Chelčický lived during a time of tumult. The Avignon
Papacy had just ended and The Great or Western Schism would ensue lasting from
1378-1417. It was in this setting that John Wycliffe's work came to fruition in
Lollardy and in influencing what would become the various branches of
Hussitism. Jan Hus was martyred at Constance in 1415 for daring to challenge
Papal authority. Betrayed by the Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund, Hus ventured to
Constance on the Swiss-German border where an ecclesiastical council was being
held to resolve the schism. Hus was incarcerated and burned as a heretic for
his Wycliffite views. In Bohemia the response was quick and violent and in a mix
of nationalist and religious furor the Czechs rejected the political-monarchical
claims of Sigismund and in some cases broke entirely with Rome.
The Hussites would split into various factions
representing the various grievances of the Bohemian (or Czech) Church. Some
protested the removal of the Eucharistic chalice for the laity, a practice
incrementally implemented in the wake of the Fourth Lateran Council's ratification
of Transubstantiation in 1215. Under the influence of Huss and some of his
associates the practice had been reintroduced in Bohemia. The Council of
Constance was definitive in rejecting the practice and thus for some of the
Bohemian rebels and resistors the chalice became a rallying point and symbol of
their movement. The reformist Hussites became known as the Utraquists, a
reference to communion in both kinds, both bread and wine. Their name came from
the Latin phrase sub utraque specie.
Some Utraquists wanted peace with Rome and were willing
to make that peace if the chalice was restored. Others wished not only for the
chalice to be restored but also wanted a degree of ecclesiastical and social
reform. There was a decided nationalist bent to their way of thinking. While
not nationalist in the modern sense there was a conscientious appeal to
Bohemian identity vis-à-vis the German dominated Holy Roman Empire and most certainly
the House of Luxembourg.
The Taborites were the Hussite radicals, named for
their fortified mountain in South Bohemia, about 40 miles from where Chelčický
was based. Led by their indomitable general Jan Žižka, the
Taborites fought off multiple crusading armies sent by Sigismund, the Empire
and Rome itself. Eventually this war would involve neighbouring countries such
as Hungary, Poland and Lithuania. Europe was rent by conflict born of the
Hussite Revolt, but also due to the politics of the Schism, fallout from the
Black Death, the demise of feudalism and disputes over theology and ideology.
The rumbles of the Renaissance were beginning to be felt north of the Alps and
change was in the air.
Proclaiming Scripture
as their authority, the Taborites wanted a complete break with Rome and
rejected it as the Antichrist of Scripture. The Taborites apparently included
some Waldensian elements but these represented a defection from the mainstream.
Captured and affected by the mood of the times, these Waldensians broke with
precedent and advocated what Kaminsky calls 'adventist violence' and militarism,
a position embraced by the Taborites who faced certain death had they not
fought off the various invading armies. Regardless of one's opinions of their
movement or the moral justification for their wars many historians have been
fascinated by this movement. Marxist historians in particular were drawn to
their peasant army's organisation and tactics as well as the
theocratic-communitarian aspect of their society. Of course none of it lasted.
By 1424 Žižka was dead and already forms of hierarchical rule had been imposed
on the Taborite populace. Chelčický and others would view this as hypocritical and a
case of betrayal by the Taborite leadership.
The Taborites were seemingly unbeatable and Žižka
himself was never defeated on the battlefield. Eventually the Taborites would
counter-attack, invading various German lands and Hungary. They would even
become involved in Poland's wars with the Teutonic Order.
The Taborites and Utraquists would at times fight
amongst themselves and eventually the Utraquists came to an agreement with Rome
in 1436. After the Fifth Anti-Hussite Crusade was defeated in 1431, the Empire
and Rome were finally willing to seek a compromise. But since the Hussites
weren't unified a true peace wasn't possible. In light of the talks (taking
place at Basel in Switzerland) groups of Utraquists combined forces with
Catholics and virtually destroyed the Taborites in 1434 at Lipany. Militarily
broken the Taborites would continue to decline for a generation until they were
virtually eradicated and scattered to the winds. Lipany allowed the greater
Hussite compromise of 1436 and in defeat, the Taborites made peace with the
Emperor Sigismund in 1437.
Hussitism wasn't at an end but for the next two
centuries the movement was synonymous with Utraquism. And yet even the more
Biblicist elements of the movement would survive. A group of dissident
Utraquists would eventually come under the influence of a figure that had
completely broken with Hussitism in the early days of the movement. Who was he?
