Truth Unites - The Hussites: The Amazing Story of the "First Reformation"

Episode Date: October 16, 2022

In this video I introduce the Hussites, the Bohemian Reformers inspired by Jan Hus, drawing from the 15th century Hussite historian Laurence of Brezona. I give an overview of how they were persecuted and then explore the theological reforms they initiated, particularly focusing on their theology of the Eucharist. I conclude with one cautionary lesson for Protestants today. Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai. SUPPORT: Become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/truthunites One time donation: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/truthunites FOLLOW: Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlund Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/ Website: https://gavinortlund.com/

I've already done one video on Jan Hus. Sometimes people pronounce it John Hus, or Jan Hus. It's Jan Hus. He was a Bohemian Reformer, burned at the stake in 1415. I'll put up a picture of him. He's a personal hero of mine. I just admire his courage. In some respects, I found myself relating to him even more than the Protestant

reformers a century later. In this video, I want to talk about the Hussite movement as a whole. This is a proto-Protestant movement inspired by Jan Hus in Bohemia, so like modern day Czech Republic mainly, a little bit to the east of Germany. I'll put up a map so you can see where we're talking about. Now I said in the video description, forgotten reformers or in the video title. It's not totally forgotten, of course, but this really is a neglected and fascinating time in church history. Part of my purpose in this video is just to generate more interest.

It'd be awesome if people started doing more academic work in this area, for example. I'll give some highlights of some maybe possible avenues of exploration that people could could get into there. Many people are unaware just how massive the Bohemian Reformation was. It lasted over 200 years. It gains support all throughout the entire culture. You've got the Archbishop in 1421 of Prague converting to the Hussite cause. The University of Prague supports it. It gains support at every level of the culture. And unlike many of the other proto-Protestant groups, it actually has military success to a degree. So it survives for a while. Now, I'm going to draw this report from Lawrence of Brazova. I'll put up a picture of him. He was a medieval Hussite historian. He lived in the late 14th,

early 15th century. I've been reading his account of the Hussite wars, especially the first seven years, starting with Huss's Husses' imprisonment in 1414, up through 1421, just after the first crusade against the Hussites. What happened is this. After my video, on the Christianization of Scandinavia, where I drew from Adam of Bremen, a medieval historian. I realized, I'm not the only one who's fascinated by church history and by medieval history, and I didn't expect that video to generate as much interest, but a lot of people are fascinated by these things just as I am. I'm not the only one. I realize, oh, it's like, oh, other people find this fascinating too. It's so interesting. And one of the best ways to learn history

is from historians from the time in question. Now, you have to be more critically engaged, with that, kind of the historical historians, but it's so much more interesting. You know, it's like reading Eusebius about the early church, the early church historian versus just reading a contemporary book. It opens up so much more. There's so much that is uncovered when you get into these historical texts. And so Lawrence of Brozova is that for the Hussite cause. And his chronicle is just absolutely fascinating. I'm not quite finished with it. I'm just going to share. This is an introductory video, just making a few points, generating, hopefully encouraging people to research this topic for themselves, and then maybe

I'll have more videos on the Hussites in the future. But I just want to do three things in this video, really mainly two things. First, just describe the persecution against the Hussites briefly and why it's so important to know about that, to talk about that, not to ignore that. Second, to identify the main point of reform that the Hussites were calling for. This will be surprise you. unless you're already familiar with them, I think it will be surprising to you what they were calling for. And then thirdly, very briefly, just a quick final note, a warning to Protestants today from this episode. So first, let's outline what, let's outline what happened to the Hussites briefly. Persecution can be uncomfortable to talk about for people, because it, especially when it sort of punctures a triumphalist narrative that many people find a sense of identity in.

