Scripture
This was apparent in his
conviction that within the sacred literature of scripture everything necessary
for salvation could be found. (Super IV Sententiarum, p. 7.) That said, it is
also obvious that Hus’ definition of scripture was wider than the canon. (Super
IV Sententiarum, p. 15.) While Hus’ exegetical methods still await a
comprehensive analysis and explication one principle seems clear.
Interpretation should follow a balanced pattern of established authority. For
Hus that meant tradition and conscience. Biblical interpretation should be
reined in and guided by tradition and not permitted to be unduly influenced by
personal preference or appeals to the unsubstantiated leading of the Holy
Spirit. However conservative Hus’ views on scripture were, he cannot be boxed
into a sola scriptura stance nor made to be the narrow biblicist the conciliar
fathers accused him of being. Hus clearly regarded the Sentences of Peter
Lombard as an alternative form of scripture in terms of authority. (Super IV
Sententiarum, p. 9.) His theological confession was that he desired nothing
other than to proclaim whatever was essential to salvation. Hus maintained that
the basis for determining whether something was of salvific importance lay in
the explicit and implicit declarations of the scriptures which all faithful
Christians were obligated to adhere to. In that conviction Hus declared his
fidelity to scripture ‘wishing to maintain, believe and proclaim whatever is
contained in them’ so long as he lived. (Contra ordo doctores, in Opera omnia,
vol. 22, p. 380.)
The focus of scripture for Hus
was the story of Christ. Christ is the head of the church and in Christ all
useful truth for the church and for salvation can be found. (De ecclesia, p.
232.) Without Christ, scripture remained only literature and without scripture
there would be no historical record of the Christ event. Both were necessary
for the faith. Hus did not allow for arbitrary judgment of scripture. He
rebuked those who engaged in useless debates reducing scripture to a lifeless
body of ‘words, vowels and written letters.’ Hus demanded to know ‘what is the
purpose of all this cackling’ if one is unprepared to come to terms with the
significance of a living text. (Contra Palecz, in Opera omnia, vol. 22, p. 259.)
Practically speaking, Hus desired
the scriptures be available to the laity and in the vernacular. He accused the
‘disciples of antichrist’ of trying to keep the scriptures away from lay
people. In 1406 Hus published the St. Mikulovský Czech Bible. (John Klassen,
‘Hus, the Hussites and Bohemia’, in Christopher Allmand (ed.), The New
Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 7, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,
1998, p. 375.) The argument that the common language was susceptible to heresy
was specious. Latin was equally susceptible. (Marin, pp. 519–520.) Such
prelates and priests do not wish for the laity to have the ability to query
them. Hus noted those who attempted to challenge the priesthood were denounced
as ‘Wyclifites’ and dismissed as not part of the church. (Sermon for the first
Sunday in Lent. Postil, in Opera omnia, vol. 2, pp. 147–148.) The Hus corpus
abounds with quotations from and references to scripture. In a sense, scripture
functioned both as the final court of appeal and truth for Hus. But once more
reference to his concept of authority is essential. Scriptura numquam sola!
Scripture is never alone and there is never a time in which the naked text of
scripture functions apart from all other considerations. Certainly Hus made
every effort to find traditional moorings for his exegesis and understanding of
scripture. But in the end, it was Hus’ interpretation of scripture, not
scripture itself, that functioned as the basis for his final appeal. Thus, at
Constance he demanded to be instructed according to scripture. There is no
evidence the Council attempted to persuade Hus by this methodology. Regardless
of what the fathers thought theologically about scripture, in practice they
were committed to a theory of conciliar authority as practically more relevant
than any text. Therefore, there was no confrontation between judges and the accused
over exegetical principles or authoritative interpretations to be decided. In
his reply to his former colleague Štěpán Páleč, Hus declared his hope that when
he appeared before the judgment bar of God he might be acquitted of having
erred or deviated on even a single point of scripture. (Contra Palecz, in
Historia et monumenta, vol. 1, pp. 325, 330.) Ambitious to be sure, but Hus’
fidelity to scripture is unimpeachable. That said, it is not an easily
defensible thesis to insist Hus suffered condemnation and execution on account
of his allegiance to scripture. He could have insisted on being instructed by
the works of Augustine, or Origen, or the Decretum of Gratian for that matter.
The issue for the Council was not scripture but Hus’ persistent noncompliance.
His sin in their eyes was contumacy. That was an offense they could not abide.
It is not surprising that in several of his final letters from Constance Hus
exhorted his readers to study and proclaim the word of God. (Novotný,
Correspondence, pp. 270–273, 277–279 and Documenta, pp. 147–148.) It remains to
be said that Hus did not manufacture his allegiance to scripture late in life in
order to thwart the agenda of the Council. Indeed, his commitment to the
authority of the Bible was a lifelong one and he had already fully and formally
articulated his views on the matter. (De sufficientia legis christi, in
Historia et monumenta, vol. 1, pp. 55–60.) (Thomas A. Fudge, Jan Hus:
Religious Reform and Social Revolution in Bohemia [International Library of
Historical Studies; New York: I. B. Tauris & Co Ltd., 2010], 47-49)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
