¹ Cameron, Euan, The European Reformation (Oxford, 1991), 71–73Google Scholar; Krejči, Jaroslav, Great Revolutions Compared: The Search for a Theory (New York, 1983), 22–48Google Scholar. On the Bohemian reform movement prior to 1415, see Holeton, David R., “The Communion of Infants and Hussitism,” Communio Viatorum 27 (1984): 217–19Google Scholar; and Kaminsky, Howard, A History of the Hussite Revolution (Berkeley, Calif., 1967), 5–96Google Scholar; on the early Utraquist synods, see Zilynská, Blanka, Husitské synody v Čecách, 1418–1440 (Prague, 1985).Google Scholar

² The sect was destined to survive in exile as the Moravian Church (Unitas Fratrum). As of 1991 it claimed more than 56,000 members in the United States and over 2,000 in Canada. On its origins, see Wagner, Murray L., Petr Chelčický: A Radical Separatist in Hussite Bohemia (Scottsdale, Pa., 1983)Google Scholar. On the significance of Utraquist eucharistic reforms, see three articles by Holeton, David R., “Sacramental and Liturgical Reform in Late Medieval Bohemia,” Studia Liturgica 28, no. 1 (1987): 94Google Scholar; “The Communion of Infants and Hussitism,” 217–19Google Scholar; and “The Communion of Infants: The Basel Years,” Communio Viatorum 29 (1986): 35–36Google Scholar. For the history of the Consistory, see Tomek, Václav V., “O cirkevní správě strany pod oboji v Čechách od r. 1415 až 1622,” Časopis českého muzea 22 (1848): 365–83, 441–68Google Scholar; and Krofta, Kamil, “Boj o konsistoř pod obojí v letech 1562–1575 a jeho historický základ,” Český časopis historicitý 17 (1911): 28–57, 178–99, 283–303, 383–420Google Scholar. On the repudiation of the Taborites, see Bartoš, František, The Hussite Revolution, 1424–1437, ed. Klassen, John M. (Boulder, Colo., 1986), 112–18Google Scholar; and (for documentation) Nejedlý, Zdeněk, Prameny k synodám strany pražské a táborské (vznik husitské konfesse) v létech 1441–1444 (Prague, 1900), especially 56–95Google Scholar. The Taborites were defeated militarily in 1434 and suppressed in 1452.

³ The text of Bílejovský's work is available in a nineteenth-century edition by Skalický, Jozef (pseudonym for Ditrrich, Josef), Kronyka cýrkevní (Ecclesiastical chronicle) (Prague, 1816)Google Scholar. All quotations are from this edition. Born around 1480 in Malin near Kutná Hora, Bílejovský (pronounced Bee-lay-yof-skee) was ordained as a priest in Italy (probably in Venice) and served in Mělník, Čáslav, and Kutná Hora. Except for a brief mission to Tábor, he lived from 1532 onward in Prague, where he was elected to the Consistory two years later and where he died in 1555. For biographic data on Bílejovský, see Šimak, Josef V., “Bohuslava Bílejovského Kronika česká,” Český časopis historický 38 (1932): 92–93.Google Scholar

⁴ See, for instance, Kalousek, Josef, “O historii kalicha v dobách předhusitských,” Vyroční zpráva obecního realného gymnasia v Praze na školní rok 1880/81 (Prague, 1881), 5, 18, 23Google Scholar; Vlček, , Dějiny české literatury, 2 vols. (Prague, 1951), 1:304–6Google Scholar; Jakubec, Jan, Dějiny literatury české, 2 vols. (Prague, 1929), 1:652–53Google Scholar; Šimák, , “Bohuslava Bílejovského Kronika česká,” 102Google Scholar; Kutnar, František, Přehledné dějiny českého a slovenského dějepisectví, 2 vols. (Prague, 1971), 1:53–54Google Scholar; and Kořán, Ivo, “Obraz a slovo v našich dějinách,” in Kapitoly z českého dějepisu umění, ed. Chadraba, Rudolf et al. , 2 vols. (Prague, 1986), 1:17–18.Google Scholar