but it's so important not to ignore, deny, or downplay these historical events. That happens a lot, unfortunately. People kind of downplay it or the biggest thing is probably people are just not aware. It's sometimes people struggle to believe that it really was as bad as we're going to find out it was. But often people will downplay it and say, you know, for example, when I did my video on Hoos, I talked about this, how people will often say, well, it wasn't the Roman Catholic. Catholic Church that burned who's alive. It was the secular authorities. And in my video, I talked about how offensive that is. I'll just recount this a little bit here. You know, it's, imagine if you had

like a great uncle who died in the Holocaust and then someone is coming along and saying, ah, well, the Holocaust is kind of overplayed. It wasn't as bad as people say. And the reason it's offensive is not just the minimizing of sin and evil, because, but it's just so inaccurate. It's so historically inaccurate. And the thing is, like, to say or imply that the Roman Catholic Church wasn't responsible for Huss's death, it was Roman Catholic prelates who intercepted him and put him in jail despite his being offered safe conduct to Constance by King Sigismund. During Huss's time in jail, he was not given proper food, he was not given proper medical care,

he was viciously slandered throughout Constance. his trial for heresy was conducted at an ecumenical council. The 16th council recognized as an ecumenical council by the Roman Catholic Church, the Council of Constance. After the verdict against him, it was a Roman Catholic Archbishop who preached the sermon on Roman 6th, that the body of sin must be put to death. Again, this is the thing we can't downplay about history. We want to acknowledge what really happened. This was the thinking of the day, the extermination of heretics. This did happen a lot. It was the same archbishop who put the paper mitre on his head, the tall hat covered with demons, as a part of his ceremony of ministerial degradation.

You know, it's just brutal. I've been reading lots of these eyewitness accounts of this as they're represented in the modern-day scholarship, and it's absolutely gripping. I'm writing a book right now called Why Protestant Doesn't Make Sense. by the way, thanks for praying about that book. It got accepted. The publisher I was hoping, Zondervin Reflective, it will come out in, here's the tough thing, August of 2024.

So I'm going to write it over this school year, turn it in, and it's like a year to come out. So sorry to make you wait that long, but I hope it will be worth your while. I talk about who's a bit in one of the chapters of this book, so I'm researching, getting into the literature on this a lot. And you just read these accounts, and what is so brutalizing about it, it wasn't just that they put him to death. It was the elaborate. process and sort of formal ceremony by which they broke him down or tried to.

He was forgiving his enemies to the end, singing Psalms to the end, reciting something similar to the Jesus prayer while getting burned alive. So they didn't break him down, but they tried to. And there are points where he was weeping during his trial and verdict. And it was brutal. I mean, they give him the chalice and tear it out of his hands. They give him the moniker Judas. they tear off his priestly vestments one at a time, curses are intoned against him.

It really happened. Like that's the thing is people downplay this. They act like this. Oh, it wasn't that bad. Yeah, it was. It was that bad. And then immediately, as a result of the guilty verdict, he's let outside, books are being burned right outside the cathedral.

He's let outside the city gates in Constance. In Thomas Fudge's book, he's got a map of the city. You can see exactly where he would have walked. And then he was burned alive right outside the city. And even just that process is just, oh, it's like, I've never had my adrenaline going so much in reading a historical narrative. This is why, I don't know, these people like Huss and the Waldensians and others, they're like in my mind. I relate to these people as spiritual and theological ancestors. That's why it hurts so much when people downplay it. The only discussion in the

academic literature is whether the trial was legal, Huss's trial was legal, by. the standards of the day, because a lot of people point to bribery and false testimony and then canonical irregularities to say that it was basically judicial murder. But the debate is whether it was despite those irregularities legal by the standards of the day, but nobody thinks it was moral, you know? And so John Paul II apologized and praised in 1999 and praised Huss's moral courage, and yet people still downplay this today, despite the acknowledgement of Catholic historians, and the apologies of Catholic popes, people still downplay this as though, you know, another thing people will say is, oh, well, it was just a rare event, or, oh, well, yeah, you know, everybody sort of persecuted

everybody back then, so this is sort of all sort of cancels out and equals out in the end. And it's like, no, that's not right. It doesn't all cancel out. That'd be like saying, well, Texas is a big state, but Rhode Island is a big state too. And you're like, no, they're not to scale. They're not the same. and it wasn't rare, you know. I did a video on the Waldensians and you can just Google.

