university of Prague objected. The accusation was undoubtedly an unfair one. Some of the articles recorded the Chiliastic teaching of certain Táborite preachers, their statement that at that period all goods should be common to all the faithful, who were justified in devastating the estates of those opposed to the teaching of Tábor, and also of depriving them of all wordly goods. The Táborites were further accused of saying that at that moment all temporal authority had ceased to exist, and that women were now justified in leaving their husbands, if they felt inclined to do so.[1] This terrible indictment of the whole Táborite party cannot be sufficiently blamed. The Táborites were here practically accused of socialism, polygamy, and anarchism. Such views had undoubtedly been expressed by fanatical and semi-crazy priests who claimed to belong to the Táborite community. Other articles dealt with more serious matters, and referred to views that were really held by many Táborites. Prokop of Plzeň declared in his articles that the Táborites rejected auricular confession, that they celebrated mass in the open air and under tents, that they had maintained that those who, contrary to the custom of the primitive Church, celebrated mass clothed in vestments were not priests but hypocrites, that their prayers were, therefore, vain, and that none should attend their religious services. It is, of course, impossible to enumerate here the entire contents of the seventy-two articles. These general accusations caused great indignation among the Táborites. Bishop Nicholas of Pelhřimov declared that he accepted the teaching contained in the articles, but rejected the venomous insinuations which had been read out together with them. He added that the Táborites had only taken part in the con-
- ↑ Březova, almost as malicious when writing of the Táborites as he is when referring to the Church of Rome, enumerates all the accusations made against them. He writes that Prokop of Plzeň stated that they believed in a “regnum ecclesiæ militantis quod est domus novissima ante resurrectionem.” In this “regnum reparatum” “mulieres ecclesiæ viantis parient filios et filias sine corporali perturbacione et dolore.” “Est hæresis,” the pious Prokop of Plzeň adds. The whole document has great psychological interest.
