defence was permissible, and even a duty for those who held the true doctrine, Chelčicky maintained the absolute sinfulness of war under whatever circumstances. In his Reply to Rokycan he writes: "Has Christ repealed His command—'Thou shalt not kill'? If Christ has not revoked that order, then it must still be obeyed both at Prague and at Tabor." Chelčicky was, therefore, entirely out of sympathy with his countrymen during the momentous period (from 1420 to 1434) when their great victories attracted the attention of all Europe. It is a natural consequence that even at a period of general national enthusiasm, Chelčicky—similar in this respect to the socialists of all times—shows an almost complete absence of pride in his distinctive nationality.
A result of Chelčicky's intense hatred of all social privileges and distinctions was his repeated quaint jibes against the nobility and the clergy, and his pronounced affection for the humble life of the peasantry, another of many traits in Chelčicky in which he appears similar to Tolstoy. Though the uncontested fact that he was able to spend a considerable time at Prague at his own expense proves that Chelčicky was not entirely without means, and it is probable that he was a small landowner, yet he always speaks of himself as a peasant. Thus, in his Reply to Rokycan he writes: "If, therefore, I, the peasant, strike out blindly with my club, your reverence must not be scandalised."
Chelčicky has nowhere attempted to expound his views on the constitution of Church and State systematically. In the Sít Víry ("Net of Faith"), undoubtedly his masterpiece, we find the nearest approach to such an attempt. The sum of his teaching—as I have written