It's not in dispute that these horrific events in which women and children were not spared happened. You can Google the 1487 massacre where Pope Innocent the Eighth offered a plenary indulgence to all who go in a crusade against the Waldensians. And so people do and there's no mercy shown. Or you can just Google 1655 Piedmont. massacre and you can do your own research about these horrific events. And the same with the Hussites. There were five crusades against the Hussites. Now, in a little under two decades, fascinating military back and forths.

We often think of crusades as against the Muslims, but they were also conducted against these separatist groups. Albaegensians were another one. And this began in 1420, about five years, five years after Huss's death, when in March of that year a papal bull was issued, and it referred to the, quote, lethal virus, end quote, of Hussitism, and promised a plenary indulgence to all who engaged in a crusade against the Hussites. And so this massive army assembles, and by late spring is outside Prague. And then you're off to the races.

There's this back and forth fascinating military history for a long period of time. I've often thought that this episode in history would make for a fascinating movie. There's a lot of drama that you could, you know, make stories out of. But, and I'm sorry to say, the thing is, this wasn't rare. Like, if you think that the promise of indulgences to motivate military crusades was rare in the medieval era, I am sorry to inform you. It was not rare. And the reason I'm so passionate about this is I just think we need to know this. We can't ignore and downplay and minimize the stories of these martyrs.

Let me just tell you about one of them. Jerome of Prague. He's what I've been reading about recently. He's often, so this is an early Hussite leader, kind of an intellectual philosopher type, very influenced by Wycliffe. Fascinating person. So Jerome, he's often overshadowed by Huss, but he himself was a very brilliant thinker. And right about one year after Huss is burning, Jerome was burned. A very similar thing. He had the demonic mitre put on his head. the mockery, all of that. Let me read to you from Lawrence's account. Now, he was in prison for a long period of time. He almost died. The first 11 days, he's hung from his hands in prison, and he's horribly sick, and he's not given proper food, and then his feet are in stocks, and so he gets to the point where

he's almost dead, and then he's given more lenient prison, but he's held in prison for a long period of time. He actually recants and denounces Hoose at one point under pressure. That happened several times to various people throughout church history, but then they come back and they regret that and they, you know, stay faithful to the end, stay firm to the end. Let me read Lawrence's account. He was killed on June 1st of the following year, 1416. Here's what Lawrence said. He was brought to a public session of the council at the cathedral through a great crowd of

armed men, and there his verdict was pronounced and he was condemned to death. They put a tall paper crown with red devils painted on it on his head and took him out of town. but he marching out of the town saying, I believe in one God, and you are happy, Virgin Mary, as he was led to his death, and spoke to the people in the German language, saying, Dear children, my faith is just as I have sung. However, I am going to die because I did not want to give in to the council and to agree with them and saying that Master Huss was condemned righteously and justly, for I knew him well, and I know that he was a holy man and a faithful preacher of Christ's teachings.

He was a personal friend of Huss, which I know he was grieved that he denounced him at that one point. This is oftentimes what it's similar to today. The most controversial things are not the theology, but it's whether you support so-and-so. Huss, but before that, Wycliffe. If you support Wycliffe, that gets you into trouble more than anything, you know? And the thing is, these early Hussites, especially, not always the later Hussites, were very traditionalist. They didn't, like, you see them singing about Mary there. We call the Hussites proto-reformers, but, or excuse me, proto-protestants, but they would have been on the traditional side. of the, in terms of Protestant belief. They weren't that far off, deologically. I'll talk about

what their concerns were in a moment. Here's how Lawrence finishes his chronicle when he, Jerome, had reached the place of punishment in the same place where Master Jan Husse had been wrongfully executed. He was stripped of all his clothes and tied with ropes and chains to a pole in the shape of a thick plank driven into the ground and pieces of wood were put around him, joyfully singing, be greeted festive day, and into your hands like, oh Lord, I can and my spirit, he was consumed in a whirlwind of fire. There's a great book by Fudge. Thomas Fudge may be the greatest living expert, in my opinion, on Huss,

