15 minute read
THE SWORD OF THE REFORMATION
Mark Ryman
Fourteenth century England was witness to the birth of an odd assembly of men, “clothed with russet cloak, barefooted, and staff in hand,”1 though generally Oxford graduates. Although being men of letters, they had banded together with the common mission of preaching “a plain and simple Christian faith.”2 They were committed to taking the message of the cross of Christ to every town and village in Britain. One might expect these committed men of God to be welcomed in Christian England and Scotland. This was indeed the case, in that they were received well by the so-called common people. These regular folk were captivated by their message, for it was the Word of God in their own language instead of church Latin. Plain, simple, often uneducated people were eager to hear the plain and simple gospel in a language that did not require a university education. However, the established Church which used Latin, not English, was less than enthusiastic.
Common folk were able to hear these russet-robed Lollards (the followers of John Wyclif AD 1330–84, also spelled Wiclif, Wyclyf, Wycliff, and Wycliffe) read and preach the gospel because they had translated the New Testament from Latin into English. Latin had been the lingua franca of the Roman Catholic Church even before Jerome created his translation of the Bible, the “Vulgate” (from the Latin word vulgata, meaning common, as in the common language), between AD 383 and 404. But it would not be until the Council of Trent (AD 1545–1563) that the Vulgate would become the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.3 A thousand years is a long time, during which an institution may become accustomed to doing things a certain way and not liking it when upstart priests, pastors, monks, and theologians begin reforming the status quo.
The Importance of Scripture in the Vernacular
Nonetheless, people like Wyclif and the Lollards knew that preaching the gospel to people who did not understand Latin meant the proclamation must be done in the language of the hearers. This might be manifest to those moved by the apostle’s words, “Forsoth wo to me, if I ʽschal not euangelise.”4 What would be the point of preaching or of reading the Bible aloud to a group if they could not understand what was being spoken? This is a question that still drives the Reformation forward today, even as it drove Martin Luther to translate the New Testament into common German in AD 1522. Arguably, had he not done so, the Lutheran Reformation might have fizzled out, for that is how important vernacular translations were and are for the proclamation of the gospel, as we will realize in the last sentence of this article.
While numerous translations were written even after Jerome’s day into Latin, the 14th through 17th centuries saw an explosion of English translations by such divines as William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, Thomas Matthew or John Rogers,5 and the 476 translators of the King James Bible. Yet there were others who were appalled by the same vision that Tyndale so aptly summed up: “I defy the Pope and all his laws; and if God spare my life ere many years, I will cause a boy that driveth a plough shall know more of the Scripture than thou doest.”7 That the ordinary person might hear the Bible in an understandable, common language was a shared concern of many even before the German or Lutheran Reformation came into focus in the early 16th Century.
Wyclif's Czech Disciple: Jan Hus
Jan Hus8 (c. 1372–1415) was a Bohemian reformer who was eventually burned at the stake for heresy against Roman Catholic Church doctrine. Hus was “the first to preach in the vernacular…revis[ing] and improv[ing] existing Czech versions of the Bible, as well as writing biblical commentaries and translating Wycliffe’s writings.”9 The spread of the gospel and pre-Reformation teachings were at stake, so the scriptures and the writings of Wyclif10 had to be translated from Jerome’s Latin and Wyclif’s Middle English, and ironically, later from Hebrew and Greek.11 Hus was a scholar “but as a reformer, [he upheld] the right of individual believers to read Scripture for themselves.”
How would they do so without the Bible in their own language? Hus not only translated the Bible and pre-Reformation writings into his national language,12 he also preached in Czech, drawing large crowds to hear him opine on topics of morality, corruption in the church, and the need for individual passion for the truth found in the Bible. These topics were not popular with the church establishment. Nonetheless, “Hus consistently asserted that it was more important to follow Christ and the Scriptures than the pope or tradition.”13
It should not be difficult to see how Hus’ writings influenced Luther.