He was a theologian of sorts but one who rejected the categories and influence
of Scholasticism. He was a rustic philosopher to be sure but one only
interested in denouncing all opposition to the Holy Scriptures and one
determined to defend its claims against the host of rival ideas, concepts and
influences utilised by the Scholastics. Peter Chelčický, a prolific writer and
anti-establishment rustic was the man who would influence these Utraquist dissidents.
Already leading a dissident congregation, Chelčický would influence the group
that would later become the Unitas
Fratrum, the Unity of the Brethren, the progenitor of the later Moravians.
As previously mentioned his origins are a bit
mysterious. Some believe he was a renegade priest, others argue that he simply
developed and elaborated ideas already being discussed among some of the
Hussites. Others believe he was a Waldensian or part of a group that was or had
been affiliated with them. Part of the confusion on this point is the tendency
to view the Waldensians as monolithic in their beliefs and somehow united in
their organisation. This is not the case. Waldensianism is an umbrella or
catch-all term used to identify a myriad of cells and small groups scattered
around Europe. In some cases there were affiliations and ties to larger bodies
and authority figures but in other cases (it would seem) they operated as
semi-isolated groups, or groups on a circuit visited by itinerant preachers. Chelčický's
views are pronounced and differ from all the other Hussites and yet his views
are remarkably (even overwhelmingly) similar to Waldensian teachings common in
Central Europe. The evidence is circumstantial at best but it strongly suggests
that Chelčický was either a Waldensian himself or heavily influenced by them.
This possibility (or even probability) underlines his historical significance
because his writings may very well represent the preeminent and most comprehensive
statement available for Waldensian beliefs in the centuries prior to the
Protestant Reformation. We have Waldensian statements of faith and catechisms,
as well as torture-records of the Inquisition but nowhere do we have anything
like Chelčický's near-comprehensive elaboration of pre-Reformation Biblicism.
We know Chelčický was in Prague around 1419-20 and
watched the beginning chapters of the Hussite Wars. He recoiled in horror at
what he saw and was further disturbed by the justifications for violence given
by the Hussite theologians. He debated both Utraquists and Taborites and came
to reject them both. Chelčický would leave Prague and return south to Chelčice, where he would more or less remain
for the final 30-40 years of his life. History cannot provide us with the exact
date of Chelčický's death but it must have been around 1460, putting him
in his seventies and possibly near to eighty years old.
The Utraquists were by his estimation too close to
Roman Catholicism and too keen to rely on its models for both theology and
society. The Taborites likewise relied on scholastic and pragmatic arguments
for their use of violence but Chelčický also criticised them on the basis of their
hypocrisy demonstrated at Tabor and its re-establishment of hierarchy and the
exploitation of the peasantry. Additionally he took great umbrage with regard
to their memorialist view of the Eucharist in which the Lord's Supper was
reckoned in purely symbolic terms.
Residing from about 1420 at Chelčice (roughly 30 miles from both the modern German and Austrian
borders) Chelčický would spend the rest of his life writing essays and
treatises, waging a spiritual battle with the pen. The various parties
respected him and resorted to him on occasion, seeking advice or counsel. He
remained active in the disputes of the age and yet remained separate from the
political wranglings and the wars which would ravage Bohemia and Central Europe
for the next fifteen years.
He criticised not just the violence but the theological
assumptions of the various parties and Bible in hand condemned the entirety of
the Medieval Christian order. Despite his abhorrence at the violence of the
Taborites, these were people he knew and he felt affinities for their Biblicism
and their zeal for God. Unfortunately from his perspective it had all gone
wrong and the once pacifist Taborites had (from Chelčický's perspective) been
seduced by the Devil's wiles and the temptation of a worldly prize. Chelčický
was unwavering in his nonresistance and condemnation of Christians using
violence. The Waldensians alone represent this absolute position but as noted
previously there were defectors throughout their history, those that joined
Tabor and thus defected from their historic position, were very painful to Chelčický.
From his perspective men and women that should have been reckoned as kindred
spirits or brethren had become enemies of the Kingdom.
Chelčický represented the extreme culmination of
several late medieval movements. Even prior to Jan Huss there had been what
Murray Wagner refers to as a Popular
Reformist impulse. It was moralistic and anti-clerical. It sought to change
the nature and understanding of Christian behaviour and was hostile to the
Roman hierarchical system. At times an anti-German element and ethos would
affect the tone of this teaching in Bohemia but Chelčický saw the problem as
not one of Czech vs. German but that of a Remnant Church vs. Antichrist.