⁵ Krofta, Kamil, “Slovo o knězi Bohuslavu Bílejovském,” in his Listy z náboženských dějin českých (Prague, 1936), 293, 297–98Google Scholar. See also Florovskii, Antonii V., Chekhi i vostochnye slaviane: Ocherki po istorii cheshsko-russkikh otnoshenii X–VIII vv, 2 vols. (Prague, 1935–1947), 1:403Google Scholar; Kaminsky, , A History of the Hussite Revolution, 99Google Scholar; and Šmahel, František, Husitská revoluce, 4 vols. (Prague, 1993), 1:13.Google Scholar

⁶ The author wishes to thank Robert J. W. Evans for suggesting an examination of historical and theological views of Hooker and other sixteenth-century Anglican or proto-Anglican divines for parallels with Bílejovský's concepts, and to Patricia M. Springborg for recommending participation in the Jubilee Conference on Richard Hooker, cosponsored by the Folger Library and the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., September 24–26, 1993. On Hooker's ecclesiological task, see Kelley, Donald R., “Elizabethan Political Thought,” in The Varieties of British Political Thought, 1500–1800, ed. Pocock, J. G. A. (Cambridge, Eng., 1993), 63–64.Google Scholar

⁷ References to the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (cited hereinafter as LEP) will be to Hooker, Richard, Folger Library Edition of the Works (cited hereinafter as FLE), 6 vols. (Cambridge, Mass, and Binghamton, N.Y., 1977–1993)Google Scholar. The similarity between Utraquism and Anglicanism is mentioned in Zeman, Jarold K., The Hussite Movement and the Reformation in Bohemia, Moravia and Slovakia, 1350–1650 (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1977), p. xviGoogle Scholar; and Black, Antony, Political Thought Europe, 1250–1450 (New York, 1992), 81CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a general survey of sixteenth-century Utraquism and its historiography, see David, Zdeněk V., “The Strange Fate of Czech Utraquism: The Second Century, 1517–1621,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 46 (1995): 641–68Google Scholar. See also Fudge, Thomas A., “The State of Hussite Historiography,” Mediaevistik 7 (1994): 93–117, covering mainly the fifteenth century.Google Scholar

⁸ Jewel, John, Bishop of Salisbury, An Apologie, or Answer in Defence of the Church of England (London, 1562; reprint, New York, 1972)Google Scholar. This work appeared in a Czech translation in 1619, probably too late to have a significant direct impact on the development of Utraquism, as Apologia, to jest: Dostatečná obrana víry a náboženství cýrkví englických (Prague, 1619).Google Scholar

⁹ Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 27.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Spěváček, Jiří, Václav IV, 1361–1419 (Prague, 1986), 448–49Google Scholar; Novotný, Václav, M. Jana Husi korespondence a dokumenty (Prague, 1920), 135.Google Scholar

¹¹ Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 17Google Scholar. See also de Vooght, Paul, Jacobellus de Stribro, 1429: Premier theologien du hussitisme (Louvain, 1972), 177–80Google Scholar. On the principle of the Judge of Cheb (soudce chebský), recognized by the Council of Basel in 1432, see also Molnár, Amadeo et al. , Soudce smluvený v Chebu (Cheb, 1982), 9–36Google Scholar. On the Utraquists' refusal to obey popes or councils if contradicting the Bible, see also Bartoš, František, Husitská revoluce, 2 vols. (Prague, 1965–1966), 2:49, 66, 113, 181–82Google Scholar; or the partial English translation, The Hussite Revolution, ed. Klassen, , 79–82Google Scholar; and Heyman, Frederick G., “John Rokycana: Church Reformer between Hus and Luther,” Church History 28 (1959): 246.Google Scholar

¹² Thus Jakoubek of Stříbro, the early authoritative theologian of Utraquism, affirmed in 1420 that, as far as the rite of the mass is concerned, ceremonies were to be retained even though not found in Scripture unless they were directly contrary to the law of God; see Holeton, David R., “Church or Sect? The Jednota Bratrská and the Growth of Dissent from Mainline Utraquism,” unpublished paper presented at the National Convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, Washington, D.C., 10 29, 1995Google Scholar, citing from MS Prague, Bib. Nat. X G 20 fol. 98v.