Jerome, and the early Hussite movement. He's written almost a dozen books in this field. And just, it's so awesome when you find a scholar out there who's unearthing stuff that no one else is doing. It's like, that's what scholarship is for. A lot of books are just kind of repeat. A lot of books are just, I don't know, they're not that unique. They're repeating things.

But when you find someone who's truly penetrating into a new territory, it's, it's awesome. And I just wrote him fudge an email the other day to say thanks for his work. He's doing a lot of great stuff. So this, so now there's a Hussite slogan, truth prevails. This would be featured in later sermons and in art. And this can be traced back to Huss himself. This is my favorite quote of Huss who said truth conquers all. There's a similar claim made by Jerome. He said, the truth has never given way and will not yield for a lie because truth triumphs over everything. That slogan, this idea that the truth will win in the end, truth prevails, truth is what will be the victor in the end, is a good way to sum up why I am so moved by the Hussites,

why I am so, especially the early traditionalist Hussites, why I am so just afflicted with a sense of honor and just that, you know, their story needs to be told. That's how I could sum up my feeling about them is because Hus and Jerome their life is a story of this idea that the truth wins in the end. It's what they were facing. I mean,

somebody once said to me, you seem awfully indignant about what happened to Jan Hus. And I remember thinking, well, duh, if a godly, pious man who's recognized by godly and pious by pretty much everybody around, I mean, you know, sometimes history is really complicated. and there's not really good guys or bad guys.

It's just really messy. But other times, it's historically inaccurate to just flatten everything out because there is more of a good side and a bad side. And I'm persuaded 100% that the opponents, the bishops opposing Huss were treacherous and dishonest and corrupt and basically bullies. And I know a lot of us have been through those experiences where we've seen what that feels like to be on the receiving end. And to me, Huss and Jerome, it's like the ultimate example of truth versus power.

They had no power. None. Literally. They're chained. But they had the truth. And I think their lives are a testimony to this wonderful Hussite slogan that in the end, the truth always wins. And my burden and my passion to talk about these things is not to cause anyone pain or discomfort,

but because even if it is a little bit uncomfortable, we need to know their history. and we need to not to stop downplaying it, minimizing it, acting like it wasn't as bad as it was. It was as bad as it was. If you imagine what it's like to be burned alive, all you have to do is imagine that for 20 seconds. You will understand why it's right to be indignant about it happening, especially to a good, pious person who has totally reasonable concerns. And so it's important to not minimize the story. It's important for the story to be known. And when people act like, sometimes people will try to make it sound like, well, the Roman Catholic Church had reasonable concerns.

They were just trying to protect the good interests of the laity. They were trying to keep things in good order and so forth. And you find this for the Crusades. People minimize some of these crusades and act like they had a good ulterior motive. Or when the prohibition of the Bible being translated into the vernacular, people try to act like there was good, there was a good intention with that. Or when heretics are burned to death, people will try to, you know, and it comes across like when somebody beats you. up instills your lunch money and leaves you bleeding there and then says, oh, but I was just doing this for your own good to build your character and to teach you wisdom and so forth. And you're like,

yeah, I don't buy it. Some things are just wrong. You know, sometimes it's, sometimes a historical episode really is fairly clear what you are to take away from it. And a pious person being burned alive by malicious bullies is just wrong. And that's clear. And it's wrong to act like it's not clear. So I'm very passionate that these stories be known and not spun. Okay, so that's the first thing I want to say. And I want to encourage other people to look into this for themselves. I'm often amazed even though my scholarly work is not in general questioned or badly reviewed. It's positively reviewed, but I'm amazed at the way people who don't have scholarly credentials often, you know, claim that my scholarly work is, or that I'm spinning, thinking, I'm not being honest and accurate and so forth.