In addition to anti-clerical moralism, there had been a
push for Doctrinal Reform most
poignantly represented by the labours of John Wycliffe (c.1330-1384) in
England. The marriage of Richard II to Anne of Bohemia had facilitated academic
and cultural exchange, bringing his ideas to Central Europe. Wycliffe advocated
for ecclesiastical reform and spearheaded a project to translate the Latin
Vulgate into vernacular English. He challenged the authority of Rome and
particularly the authority of the Papacy. And yet Chelčický sharply disagreed
with Wycliffe's idea that the magistrate should take the lead and use its power
in reforming the Church (reformatio
regni). For all the Scriptural good Wycliffe advocated he was still very
much in the mindset of Sacral Christendom, a holy cultural order in which
Christ's Kingdom is comprised of Church, state and the culture. Wycliffe also
reintroduced aspects of Augustinian thought in the realm of predestination
which Rome viewed as a threat to its claims to exclusively represent the Church
in all aspects. Predestination and an elect or invisible Church suggested that
the Roman fold might not be equivalent with the body of true believers. In
other words Rome's authority would not be absolute in delineating who was in
the Church and who wasn't. It was an implicit threat and Chelčický would spend
a considerable amount of time navigating these difficult waters. He advocated
for a believer's Church, one visibly marked out from the world by its testimony
and piety and yet at the same time held to the predestinarian doctrine taught
in Scripture. He is criticised at times for this and charged with inconsistency
by Anabaptist biographers and yet Chelčický's Scriptural reasoning is sound.
Wagner's final category of influences is that of Primitivist Separatism best represented
in the ideals and beliefs of the Waldensians. Continually appealing to the
Scriptures, the Waldensians also provided a narrative of Church history, one
that addressed the fall of the Church and the poisoning of Biblical
Christianity on the part of the Papacy. They are often discredited on this
latter point due to the fact that their narrative about the Papacy was
seemingly dependent on the Donation of
Constantine which purported to be from the 4th century. Later in
the 15th century the document would be exposed as a forgery, a
creation of the Carolingian age. The Waldensians and men like Chelčický
believed the Donation to be genuine, as indeed virtually all did before it was
exposed as fraud. Some seem to suggest that its exposure invalidates the
positions and arguments of those who opposed Papal claims but this really has
very little bearing on the issue. The basis for Papal claims was exposed as
false and yet in reality its creation only served to cement already existing
claims and aspirations on the part of the Papacy. Constantine did not 'donate'
the Western Empire to the Pope and yet by the age of Charlemagne and certainly
that of Hildebrand, Roman dominion was the reality and certainly a claim made
by the Papacy. Chelčický and the Waldensians were rejecting the reality of
their day and the ideas which supported the claims of the Papacy. Even a
fraudulent Donation in no way negates
the record of the Papacy or the profound changes that took place in the years
following the rule of Constantine and his successors.
Chelčický rejected the Constantinian order wholesale
and believed it represented an inversion of New Testament Christian doctrine
and ethics. Much of what the New Testament advocated was rejected and what it
forbade was embraced and accounted as Christian. Chelčický argued that New
Testament Christianity meant a rejection of military service and the holding of
civil office. He adeptly and aptly answered his critics with regard to Romans 13,
demonstrating the passage was written not as a model for Christian statecraft
but as a Christian response and submission to Providence, an explanation for
why the state was needed and yet was in its essence opposed to Christian
ideals.
Likewise Chelčický rejected public oaths and any
attempts at litigation. His posture was one of non-resistance, a position which
differs significantly from modern politicised conceptions of non-violence. Chelčický
was not out to change society but to bear witness and testify against it. This
is the teaching of the New Testament, but unlike the Apostle Paul, Chelčický
and the similarly minded Waldensians had to contend not with an overtly pagan
order headed by the Caesars, but a counterfeit pseudo-Christian order headed by
a Holy Roman Emperor and the Popes of Rome.
Thus Chelčický also condemned the feudal order. If
Christendom was indeed a cultural expression of the Church, then the ideas of
nobility and serfdom were abhorrent and represented a deep rejection of New
Testament teaching. Chelčický did not reject the Old Testament in any way but
believed the New Testament took precedent and was the guiding and normative
authority for the Christian Church. The New Testament knew nothing of lords and
knights, let alone landholding feudal clerics who collectively crushed and fed
off a brutalised and humiliated peasantry. How could such a social order
represent Christianity? It didn't and in fact the entire premise of Christendom
was itself erroneous and represented a deeply anti-Christian ethos. As Kaminsky
says of Chelčický's position, 'all power is unChristian'.
The following is a quote from Chelčický's On the Triple Division of Society:
"If
power were supposed to be administered through Christ's faith by means of
battles and punishments, and try to benefit Christ's faith thereby, then why
would Christ have abolished the Jewish Law and established a different,
spiritual one? If he had wanted people to cut each other up, to hang, drown,
and burn each other, and otherwise pour out human blood for his Law, then that
Old Law could also have stood unchanged, with the same bloody deeds as
before."