¹³ “Nullus igitur … habet potestatem auferre vel addere ad novam legem. Est enim lex sine omni defectu; Chrisrus enim dominus, divina sapiencia, sapiencior est omnibus caesaris, regibus, papisticis episcopis, cardinalibus, sacerdotibus, doctis, ymo omnibus sanctis hominibus et angelis”; cited by Odložilík, Otakar, “Utrakvistická postilla z r. 1540,” Věstník České společnosti nauk, 1925, 19 n. 39Google Scholar. Odložilík tentatively identifies the author as the priest Jan at Saint Henry's Church in the New Town of Prague, a member of the Utraquist Consistory in 1534–40.

¹⁴ Řičan, Rudolf, ed., Čtyři vyznání (Prague, 1951), 39Google Scholar; Hrejsa, Ferdinand, Dejiny křestanství v Českoshvensku, 6 vols. (Prague, 1947–1950), 2:271.Google Scholar

¹⁵ In other words, even when the differences on dogma and ritual had become apparently minuscule, the difference on the source and exercise of ecclesiastical authority proved virtually insurmountable. On the failure of reunion in the 1560s and 1570s, see Borový, Klement, Antonin Brus z Mohelnke, arcibiskup pražský: Historicko-kritický život (Prague, 1873), 176, 180–96, esp. 195Google Scholar; Kavka, František and Skýbová, Anna, Husitský epilog no koncilu tridentskem a původní koncepce habsburské rekatolizace Čech (Prague, 1968), 183–84Google Scholar; and Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland, Abteilung 3, 1572–85, ed. Goetz, Helmut (Tübingen, 1982), 6:153–54, 467Google Scholar. On the negotiations from 1590 to 1610, see Matoušek, Josef, “Kurie a boj o konsistoř pod obojí za administrátora Rezka,” Český časopis historický 37 (1931): 285–91Google Scholar; Sněmy české (Prague, 1910), vol. 11, pt. 1, 74, 79Google Scholar; and Vávra, Josef, “Katolíci a sněm český roku 1608 a 1609,” Sborník historického kroužku, 1893, no. 1:4.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 11Google Scholar; Wernisch, Martin, “Jan z Pomuka i Nepomuka, shrnutý a neuzavreny,” Folia Historica Bohemica 17 (1994): 218Google Scholar. On universities, see for instance Kaminsky, Howard, “The University of Prague in the Hussite Revolution: The Role of the Masters,” Universities in Politics: Case Studies from the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Period, ed. Baldwin, John W. and Goldthwaite, Richard A. (Baltimore, Md., 1972), 79–80, 104–5Google Scholar; and Svatoš, Michal, ed., Dějiny Univerzity Karlovy, vol. 1: 1347/48–1622 (Prague, 1995), 138–42.Google Scholar

¹⁷ The free and permissive range of these debates is illustrated from an earlier period by the proposition in a quodlibet of 1170 by the respected Paris theologian Peter Comester that “the devil had never done so much harm to the Church as by the prohibition of clerical marriages”; cited by Southern, Richard W., Scholastic Humanism and the Unification of Europe (Oxford, 1995), 1:145Google Scholar. On tension between academic theologians and prelates, see Wei, Ian P., “The Self-image of the Masters of Theology at the University of Paris in the Late Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 46 (1995): 430–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Having served my apprenticeship as a historian of Russia, I am also—rather irreverently—reminded of analogous tensions between the intelligentsia of the Proletkult and the apparatchiki of the Politburo in the days of Lenin's rule; see Fitzpatrick, Sheila, The Commissariat of Enlightenment: Soviet Organization of Education and the Arts under Lunacharsky (Cambridge, 1970), 89–109, 174–80, 185–87, 236–41.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Krofta, Kamil, “O některých spisech M. Jana z Příbramě,” Časopis Českého muzea 73 (1899): 213.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Hooker, , FLE, 1:7 (LEP, Preface, 2.4)Google Scholar. See also, for instance, Dictionary of National Biography (London, 1908–1909)Google Scholar (hereafter cited as DNB), s.v. “Jewel, John.” On the Anglican view of the relative status of Scripture, reason, and tradition, see for instance Avis, Paul, Anglicanism and the Christian Church: Theological Resources in Historical Perspective (Minneapolis, 1989), 63–67Google Scholar. For Hooker's defense of reason, see Hooker, , FLE, vol. 6, pt. 1, 64–65.Google Scholar

²⁰ Hooker, , FLE, vol. 6, pt. 1, 78–79Google Scholar; see also 136–37, 156–57. The citations refer to ibid., vol. 1, 17, lines 10–23, and 18, lines 4–8 (LEP, Preface, 3.10).

