for it (i.e. the Bishop's writing) by any ruse, because I knew then concerning those things (the Taborite doctrine of the eucharist) – of which I am now writing – very little; in fact, I knew about them as much then as I do know now whatbthe Pope is doing in Rome at this moment. . . . I loved you (i.e. the Taborite priests) more than any other priests . . . therefore I am more sorry for you than the others.¹⁸

It is possible that the Bishop accused Chelc̄icky̍ of false intentions in order to play safe when, after General Z̄iz̄ka's death in 1424, Master John of Pr̄i̍bram, the Inquisitor of the Utraquists,¹⁹ began speeding up his purging of Taborite influences. This hypothesis becomes all the more plausible if we remember that later, after the bloody liquidation of the last Taborite remnants in politics, Bishop Nicholas was imprisoned on orders of King George in his own castle of Podiebrady in 1452, where he died seven years later.²⁰

 

II. THE ESTRANGEMENT FROM THE UTRAQUISTS

 

7

In parting his ways with Nicholas, Peter put an end to his relations with the Taborite faction. But, even though abandoned by all his old friends, Chelc̄icky̍ does not remain alone: about this time (1425) he begins to speak of "us" and "some of us." This is a faint echo of the birth of the nucleus out of which is later born the Unity of Brethren, the "Moravian" Church.

8.

For a while, Chelc̄icky̍ is in good relations with the Utraquist Church and its controversial archbishop, John Rokycana. Many letters were exchanged between these two men. In another place we spoke of Rokycana's mediation between Chelc̄icky̍ and a group of young reformists."²¹ But Rokycana gradually became more and more what we might call a "high-church" man, with Romanist leanings. This in the end alienated him from Chelc̄icky̍ who wrote a sharp polemical Replika proti Rokycanovi, (A Reply to Rokycana).²²

There followed other works, all of a polemical nature against the Utraquist doctrines and practices.²³ Just as ten years before, his Reply to Bishop Nicholas signified a rupture with the Taborites, so now the Reply to Archbishop Rokycana symbolizes the severance with the Utraquists. Both Replies stand as milestones on the road of his development, which points away from the doctrinarian strife and sacerdotalism of the Hussite factions, and toward a life of more abundant Christian expression.

PETER CHELC̄ICKY̍ AND HIS LIFE

 

---

01 pp. 30ff.

02 It is worth noticing that, at the Synod of St.Wenceslas' Day, A.D.1418, the principle of just war and limited violence was upheld and that, even after the reversal of the position in 1419, a Hussite priest Jan Z̄elivsky̍, was defending Chelc̄icky̍'s absolutist position. Cf. F. Bartos̄ "K poc̄a̍tkūm Petra Chelc̄icke̍ho," (The Beginnings of Peter Chelc̄icky̍), C̄asopis c̄eske̍ho musea, Prague, vol.II, p.154.

03 Spinka, "Peter Chelc̄icky̍, the Spiritual Father of the Unitas Fratrum," Church History, vol.XII, no.4 (December 1943), p.276.

04 Bartos̄, op. cit., p.155.

05 Holinka, ed., Trakta̍ty Petra Chelc̄icke̍ho, Prague: Melantrich, 1940, p.27.

06 Cf. p.22 et seq.

07 He went there together with Brother Lucas, a theologian later connected with the Unity.

08 Bartoš, op.cit., p.156.

09 i.e. the 4 essences of the Divine Body of the eucharist (corpus Christi figurative, naturaliter, personaliter, actualiter).

10 Bartos̄, op. cit., p. 156.

11 a Taborite theologian, priest of Z̄atec, friend of Payne.

12 Bartos̄ op. cit., p. 157.

13 Probably his De non adorando, Ad magnificationem.

15 Concerning the dating, cf. Bartos̄, op. cit., pp.149–160; Goll, "Petr Chelc̄icky̍ a jeho spisy," (P.C. and His Works), C̄asopis C̄eske̍ho musea, 1881, p.12–13, same author, Quellen und Untersuchungen, II, p.65; Yastrebov, Etjudy, 1908, p.185–195.

16 Reply Against Nicholas Bishop of Ta̍bor.

17 From the Reply, quoted by Bartos̄, op. cit., p. 152f.

18 ibid., p. 153, cf. Palacky̍, op. cit., p.234.

19 His official title was "Omnium heresum et precipue Viclefistice et Picardice heresis sollicitus persecutor," Bartos̄, op. cit., p.150.

20 Palacky̍, op. cit., p.227; Cardinal Aeneas Silvius, later Pope Pius II, called Nicholas "a man full of evil days."

21 p.42f.

22 Written A.D.1434.

23 Especially O sedmer̄e sva̍tosti̍, (About the Seven Sacraments).