Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T20:03:33.223Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Peter Chelčický the Spiritual Father of the Unitas Fratrum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Matthew Spinka
Matthew Spinka
Affiliation:
The Hartford Theological Seminary, Hartford, Conn.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Among the outstanding figures of the period of the “flowering of the Czech Reformation,” Peter Chelčický occupies a prominent, and in some respects à unique, position. Although not as well known as John Hus, from certain points of view Peter is more important, certainly more original, than the great Czech Reformer, insofar as in his radical biblicism he went far beyond the latter. Moreover, his influence lived on in the Unity of Brethren and affected the course of history more than Utraquism did. His unyielding and unequivocal insistence on the separation of church and state, and to a somewhat less degree his pacifism, raised him to the rank of a pioneer of the future types of Christianity.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , December 1943 , pp. 271 - 291
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1943

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Literature concerning Peter is still not extensive: among the most important are Goll, J., Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der böhmischen Brũer, 2 vols. (1878, 1882)Google Scholar; Krofta, K., Listy z n´bozženských dějin ćeských (Praha, 1936), 205–221Google Scholar; Goll, J., Chelčický a Jednota v XV. století (Praha, 1916)Google Scholar; Jastrebov, N. V., Etjudy o Petrě Chelčickom i jego vremeni (St. Petersburg, 1908)Google Scholar; E., Smetánka, ed., Petra Chelčiekého Siť viry (Praha, 1929)Google Scholar; K., Krofta, ed., Petra Chelčického O boji duchovnim a O trojim lidu (Praha, Světová Knihovna, 916–918)Google Scholar;. E., Smetánka, ed., Petra Chelčického Postilla, 2 vols. (Praha, 1900, 1903)Google Scholar; J., Straka, ed., Petra Chelčického Replika proti Mikuláši Biskupci Táborskému (Tábor, 1930)Google Scholar; V.Novotný-R., Urbánek, eds., české dějiny (Praha, 1930), III, iii, particularly pp. 882–989Google Scholar; J., Karásek, ed., Petra Chelčického Menší spisy, 2 vols. (Praha, 1891–1892)Google Scholar; Lenz, A, Petra Chelčického Učeni o sedmeře svátostí a poměr učení tohoto k Janu Viklifovi (Praha, 1889).Google Scholar

2 Lenz, , (img #)eni osedmeře svátosti, 20, n. 2; on p. 45Google Scholar he speaks of him as “a friar, if he had been one.”

3 Straka, , ed., Replika, 63.Google Scholar

4 Smetánka, , ed., Siť víry, 2Google Scholar

5 Karásek, , ed., Men ší spisy, I, 8.Google Scholar

6 Straka, , ed., Replika, 59.Google Scholar

7 Quoted in Novotný-Urbánek, , české déjiny, iii, iii, 895.Google Scholar

8 Goll, , Chelčický a Jednota, 295Google Scholar; Novotný-Urbánek, , České déjiny iii, iii, 606.Google Scholar

9 Ibid., 300ff; cf. Böhm, W., Friedriek Reiser's Reformation des K. Sigmund (Leipzig, 1876).Google Scholar

10 Novotný-Urbánek, , České dějiny, iii, iii, 610–612.Google Scholar

11 “Ad belli manque rectifleationem videntur tria esse necessaria, videlicet iusta vendicatio, licita auctorisacio et recta inteneio.” Goll, , Quellen und Untersuchungen, II, 52.Google Scholar Wyclif takes the same attitude, which corresponds with the teaching of Thomas Aquinas regarding the “just war,” namely, “causa insta, auctoritas principis, intentio recta.”

12 Sedlák, , Studie a texty (Olomouc, 1915), II, 327.Google Scholar

13 F., Ŝimek, ed., Jakoubek ze Stříbra, Vyklad na Zjevení sv. Jana (Praha, 1932), I, 572.Google Scholar

14 Ibid., II (Praha, 1933), 133.

15 Ibid., I, 528.

16 Ibid., I, p. LXX; the bull is dated February 18, 1422.

17 Ibid., I, 560.

18 Ibid., I, 571, 573.

19 Ibid., I, 515.

20 Quoted in Novotný-Urbánek, České déjiny, III, iii, 900.

21 Ibid., III, iii, 652ff.

22 O boji duchovním, 27.

23 Ibid., 8.

24 F., Šimek, ed., Postilla Jana Rokycany, 2 vols. (Praha, 1928–1929).Google Scholar

25 Šimek, , ed., Výklad, I, 535–538.Google Scholar

26 O boji duchovnim, 27.

27 Ibid., 7, 8, 17, 26.

28 Ibid., 55; also 63, 83, 128.

29 Ibid., 92.

30 Novotný-Urbánek, , České dějiny, iii, iii, 916.Google Scholar

31 O boji duchovnim, 163. This translation is extant, and was published by Svoboda, M., M. Jakoubka Překlad Viklefova Dialogu (Praha, 1909).Google Scholar

32 Šimek, , ed., Výklad, II, 47.Google Scholar

33 O trojíim lidu, 185–187.

34 Josef, Straka, ed., Petra Chelčického Replika proti Mikuláši Biskupci Táborskému (Tábor, 1930).Google Scholar

35 Ibid., 28.

36 Ibid., 40.

37 Ibid., 41.

38 Ibid., 41–42.

39 Ibid., 59.

40 J., Karásek, ed., Menší spisy, I, 17.Google Scholar

41 This work is not accessible to me in this country, and therefore I omit a discussion of it.

42 Emil, Smetánka, ed., Petra Chelčického Postilla, 2 vols., (Praha, 1900, 1903).Google Scholar

43 Ibid., I, 143, 298.

44 Ibid., I, 363.

45 Emil, Smetánka, ed., Sít víry (Praha, 1929).Google Scholar

46 Ibid., 46–47.