So what I would just say is look into this for yourself. It's not in dispute. Nobody's denying that, you know, Huss. Well, look into John Paul II's apology in 1999. Just see what he said, for example. Okay, so that's the first thing I want to say to encourage people to know about these stories and to encourage people to study them more. It would be awesome if there was a new wave of scholarship,

about the Hussite reforms, reform efforts, and history. Okay, let's go into the specifics. This is the second major part of this video. Why did the Hussites protest against Rome? What was their beef? What were they trying to accomplish? What was their theology? As I mentioned, in the mainstream and early iterations of Hussiteism,

it was a conservative reform effort. Later on, there's a kind of smaller Hussite group to the south it becomes very kind of apocalyptic and even communistic and very radical. But that was not the mainstream. There were a couple of points of emphasis in Hussite theology and practice. One, interestingly, was a more egalitarian view of gender. They were more Huss himself as well. This would be a fascinating area for someone to research,

something like Hussitism and proto-feminism or something like that. Huss was very much in favor of women participating in the worship, even participating in battle. So that's kind of a fascinating thing that, you know, let's keep talking about that. Maybe in other videos as I keep reading through Lawrence, I'll talk more about that. A big point of emphasis also was preaching the Bible in the vernacular.

A lot of times people think of it as like, well, preaching was big in some of the church fathers like John Chrysostom, but preaching kind of fell away in the medieval era. But not totally. Preaching the Bible in the vernacular, in Prague, there was a massive tradition of preaching. They were good preachers, not just starting in the 15th century, going back into the 14th century and earlier. Another point of emphasis in Hussite theology was criticism of the elaborate wealth and corruption within the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

They opposed simony, misuse, other forms of financial practice, buying and selling clerical offices and things like this, and just basic morality. There was a lot of sexual immorality in the late medieval West. I was just reading elsewhere in Spain a little later this whole episode where basically the majority of the clergy are living in open concubinage. So most of them just openly have concubines. It's not that clerical celibacy was officially denied. It's just people just don't do it. It just wasn't practiced. And then I was reading about the scandal of this because basically if there was an attempt to enforce clerical celibacy,

there would be an open revolt from the bishops. You know, so that kind of stuff, now that's a little later in Spain, but that kind of stuff is floating around that's going on, not everywhere and always, but there's a lot of corruption. The Hussites were opposed to that, and there was a lot of, even just in the populace, there's a lot of sexual immorality in Constance. Some of the historians I've been reading estimate

there were about 1,500 prostitutes in Constance at the time of the Council of Constance. And that's a ton of people for that time. and you can even read in the records of who was attending the council. There was a lot of prostitutes among those people who were there in the populace. I'm not saying that reflects upon the council. I'm just saying that's out there in the culture a lot. So the Hussites were opposing that they're emphasizing piety, personal relationship with God.

It was a reform effort in that way. But here's the surprising thing. The central emphasis of Hussite theology and practice was the Eucharist. Okay. When you've got Sigisman's armies swarming around Prague ready to attack and then you've got these Hussite peasants, you know, forming their army. The Siggins' armies have the cross on their flags. The Hussites have the chalice.

Okay. I'll say more about this, but let me introduce it by saying, this is why. I think it's unhelpful when people like Francis Chan say this. I didn't know that for the first 1,500 years of church history, everyone saw it as the literal body and blood of Christ. And it wasn't until 500 years ago that someone popularized a thought that it's just a symbol and nothing more. I didn't know that.

