THE NET OF FAITH
by Peter Chelčický
translated by Rev. Enrico Molnár
Hate everything that hinders love.
– Hans Denck
The story of Chelčický’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:
In another place[84] we spoke of the year 1419, which was so decisive in Chelčický’s life. This was the year in which there occurred the initial rift with the Táborites because of his insistence on total non-violence.[85] 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 Stříbro, then head of the University, who had formerly maintained a pacifist position.[86]
The issue of non-violence was still a matter of public discussion in 1421 in which year Chelčický wrote his pacifist contribution O boji duchovním (About the Spiritual Warfare), and a little later, O církvi svaté (About the Holy Church). These writings were addressed to the Táborites 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.”[87] In his book About the Spiritual Warfare, written as an exposition of Ephesians 6: 10-20, wherein the Christian is exhorted to put on the whole armor of God,” for his “warfare is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, … against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in heavenly places,” Chelčický shows how long he identified himself with the teachings and endeavors of the “Táborite 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.[88] Here, for the first time as far as we know, Chelčický expounded 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.
The events of the year 1422 add weight to the “Záhorka” theory discussed earlier.[89] For in this year there was held in Písek a convocation of the Táborites at which occasion a first major disagreement between the Táborites and General John Žižka is recorded. Disturbed by these unfortunate events, many of the leading Hussites went to see Chelčický whose influence was then already gaining momentum. The Záhorka theory lends plausibility to the startling spectacle of the most important spiritual leader of the Táborites, Bishop Nicholas of Pelhřimov, going way out to visit Chelčický.[90] The memorable (meeting) took place in Vodniany, a small county seat near Chelčice. They discussed theological questions concerning the Eucharist while they were “sitting on the pond-dike.” The purpose of the bishop “was to convince Chelčický that they (the Táborites) had nothing in common with the sect of the Beghards as they had been accused.”[91] Without this theory it would be more difficult to explain why the “grand old man” of Tábor deemed it necessary to have Chelčický (Záhorka?) 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?
This meeting gave Chelčický the impetus to write his tractate O čtyřech bytech (About the Four Essences),[92] addressed to the Táborite clergy, “a document memorable because of its disorientation in the question of the Eucharist, but even more because of its slow emancipation from the Táborite Eucharistiology.”[93]
This book and the previous writings caused quite a stir; the Táborites were saying that Chelčický was busying himself in a denigration of their theology. Therefore, Bishop Nicholas and Václav Koranda[94] invited Chelčický to come to Písek. The latter accepted the invitation and during their conversation in Písek Chelčický admitted that he was too harsh in his judgment.[95] The Bishop gave him some of his Latin writings as well as other works held as authoritative by the Táborites.[96] Afterwards, in studying the Bishop’s writings, Chelčický came to the realization that Bishop Nicholas wrote differently and spoke differently.
Probably in 1424 Chelčický wrote his final answer to Bishop Nicholas,[97] the Replika proti Mikuláši Biskupci Táborskémi,[98] which put an end to his friendly but strained relations with the Táborites.
… 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 asked you to write out for me your views…[99]
In this Reply Chelčický refuted the latter’s accusation that he extorted from him, under a false pretext, some of his writings. At this date (1424) Peter Chelčický 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 Táborite 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 what the Pope is doing in Rome at this moment… I loved you (i.e. the Táborite priests) more than any other priests … therefore I am more sorry for you than the others.[100]
It is possible that the Bishop accused Chelčický of false intentions in order to play safe when, after General Žižka’s death in 1424, Master John of Příbram, the Inquisitor of the Utraquists,[101] began speeding up his purging of Táborite influences. This hypothesis becomes all the more plausible if we remember that later, after the bloody liquidation of the last Táborite remnants in politics, Bishop Nicholas was imprisoned on orders of King George in his own castle of Podiebrad in 1452, where he died seven years later.[102]
In parting his ways with Nicholas, Peter put an end to his relations with the Táborite faction. But, even though abandoned by all his old friends, Chelčický did not remain alone; about this time (1425) he began to speak of “us” and “some of us.” This was a faint echo of the birth of the nucleus out of which was later born the Unity of Brethren, the “Moravian” Church.
For a while, Chelčický was in good relations with the Utraquist Church and its controversial archbishop, John Rokycana. Many letters were exchanged between these two men. In another place[103] we spoke of Rokycana’s mediation between Chelčický and a group of young reformists. 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 Chelčický, who wrote a sharp polemical Replika proti Rokycanovi (A Reply to Archbishop Rokycana).[104]
There followed other works, all of a polemical nature against the Utraquist doctrines and practices.[105] Just as ten years before, his Reply to Bishop Nicholas signified a rupture with the Táborites, 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.
[85] It is worth noticing that, at the Synod of St. Wenceslas’ Day, in 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 named Jan Želivský, was defending Chelčický’s absolutist position. Cf. F. Bartoš, “K počátkům Petra Chelčického,” (The Beginnings of Peter Chelčický), Časopis českého musea, Prague, vol.II, p.154.
[86] Spinka, “Peter Chelčický, the Spiritual Father of the Unitas Fratrum,” Church History, vol.XII, no.4 (December 1943), p.276.
[87] Bartoš, op. cit., p.155.
[88] Holinka, ed., Traktáty Petra Chelčického, Prague: Melantrich, 1940, p.27.
[89] Cf. pp.22 et seq.
[90] He went there together with Brother Lucas, a theologian later connected with the Unity.
[91] Bartoš, op. cit., p.156.
[92] i.e. the four essences of the Divine Body of the Eucharist (corpus Christi figurative, naturaliter, personaliter, actualiter).
[93] Bartoš, op. cit., p.156.
[94] A Táborite theologian, priest of Žatec, friend of Payne.
[95] Bartoš, op. cit., p.157.
[96] Probably his De non adorando, Ad magnificationem.
[97] Concerning the dating, cf. Bartoš, op. cit., pp.149-160; Goll, “Petr Chelčický a jeho spisy,” (P. C. and His Works), Časopis Českého musea. 1881, p.12-13; same author, Quellen und Untersuchungen, II, p.65; Yastrebov, Etjudy, 1908, p.185-195.
[98] Reply Against Nicholas Bishop of Tábor.
[99] From the Reply, quoted by Bartoš, op. cit., p.152f.
[100] Ibid., p.153, cf. Palacký, op. cit., p.234.
[101] His official title was “Omnium heresum et precipue Viclefistice et Picardice heresis sollicitus persecutor,” Bartoš, op. cit., p.150.
[102] Palacký, op. cit., p.227; Cardinal Aeneas Silvius, later Pope Plus II, called Nicholas “a man full of evil days.”
[104] Written in 1434.
[105] Especially O sedmeře svátostí, (About the Seven Sacraments).