²¹ Hooker, , FLE, 5:643Google Scholar. On the necessity of reason for interpretation, see Hooker, , FLE, vol. 6, pt. 1, 157Google Scholar. On later polemical use of the criterion of reason by the Anglican Church against both Catholic authoritarianism and sectarian irrationalism, see Tumbleson, Raymond D., “‘Reason and Religion’: The Science of Anglicanism,” Journal of the History of Ideas 57 (1996): 132, 156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²² On the stern critique aimed by historians at the Utraquist Church, see David, , “Strange Fate,” 644–52.Google Scholar

²³ Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 2, 16, 28Google Scholar; Chlíbec, Jan, “K vývoji názorů Jana Rokycany na umělecké dílo,” Husitský Tábor 8 (1985): 54.Google Scholar

²⁴ Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 7–8, 16, 30–31Google Scholar. According to Bílejovský, this practice lasted in Rome until the death of Pope Pius II in 1464 (ibid., 31). He also claims that as late as the 1390s Pope Boniface IX approved communion sub utraque for the Church of Saint Barbara in Kutná Hora (ibid., 28).

²⁵ Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 16–17, 25 (quote).Google Scholar

²⁶ “Communicare autem sub una specie [videtur] esse heresis”; cited by Odložilík, , “Utrakvistická postilla,” 5 n. 13Google Scholar. See also Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 25.Google Scholar

²⁷ See Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 4, 7–8Google Scholar. On the importance and significance of communion for infants and small children in Utraquism, see two articles by Holeton, David R., “The Communion of Infants and Hussitism”, 204–25Google Scholar, and “The Communion of Infants: The Basel Years”, 15–40Google Scholar, and his book La communion des tout-petits enfants: Etude du mouvement eucharistique en Bohême vers la fin du Moyen-Age (Rome, 1989), esp. 235–303Google Scholar. According to the 1540 homiliary, “Sic nunc turbantur, cum vident Christum nasci per predicacionem verbi eius, cum communicant corpori ac sangvini domini et ipsi pueri”; cited by Odložilík, , “Utrakvistická postilla,” 7 n. 17; see also 24.Google Scholar

²⁸ Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 8–9, 17.Google Scholar

²⁹ Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 9, 18Google Scholar. The actual time span between the death of Očko and the reintroduction of the lay chalice by Jakoubek was thirty-four years; on p. 9, Bílejovský gives the correct death date for Očko as 1380. On Wenceslaus IV's suppression of Utraquism, see Holeton, David R., “Revelation and Revolution in Late Medieval Bohemia,” Communio Viatorum 36 (1994): 35, 40–41.Google Scholar

³⁰ Kalousek, Josef, “Ruské badání o příčinách a účelích hnutí husitského,” Časopis českého musea 56 (1882): 102Google Scholar; see also Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 138 n. 30.Google Scholar

³¹ On Koranda, see Krofta, Kamil, “Václav Koranda mladší z Nové Plzně a jeho názory náboženské,” in his Listy z náboženských dějin českých, 262.Google Scholar

³² Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 18.Google Scholar

³³ Ibid., introduction, 24. The Anglicans encountered similar questionings of their ecclesiastical origins; see Avis, , Anglicanism, 179Google Scholar. On “hussiti,” see for instance Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland, Abteilung 2, 1560–72, vol. 8, ed. Rainer, Johann (Graz, 1967), 46–47Google Scholar; Abteilung 3, 1572–85, 6:154, 365, 369 (see n. 15); Abteilung 3, 1572–85, vol. 7, ed. Bues, Almut (Tübingen, 1990), 49, 88Google Scholar; and Die Hauptinstruktionen Clemens' VIII. für die Nuntien und Legaten an den europäischen Fürstenhöfen 1592–1605, ed. Jaitner, Klaus, 2 vols. (Tübingen, 1984), 1:59, 2:710Google Scholar. On the courteous form, see Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland, Abteilung 3, 6:467Google Scholar; see also Abteilung, 3, 7:98, 376.Google Scholar