I thought, wow, well, that's something to consider. And while I won't make a strong statement, I will make a statement about this. It was at that same time that for the first time, someone put a pulpit in the front of the gathering. because before that it was always the body and blood of Christ that was central to their gatherings. For 1,500 years, it was never one guy and his pulpit being the center of the church. It was the body and blood of Christ. And even the leaders just saw themselves as partakers. Now, I love Francis Chan so much.

I know he is a good man seeking God with all of his heart. So bless him. I don't mean to attack him in any way, but I just think, I hope he will consider the impact of those words. I hope he watches this and considers the Hussites and the reformers and the historical context of the late medieval West and what they were opposing to, because I think what he's doing is repeating kind of standard anti-protestant slogans that are so misleading and in some respects are almost the opposite of the actual truth. there's so much we could talk about here in terms of number one the importance of the pulpit earlier preaching was not a new thing being introduced number two the the turbulence and change and development in eucharistic theology early on leading up into the reformation especially early medieval

nobody can say people people say this all the time that everybody believed in real presence up until the Protestant Reformation it's like that's just wrong we need to just stop with the inaccurate statements. For example, there's a great debate in the 9th century between Red Burtas, Pascasius Red Burtas, and a monk named Retromnis. Retromis was advocating for a view of the Eucharist very similar to Zwingli.

Okay, you can say Retromnis was wrong, but you can't say he didn't exist. And at that time, it wasn't controversial to the point where Retromis is kicked out of the church or something like that. Later on, when Berengar, two centuries later is advocating for that, then it's controversial. But you do have more variation.

Now, most people believed in real presence. The real sticking point is transubstantiation is the mechanism for real presence. That's what's really coming in throughout the medieval era. But this is a simplistic narrative, this idea that there was this unity. Elsewhere in that video, Francis talks about how there was only one church for the first millennium. It's like, no, there wasn't. There was lots of splits. Splits didn't start with the Protestants.

Or with the 1054 split, the fifth century, for example, you've got the, Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian Church of the East today that split off at that point. And a lot of us would say, those are Christians. They're in the church. So, anyway, it's another thing. But the main thing here is this. And oh, another thing is we could talk about how the division. So what Francis Chan was kind of making it sound like in his comments there, like,

oh, the Protestants came in and kind of disrupted this unity that used to be there. But as though like everyone used to be gathering around the Lord's supper. but there was a massive wall of division between clergy and laity that the Reformation reduced. But here's the main thing. And this is what people today need to understand, and why I'm eager to make these videos to try to help on historical accuracy. Medieval Western Christians, let's say late medieval Western Christians, were being starved of the Eucharist.

It was given only in one kind that is only in bread, not the wine, typically, to the late. often only given once per year. There were all kinds of fasting regulations attending it. There were all kinds of superstitious beliefs going on that the reformers were trying to oppose. Often it was being adored and venerated rather than actually imbibed, eaten and drunk, and so forth. And so the Protestant Reformation was as much as it was anything else, an attempt to re-centralize the Eucharist and say, we need it frequently, not just once a year. We need it in both kinds, both bread and wine, and we need to actually eat and drink, not just spectate and adore.

And this is why the modern Protestant neglect of Eucharistic theology is so tragic. It's just a betrayal of our own roots. However, the reformers were not the first to call for reform in this area. This was the central emphasis of Hussite theology. Lawrence, at the very beginning of his book, calls the Hussites. quote, supporters of Master Janhus and promoters of the lay chalice. What's the lay chalice? What's the idea there?

The Hussite belief is often called utraquaiism. I'll put that word up so people can see it. There's three points of emphasis. The laity should receive the Eucharist, number one, frequently. Number two, in both kinds, or under both kinds, that means both bread and wine. And it's for children and for women as well. But children, so they believed in Piteau Communion. Everybody who's baptized, if you're baptized, if you're baptized,

you get the Lord's Supper. If you get this sacrament, you get that sacrament. But the main point of emphasis was communion in both kinds. And they also opposed some of the fasting requirements before the Eucharist. So all of this doesn't start, by the way, with Huss. It goes back in Prague in the 1370s. It's when there starts to be an emphasis upon more frequent participation in the Lord's Supper.

