on as a true Christian. By what fruits then shall we recognise the truth, if it is not manifest by those with which John Hus was so richly adorned?’
Luther is not alone in his judgment. The Letters of Hus, in the verdict of Bishop Creighton, “give us a touching picture of simple, earnest piety rooted on a deep consciousness of God’s abiding presence. These letters show us neither a fanatic nor a passionate party leader, but a man of childlike spirit, whose one desire was to discharge faithfully his pastoral duties, and to do all things as in the sight of God and not of man.”[1] Other testimonies to the value of this series of letters could easily be adduced, but would add nothing to the decision of the great Reformer and the modern Historian.
We may safely assert that in the years to come The Letters of Hus will form the only part of his voluminous writings that will be read even by students. For the works of Hus, as Loserth has shown, are for the most part mere copies of Wyclif, oftentimes whole sections of the great Englishman’s writings transferred bodily, without alteration or acknowledgment. The very titles are not original; their parade of learning, which deceived Luther, is completely borrowed, when not from Wyclif, from Gratian and other recognised mediæval handbooks. The Englishman Stokes was right when at Constance he bluntly asked: ‘Why do you glory in these writings, falsely labelling them your own, since after all they belong not to you but Wyclif, in whose steps you are following?’ To the same end was the taunt of his former friend, Andrew Brod:
- ↑ Creighton, Papacy, ii. 22 . Creighton refers especially to the Letters in Part III., which some may think the least interesting of all.