³⁴ Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 7, 23–25.Google Scholar

³⁵ A condemnation of the temporal power and the wealth of the church was incorporated into the third article of the Compactata; see Bartoš, , Husitská revoluce, 2:226Google Scholar. Wyclif's disciple, Peter Payne, defended the third article on behalf of the Utraquists at the Council of Basel; see Betts, Richard R., Essays in Czech History (London, 1969), 246Google Scholar. On Wyclif's attitude, see also Wilks, Michael, “Reformatio Regni: Wyclif and Hus as Leaders of Religious Protest Movements,” Studies in Church History 9 (1972): 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁶ Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 21Google Scholar; see also 11, 114–15.

³⁷ Odložilík, , “Utrakvistická postilla,” 8.Google Scholar

³⁸ Ibid., 16–17.

³⁹ Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 13, 30Google Scholar; Wilks, , “Reformatio Regni,” 117Google Scholar; Faulkner, Robert K., Richard Hooker and the Politics of a Christian England (Berkeley, Calif., 1981), 31.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ “Anižt' oni co o podstatné křesťanstva, jako náměstcy apoštolští, k zachování pečují v milosti, jen aby k své vůli všecky podmánili, uživajíce a popauzejíce mocý světských, aby y oni jich služebnícy a ne Boží byli, a oni v jich panství pychali”; Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 37–38.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Jan of Příbram, “De ritibus misse,” in Geschichtschreiber der husitischen Bewegung in Böhmen, 3 vols., ed. Höfler, Karl, Fontes rerum austriacarum, nos. 2, 6, and 7 (Vienna, 1865), 2:506Google Scholar; Odložilík, , “Utrakvistická postilla,” 5, 15Google Scholar. See also Nejedlý, Zdeněk, Dějiny husitského zpěvu, 5 vols. (Prague, 1954–1955), 5:169–70.Google Scholar

⁴² Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 20–22Google Scholar. See also Kronika tak řečeného Dalimila, ed. Bláhová, Marie (Prague, 1977), 121.Google Scholar

⁴³ Nejedlý, , Dějiny husitského zpěvu, 1:39Google Scholar. Even Cyril and Methodius may have introduced the so-called Liturgy of Saint Peter (a Slavic translation of the contemporary Roman rite) rather than the Byzantine rite; see Dvornik, Francis, Byzantine Missions among the Slavs: SS. Constantine-Cyril and Methodius (New Brunswick, N.J., 1970), 111–16.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 22–23, 46Google Scholar. “Alchymus” is probably the Hellenized member of a Jewish priestly family, Alcimus, who was appointed high priest in Jerusalem (162–160/59 b.c.) with the assistance of Demetrius I Soter, the Seleucid ruler of Syria, to combat Judah Maccabee and his followers; see Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1971), s.v. “Alcimus.”Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 23Google Scholar. Anne Hudson describes similar arguments against the use of English for theological writings at the turn of the fourteenth century, citing in part from a manuscript in the Brno University Library; see her “Lollardy: The English Heresy?” in Hudson, , Lollards and Their Books (London, 1985), 157–58Google Scholar. The heretical writings Bílejovský refers to are probably Nicholas's Confessio Taboritarum of 1431 (see Zeman, , The Hussite Movement, 179Google Scholar) and the Apology of the Bohemian Brethren, published in 1511, which also attracted the attention of Erasmus and Luther (see Rican, Rudolf et al. , Jednota Bratrská, 1457–1957: Sborník k pětistému výroči založení [Prague, 1956], 29).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Odložilík, , “Utrakvistická postilla,” 20.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 8–10, 13, 27–28, 46.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Odložilík, , “Utrakvisticlá postilla,” 24Google Scholar. For an earlier view, see Krofta, , “O nékterých spisech M. Jana z Příbramě,” 213Google Scholar. See also Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 13–14.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ On similar qualities in the religious attitude of Hooker, see FLE, vol. 6, pt. 1, 79–80Google Scholar, and the literature cited there. See also Urbánek, Rudolf, “Český mesianismus ve své době hrdinské,” Od pravěku k dnešku: Sborník k 60. narozenindm J. Pekaře, 2 vols. (Prague, 1930), 1:262–84, esp. 263–64Google Scholar; Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 27, 39–41Google Scholar; and Krofta, , “Slovo o knězi,” 296–97.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See the Consistory's response of July 28, 1548, to a nobleman's request to replace the Lutheran minister on his estate with an Utraquist priest who would be able to serve a Germanspeaking congregation; Borový, Klement, Jednání a dopisy konsistoře katolické a utrakvistické, 2 (Prague, 1868–1869), 1:229Google Scholar. See also Jireček, Josef, Rukovět' k déjinám literatury české, 2 vols. (Prague, 1875–1876), 1:116.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Concerning the Brethren, see also Říčan, Rudolf, The History of the Unity of Brethren: A Protestant Hussite Church in Bohemia and Moravia, trans. Crews, C. Daniel (Bethlehem, Pa., 1992).Google Scholar