And then in 1414, Jacob, of Mees began to administer the chalice to the laity. And this practice then spread so that the laity are now receiving the wine as well. And this became a central pillar of Hasay theology, maybe the main point of emphasis. There's the four articles of Prague summarizing Hasay theology, and this is one of those along with preaching, opposition to church wealth, and punishment of serious sin. What they were saying is it's wrong to withhold the laity, the wine from the laity, because that's not how it was done in Scripture. That's not how Jesus Christ instituted this sacrament, and that's not how it was done in the early church. This is a medieval innovation that needs to be reformed.

Unfortunately, the Council of Constance rejected this reform effort and the theology that is being espoused in it, and it threatened those who held it with the same fate as, Huss and Jerome. It also, the Council of Constance also reiterated the fasting regulations, as opposed to like taking the Lord's Supper after a meal, for example. And this didn't change. The communion in two kinds issue didn't change in the Roman Catholic Church until the 20th century. So this lasted for a long time. Let me now, again, because people just unfairly dismiss what I'm saying as though, oh, he's being fast and loose or something like this. Let me just read from the 13th century of the Council of Constance. It's a long quote, but I think it's important for you to know

how the Roman Catholic Church responded to this theology among the Hussites. Quote, certain people in some parts of the world have rashly dared to assert that the Christian people ought to receive the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist under the forms of both bread and wine. They communicate the laity everywhere, not only under the form of bread, but also under that of wine, and they stubbornly assert that they should communicate even after a meal or else without the need of a fast, contrary to the church's custom which has been laudably and sensibly approved from the church's head downwards, but which they damnably try to repudiate as sacrilegious. Therefore, this present general counsel of Constance,

legitimately assembled in the Holy Spirit, wishing to provide for the safety of the faithful against this error, after long deliberation by many persons learned in divine and human law, declares, decrees, and defines that. Although Christ instituted this venerable sacrament after a, a meal and ministered it to his apostles under the forms of both bread and wine, nevertheless, and notwithstanding this, the praiseworthy authority of the sacred canons and the approved custom of the church have and do retain that this sacrament ought not to be celebrated after

a meal, nor received by the faithful without fasting, except in cases of sickness or some other necessity as permitted by law or by the church. Moreover, just as this custom was sent to sensibly introduced in order to avoid dangers and scandals. So with similar or even greater reason, was it possible to introduce and sensibly observe the custom that, although this sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds in the early church, nevertheless later it was received under both kinds only by those confecting it and by the laity only under the form of bread, for it should be very firmly believed and in no way doubted that the whole body and blood of Christ are truly contained under both the form of the bread and the form of the wine.

Therefore, since the custom was introduced for good reasons by the Church and Holy Fathers, and has been observed for a very long time, it should be held as a law, which nobody may repudiate or alter at will without the Church's permission. To say that the observance of this custom or law is sacrilegious or illicit must be regarded as erroneous. Those who stubbornly assert the opposite of the aforesaid are to be confined and, as heretics and severely punished by the local bishops or their officials or the inquisitors of heresy, that's the inquisition, in the kingdoms or provinces in which anything is attempted or presumed

against this decree according to the canonical and legitimate sanctions that have been wisely established in favor of the Catholic faith against heretics and their supporters. It then proceeds to threaten excommunication to anyone who opposes this and states about bishops and church leaders, quote, they are to repress as heretics, however, by means of the church's censors, and even, if necessary, by calling in the help of the secular arm, those of them whose hearts have been hardened and who are unwilling to return to penance. Now, we've seen what that calling on the help of the secular arm means, and this, again, is the theology at the time, the extermination of heretics, the church claimed the power