“The story of Jan Hus reads almost like a dress rehearsal for that of Martin Luther a century later. Indeed, it was later said that Hus had told his executioner, ‘You are now going to burn a goose,14 but in a century you will have a swan which you can neither roast nor boil.’ Why did Hus fail where Luther would succeed? For one thing, Hus was not a great theologian: he wrote far less than Luther, and what he did write lacked the genius of the German Reformer. And the time simply was not right: in Hus’s day there was not yet the widespread dissatisfaction with Church practices with which Luther would later be able to connect.”15
Hus shares with Wyclif another reason that he was not of equal success to Luther. Hus and Wyclif both depended upon handwritten manuscripts to promulgate their writings. Johannes Gutenberg’s combination of a moveable metal-type printing press made the dissemination of Luther’s writings and those of other Reformers spread like wildfire, or in the modern parlance, go viral. Suddenly, his pamphlets, books, and broadsides were in the hands of everyone, and printed in their own language instead of church Latin. This was not the case for the pre-reformers who came before Luther. Not only did it take far longer to create just one hand lettered copy of the scriptures than to print thousands of copies on a press, but these translations were also banned by the church. “Despite the continued validity of the ban until the Reformation, the Wycliffite Bible became the most widely disseminated medieval English work, surviving in over 250 complete and partial copies.”16 Yet, these few copies that remain for us today may also indicate how a relative few were produced at all. The same might be said about Hus’ writings. The inescapable fact is that Luther may have been quite fortunate to have read Hus’ works at all because they were hand lettered and few in number.17 Yet clearly, they did make their way into Luther’s hands.
Hus' Influence on Luther
In AD 1520—a year before Luther would stand trial at the Diet of Worms, the results of which inadvertently gave him time to produce his German New Testament by AD 152218—after having read some of Hus’s work, Luther wrote to Georg Spalatin, the secretary of Frederick the Wise, saying, “‘We are all Hussites without realizing it,’ including his confessor and superior Johann von Staupitz, Paul, and Augustine as “we.” Lucas Cranach produced a woodcut showing Luther and Hus distributing communion in both kinds. Luther himself repeated Hus’ legendary words about an unknown future successor: “Now they roast a goose [hus in Czech], but in a hundred years they shall hear a swan singing, which they shall not be able to do away with.’ The parallels between the two reformers are significant…”19
It was even earlier when Luther was first influenced by Hus. “Early in his monastic career, Martin Luther, rummaging through the stacks of a library, happened upon a volume of sermons by Jan Hus, the Bohemian who had been condemned as a heretic. ‘I was overwhelmed with astonishment,’ Luther later wrote. ‘I could not understand for what cause they had burnt so great a man, who explained the Scriptures with so much gravity and skill.’”20
Luther may have been originally surprised by Hus’s positions in those early days of his monastic career, but the effects on him were long-lasting. Luther was so notably influenced by the life and writings of the Bohemian pastor that Martin the German was nicknamed “the Saxon Hus.”21 Hus also touched Luther in the realm of music. These words of Hus must have moved Luther: “We not only preach the gospel from the pulpit, but also by our hymns.” A search of Hymnary.org shows 17 titles by Hus; Luther penned 36 hymns.
Some of the writings of Hus found their way into Luther’s hands because a few of Hus’ books were some of the first works printed on the new printing press. Lützow explains that, “It is a proof of the great fame of Hus that some of his writings were among the earliest of printed works.”22 “Martin Luther, who always considered the Bohemian reformer as his forerunner, in 1536 published at Wittenberg a translation of four of Hus’s Bohemian letters; among them was the famed ‘Letter to the Whole Bohemian Nation.’ The translation was in German and Latin. A year later a larger collection of Hus’s letters was printed under the influence of Luther, who wrote an introduction.”23 It is obvious that Luther believed Hus’ work important enough that it must be preserved so that others might benefit from his writings. The writings of Hus protested the selling of indulgences a Johann Tetzel hundred years before Pope Leo X commissioned Johann Tetzel to peddle his indulgences certificates in Wittenberg. Tetzel’s remission-mongering was the final straw pushing Luther to pen “The 95 Theses.” The question is: had Hus’ views against indulgences steeped in Luther for years until they were finally extracted from him in AD 1517?24
Another parallel to Luther’s life was the end of Hus’s own. The Roman Catholic Church demanded Hus recant his writings; he would not and was condemned. Luther too was commanded25 to recant his works but would not do so as it was not right nor safe and would sacrifice his conscience. For this, he too was condemned. The parallels between the two, and the influence of the former on the latter is undeniable. In fact, “Luther was accused of being a follower of Hus’s ideas (or a Hussite), with Luther not only admitting to that charge but boasting about it.”26
Would we boast the same? Would we even vaunt being Lutheran? If so, we would have good cause, for we have been given reason and precedent. Semper reformanda (always reforming), a slogan that summarizes the spirit of the Reformation must be an ongoing principle in the church of the 21st Century. The idea must not be reformatio causa reformationis, reformation for the sake of reformation. Rather, the guiding principle must be that when the church departs from the Word by promoting the traditions of men over scripture, new reformers must always step up, promoting reform, despite the reaction of those in charge of any current state of affairs. This will almost certainly end in some sort of condemnation such as Wyclif, Hus, and Luther experienced, but it must be done for the sake of the Church of Christ.