⁵² Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 50Google Scholar. Kaminsky seeks to identify the “Picardi” with the “Beghardi,” or the Brethren of the Free Spirit, who were widespread in fourteenth-century Europe and were condemned by the Council of Vienne in 1311; see his History of the Hussite Revolution, 354–55Google Scholar. The term “Beghardi” had been used as a vague term of insult for heretics already by Jan Milic of Kroměříž; see Holeton, , La communion des tout-petits enfants, 21Google Scholar. The main competitors of the Picardi for ideological input into radical Taboritism were the Waldensians and the Lollards (the folkish followers of Wyclif); see Pekař, Josef, Žižka a jeho doba, 4 vols. (Prague, 1927–1933), 1:15–17Google Scholar; and Hudson, Anne, “A Lollard Compilation in England and Bohemia,” in Hudson, Lollards and Their Books, 31–42Google Scholar. To complicate the situation further, Václav Tomek identifies the fortytwo men with women and children, French by nationality, who arrived in Prague in 1418 as Waldensians, who were soon suspected of heresy and called Pikarts or “bekardi”; see Tomek, , Dějepis města Prahy, 12 vols. (Prague, 1855–1901), 3:624Google Scholar. As we shall see, Bílejovský, however, categorically rejects the influence of the Waldensians and, at least in part, seeks to rehabilitate Wyclif.

⁵³ Bartoš, , Husitská revoluce, 1:116Google Scholar. Calvin, in his correspondence with the Brethren in 1540, questioned their designation as Pikarts; see “Poznamenání a spolu shromáždění některých věcí pamětihodných přítomným i budoucím,” 1579 MS Prague Bib. Nat. XVII C 3 fol. 143v. Fynes Moryson also calls the Brethren “Picards”; see Moryson, , Shakespeare's Europe: A Survey of the Conditions of Europe at the End of the Sixteenth Century, ed. Hughes, Charles (London, 1903), 277.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 51–53.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Ibid., 53, 55.

⁵⁶ Ibid., 25–26.