of the temporal sword. If you don't believe me, look into this. You will not be underwhelmed by what you discover. And so the point is this. It's important to see that the Hussite movement gathered its main energy around an emphasis upon the Eucharist, and that is partly why they were persecuted. Our final comment is a warning for Protestants. As much as this video amounts to a criticism of Roman Catholic medieval practice, which I regard as an innovation contrary to patristic practice and biblical precedent, and as much as I am indignant at what happened to people like Hoos, Jerome, and many others,

for its inhuman cruelty. There is also in all this episode a cautionary tale for contemporary Protestants. the Hussite movement split. Basically, you've got a traditionalist group in Prague, and then you've got a more radical group in Tabor down to the south. This is the group that becomes more communistic, apocalyptic, etc. And as the story goes forward, the division among Hussites undoes them as much as any persecution.

In fact, on the first page of Lawrence's history, he frames the entire narrative as both a chronicle about external personal persecution. as well as internal division. So he's going on about how King Sigismund is this terrible snake who's been snuffing out our civilization and destroying us and wreaking havoc. And then he says, well, the same with the Toborites. You know, they're also. So he sees both as sort of equal threats to the Hussite cause. And the Hussites ended up divided against themselves as much as they were opposed to Rome. This is a sad reality that we see over and over and over throughout human history. It's easier to oppose a common enemy than it is to unite around a positive movement once the enemy is gone.

You see this in American history, for example. There's a lot more unity among the states in the 1760s than in the 1790s. When you're against King George, things are a little easier to get along than when you're trying to build your own nation. And this is why there is no room for triumphalism of any kind, including among Protestants or proto-Protestants, because we've contributed our own flaws. We've contributed our own problems to the church. That's where I talked about a lot of my video on Philip Schaff.

And you see it in Protestantism today, this significant trend towards splitting and splitting and splitting and splitting. And this is why I'm going to talk about this at a conference I'm speaking at in a few weeks. The need, when we're talking about reconstructing evangelicalism, that's the conference theme, the need for our criticisms of the church, no matter how justified, in this case criticizing evangelicalism, but whether it be the Catholic medieval practice or whatever, to be tempered with a sense of even-handedness and carefulness and even love. And that's why I focus on my channel on ironicism. I believe that's needed in our day.

I believe it's needed within Protestantism. And I believe that it is not compromise to look at something and try to be careful, even-handed, and try to look for whatever good you can in the situation as well. And then acknowledging the errors of your own side. and contemporary Protestants, no matter how justified our criticisms of the non-Protestant traditions that we differ from are, we've got to look in the mirror because we've got to, we have contributed our own faults to the broader state of Christendom that we may be perhaps in a better position to try to heal because we have contributed them. So we may be best positioned to

try to bring repentance in that area. So in all of this, that, I think a study of the Hussites is in order. I think we can learn a lot from the 15th century scene in Bohemia. I think there's lessons and lessons. I think everything I've said in this video is just scratching the surface of just a wealth of help and information. I hope this video will inspire somebody out there to do a PhD dissertation on the Hussites, maybe on whatever, I don't know, an aspect of the Eucharistic theology,

their emphasis on women, their emphasis on preaching, something. There's a lot more to be uncovered there. It's a fascinating, as with history, it always is, but this chapter in the Christian story is especially fascinating. So if this video does nothing else, I just hope it generates some interest about this. Let me know what you think about the Hussites, about this video, about the appeals that I've made. As you can tell, I feel so strongly that we need to know about these stories and not downplay them.

And it's helpful to understand the Eucharistic theology that was generating their reform efforts, because I think it will undermine some of the more simplistic narratives that we sometimes hear about how the Protestant Reformation came along and sort of decentralized the Eucharist or something like that, when, as we've seen, that's nearly the opposite of the case. So thanks for watching this video, everybody. Hope you enjoyed this. Let me know what you think in the comments, and I'll hopefully have more videos on the Hussites to come, but also hopefully others will be diving into this area as well.

God bless everybody.