Like other medieval dissenters Chelčický believed that
not only should Christians stay away from soldiering and government, many other
professions were closed to them. Any profession based on taking advantage of
others, or profiting by means of treating others in a way that you yourself
would not want to be treated was fundamentally contrary to the New Testament.
Town life was also on the rise during this period and Chelčický looked askance
at the growing burgher class, a
grouping which would later develop into what is more commonly known as the bourgeoisie or middle class. Chelčický
advocated Christian poverty, rural life (with its physical labour) and cross bearing.
Worldly success, especially in the realms of commerce were (to him) outside the
boundaries of faithful Christianity. He frequently railed against the system of
oppressive lords, knights and merchants crushing the peasantry, living behind
their fortifications even while fat clerics produced scholastic theological
treatises defending the Established order. To Chelčický it was the system of
Anti-Christ and Christians must separate themselves from it.
As mentioned previously Marxist historians have taken a
great interest in the period and figures like Chelčický. There are times in
which he sounds almost revolutionary and certainly he advocated a form of
Christian communalism in which there would be no hierarchy. This was not a view
to be imposed on society but would only function within the pilgrim church and
thus Marxist and Anarchist interest is somewhat unfounded. He's not one of
their forerunners but on these points he is both the intellectual forerunner of
both a modern tolerant Liberal order and aspects of Anabaptist thought and yet
at the same time it can be said without hesitation that Chelčický would reject
them both. He hoped for Christian toleration but in no way would he advocate
liberal values or argue they were (or are) Christian. The Anabaptist parallels
with regard to ethics and Kingdom values are palpable and yet Chelčický's
adherence to paedobaptism as well as his appreciation for Augustinian
categories places him a position somewhat different, even opposed to the
disciples of Simons, Grebel, Sattler and Hubmaier. Again, the only group in
which he finds a match is that of the pre-Reformation Waldensians.
Chelčický is something of an anomaly in that he clearly
elucidates a host of ideas which seem anachronistic by some estimates, in some
ways echoing or anticipating Anabaptist views which would not appear until the
16th century. But this is a misleading and ill-informed assessment.
As Wagner points out in his fine but somewhat critical biography, the views of Chelčický
are in exact alignment with that of the Waldensians and again I believe a case
can be made that he represents their theology as it was known in the
Trans-Alpine domains of Central Europe.** It must be stated in unmistakable
terms he was not an Anabaptist and differed with them on several key points
including baptism. There are also many misunderstandings on this point when it
comes to the history of the Waldensians and their views on Church, baptism and
even their opinions regarding historical teachers like Augustine of Hippo. On
all these points they differ from the later Anabaptists.
Murray Wagner believes Chelčický not only represents
these different facets of Reform but believes the period should be characterised
as the First Great European Revolution.
Other thinkers believe this 15th century epoch of the Waldensians,
Wycliffe, Hus and the various groups which followed represent the First Protestant Reformation, one
distinct from the Magisterial Reformation
of the 16th century. There are parallels between the movements but
also significant differences.
Chelčický especially (along with many of the
Waldensians) represents a strain of thought that would reject Papal Rome,
Wycliffe's Oxford, Hus's Prague and the ideology of Tabor. While there were
certainly some affinities with the thought of Wycliffe and Hus, Chelčický
carved out a unique position which for the most part did not survive the era.
Most of the remaining dissenters would in the following century be assimilated
into nascent Anabaptism or the reform movements centred in Geneva and Wittenberg,
movements Chelčický would also have rejected. In some respects his ideas and
those of the Waldensians died in the 16th century but they never
fully went away and many doctrines as well as something of the ethos would be
recaptured in the 19th century by some of the Restorationist
movements.
___________________
* It's pronounced Hel-chits-kee with an aspirated 'H'.
A 'C' followed by an 'i' or 'e' is transformed into a 'ch' sound. Otherwise a
'c' is pronounced 'ts'.
** Trans-Alpine is significant in this case because an
argument can be made for a series of umbrella Waldensianisms. While on the one
hand there were regional and local differences between the various groups there
are generalised strains which are suggested by the Poor Lyonist groups based in France, the Poor Lombards of Northern Italy and their close cousins in Central
Europe. The Lyonist group was more accommodating with regard to Roman
Catholicism. They were still dissidents but their form of doctrine was probably
more reformist in spirit as opposed to the Cisalpine Lombard group and their
Germanic and Slavic cousins who (it would seem) held to a more hard-line
anti-Rome position.