⁵⁷ Ibid., 109 (see also 105); and Šimák, , “Bohuslava Bílejovskeho Kronika česká,” 101Google Scholar. On the relationship between the Bohemian Brethren and the Waldensians, often called Waldensian Brethren (fratres Valdenses), see Gonnet, Giovanni and Molnár, Amadeo, Les Vaudois en Moyen Age (Turin, 1974)Google Scholar; and Říčan, , The History of the Unity of Brethren.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Bydžovský, Pavel, Tato Knižka toto try ukazuje (n.p., n.d. [after 1541]), 2.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 102Google Scholar. On Wyclif's influence, see also Leff, Gordon, “Wyclif and Hus: A Doctrinal Comparison,” in Wyclif in His Times, ed. Kenny, Anthony (Oxford, 1986), 105–25Google Scholar; Betts, , Essays in Czech History, 29–62, 132–59Google Scholar; Herold, Vilém, Pražská univerzita a Wyclif (Prague, 1985)Google Scholar; and Holeton, David R., “Wyclif's Bohemian Fate: A Reflection on the Contextualization of Wyclif in Bohemia,” Communio Viatorum 32 (1989): 209–22.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 11 (quote), 90Google Scholar. See also Pekař, , Žižka a jeho doba, 1:140–41Google Scholar; and Hrejsa, , Dějiny křesťanství, 2:218–19Google Scholar. On Payne, see also Betts, , Essays in Czech History, 236–46Google Scholar. Payne, together with Jakoubek, defended Wyclif against Jan of Příbram's charges of eucharistic unorthodoxy, particularly in 1426; see Bartoš, , Husitská revoluce, 2:18, 25, 56Google Scholar; Kaminsky, , A History of the Hussite Revolution, 461Google Scholar; and Cook, William R., “John Wyclif and Hussite Theology, 1415–1436,” Church History 42 (1973): 341–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶¹ Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 86, 90 (quote), 95Google Scholar. See also Nejedlý, , Prameny k synodám, 168–69.Google Scholar

⁶² Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 99.Google Scholar

⁶³ Ibid.

⁶⁴ Bartoš, , Husitská revoluce, 1:21, 37Google Scholar. Nicholas was immolated as a heretic in Meissen about 1416 (ibid., 22).

⁶⁵ Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 100.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Ibid., 103; see also 102.

⁶⁷ Hooker, , FLE, 1:191–92 (LEP II.8.7).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 104.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Bydžovský, Pavel, Křesťanské Víry upřímné Těle a Krvi Boží vyznání ((n.p., 1546), 10–11.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Odložilík, , “Utrakvistická postilla,” 6–7Google Scholar; Menčík, Ferdinand, ed., Zápisky kněze Václava Rosy (Vienna, 1879), 18Google Scholar; Říčan, Rudolf, “Tschechische Übersetzungen von Luthers Schriften bis zum Schmalkaldischen Krieg,” Vierhundertfünfzig Jahre lutherische Reformation 1517–1967 (Festschrift für Franz Lau zum 50. Geburtstag) (Göttingen, 1967), 282–88Google Scholar. Wyclif's contention parallelled the rigoristic Early Christian views of the Donatists.

⁷¹ Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 27.Google Scholar

⁷² Ibid., 1, 22.

⁷³ Paulová, Milada, “Styky českých husitů s cařihradskou církví na základě církevních poměrů byzantských,” Časopis českého musea 93 (1919): 27.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ In the first half of the sixteenth century many Utraquist priests, perhaps a majority, were ordained in Venice by Greek bishops Dionysius de Franciscis and Titus Cheronensus in the monastery of Sancta Maria del Horto; see Tomek, , Dějepis města Prahy, 12:235Google Scholar; and Borový, , Jednání a dopisy, 1:161.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Paulová, Milada, “Styky českých husitů,” Časopis českého musea 92 (1918): 3, 6–7Google Scholar; and 93 (1919): 17–21; Nejedlý, , Dějiny husitského zpěvu, 5:169–70Google Scholar; Bartoš, , Husitská revoluce, 2:52Google Scholar; Pal'mov, Ivan S., K voprosu o snosheniiakh Chekhov-gusitov s vostochnuiu tserkov'iu v polovine XV veka (Saint Petersburg, 1889), 15Google Scholar; Urbánek, , České dějiny, vol. 3, pt. 2, 614, 616–17Google Scholar. See also Salač, Antonín, “Constantinople et Prague en 1452: Pourparlers en vue d'une union des Eglises,” Rozpravy Československé akademie věd, Řada společenských věd, 68 (1958), no. 11.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 88–104.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Bydžovský, Pavel, Knížky o přijímání Těla a Krve Pána našeho Ježíše Krysta pod obojt způsobou (n.p. [Prague], 1538–1539), fols. 11v–14vGoogle Scholar; idem, Tato Knižka, 9–10, 18; idem, Tento spis ukazuje, že Biskupové Biskupa, a Biskup kněží, a řneží od řádných Biskupů svěceni Těla a krve Boží posvěcovati mají (n.p., 1543), 6–7; Borový, , Jednání a dopisy, 1:247Google Scholar; Jireček, , Rukověť, 1:116.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Marshall, John S., Hooker and the Anglican Tradition (Sewanee, Tenn., 1963), 38–39Google Scholar; Avis, , Anglicanism, 51–52.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Hooker, , FLE, 2:121 (LEP V.28.1).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Ibid., 1:202 (LEP III.1.10).

⁸¹ DNB, s.v. “Jewel, John”; Trevor-Roper, H. R., “The Good and Great Works of Richard Hooker,” New York Review of Books, 11 24, 1977, 49.Google Scholar

⁸² Hooker, , FLE, 5:643Google Scholar. See also Walton, Isaac, “Life of Hooker,” in Richard Hooker, Works of That Learned and judicious Divine, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1865), 1:57, 80Google Scholar. DNB, s.v. “Hooker, Richard,” misidentifies the pontiff as Clement XII.

⁸³ Hooker, , FLE, 5:237–45Google Scholar. Concerning Bishop John Jewel in his Apologia pro Ecclesia Anglicana of 1562, see DNB, s.v. “Jewel, John.”

⁸⁴ Marshall, , Hooker, 38Google Scholar; Spellman, W. M., The Latitudinarians and the Church of England, 1660–1700 (Athens, Ga., 1993), 64–66Google Scholar; Krofta, , “Václav Koranda,” 275Google Scholar; Bílejovský, , Kronyka, 7–8, 51–53.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ See, for instance, Molnar, Enrico S., The Catholicity of the Utraquist Church of Bohemia (Sewanee, Tenn., 1959), 3–5Google Scholar; and Krofta, , “Boj o konsistoř,” 412–13.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ See also the acceptance of the Bishop of Rome's sacerdotal power by the Utraquist writer Votína, Blažej Nožičkaz, Knížka proti bludům některým před tisíci lety odsouzeným (Prague, 1566), fol. Aiii(v).Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Krofta, , “Boj p konsistoř,” 189.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ See David, , “Strange Fate,” 653–54.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ See, for instance, the censure of Pavel Bydžovský in Jakubec, , Dějiny literatury české, 1:653.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Krofta, , “Boj o konsistoř,” 388.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Sněmy české, vol. 11, pt. 1, 72–73, 79Google Scholar; Pažout, Julius, Jednání a dopisy konsistoře pod obojí způsobou přijimajících, 1562–1570 (Prague, 1906), 374Google Scholar; Slavata, Vilém, Paměti nejvyššího kancléře královsví českého, ed. Jireček, Josef, 5 vols. (Prague, 1865–1870), 1:216, 219Google Scholar; Stloukal, Karel, “Počátky nunciatury v Praze: Bonhomi v Čechách, 1581–84,” Český časopis historicitý 34 (1928): 13.Google Scholar

⁹² Pažout, , Jednání a dopisy, 273, 317, 372, 431–32Google Scholar; Krofta, , “Boj o konsistoř,” 283–86Google Scholar; Tomek, , “O církevní správě,” 463Google Scholar. See also Hrejsa, Ferdinand, Česká konfesse: Její vznik, podstata a dějiny (Prague, 1912), 574–75.Google Scholar

⁹³ On Wenceslaus IV as a Czech Henry VIII, see Wilks, , “Reformatio Regni,” 130Google Scholar. See also Hudson, Anne, The Premature Reformation: Wycliffite Texts and Lollard History (Oxford, 1988), 513–14Google Scholar; and Holeton, , “Wyclif's Bohemian Fate,” 213Google Scholar. On legislative enactments, see Nejedlý, , Prameny k synodám, 13.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ See, for instance, Porter, H. C., “Hooker, the Tudor Constitution, and the Via Media,” in Studies in Richard Hooker, ed. Hill, W. Speed (Cleveland, Ohio, 1972), 77–78Google Scholar; and O'Day, Rosemary, The Debate on the English Reformation (London, 1986), 166–69.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Bílejovský states verbatim (Kronyka, 27Google Scholar): “We Czechs sub utraque are the true Romans” (“… my Čechové pod obojí jsme praví Římané”).