True reform that is good and beneficial for the church happens best when another Reformation slogan is being observed. “Sola Scriptura” or scripture alone, is a focus, along with semper reformanda, that Wyclif and Hus would have embraced. Sola Scriptura does not rule out tradition, experience, or even reason, but it does not allow these to trump scripture. As such, the Bible, as the inspired Word of God, is viewed as the sole authority in matters of faith and practice. Reason will come into play, as will experience and tradition, but the final word on any matter is the Word. Even longstanding church traditions and doctrines must be evaluated against scripture and, when scripture dictates, they must be reformed or rejected outright.
Semper Reformanda and Sola Scriptura
This two-edged sword of Semper Reformanda and Sola Scriptura are what the pre-reformers and the reformers have given us today. This gladius reformationis must be wielded with the same courage and devotion as those upon whose shoulders we stand. We may not be barefooted or plainly robed, but it is incumbant upon us to preach the plain and simple gospel as did the Lollards, Hussites, and Lutherans before us. We may not have a staff in hand, but the Bible must take its place. The Reformation continues only so long as faith may be received by the grace of God through a Word that is understood in one’s own tongue, for “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”27
The Reformation continues only so long as faith may be received by the grace of God through a Word that is understood in one’s own tongue, for “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”
Rev. Dr. Mark Ryman is married to Susan. He is pastor of St. Paul’s Lutheran Church in Salisbury, NC, and is happy to have received the D.Min. from St. Paul Lutheran Seminary.
Endnotes:
1John Charles Carrick. Wycliffe and the Lollards (New York: Scribner’s, 1908), 133.
2Ibid, 133.
3Bruce M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), 348.
4John Wycliffe, The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, with the Apocryphal Books: Early Version, edited by Forshall, Josiah and Madden Frederic, vol. I–IV, Oxford: University Press, 1850). This is Wyclif’s, or his followers’ for there now is some debate about whether or not he actually completed the translation himself—version of 1 Corinthians 9:16b: “Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!” The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Bibles, 2016), 1 Co 9:16.
5In 1537, John Rogers published The Matthew Bible under the pseudonym “Thomas Matthew.”
6King James had appointed 48 translators but one never showed up for work.
7Henry Worsley. The Dawn of the English Reformation: Its Friends and Foes (London: Stock, 1890), 69.
8Jan Hus is also known as John Huss. M. James Sawyer, The Survivor’s Guide to Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 507.
9John F. A. Sawyer, “Jan Hus,” A Concise Dictionary of the Bible and Its Reception, 1st ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), 116–17.
10“Most of what [Hus wrote] was little more than a paraphrase of the works of Wyclif… His skill lay in translating Wyclif’s ideas into an enormously popular movement through his own charisma and commanding presence.” (Jonathan Hill, The History of Christian Thought (Oxford: Lion Books, 2013).
11At the time of Wyclif’s translating, church Latin was so ubiquitous that it is arguable whether scholars were even aware of the original biblical languages. By the time of Luther, the English scholar Desiderius Erasmus (1466–1536) had to create a Greek New Testament in 1516 for the church to refer to, Luther using it in his own New Testament translation into German, despite his disagreements with Erasmus.
12The Moravian Church, formerly known as the Bohemian Brethren, has its roots in the teachings of Hus.
13Tom Schwanda, “Hus, Jan.” The Encyclopedia of Christianity, vol. 2. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1999–2003), 617.
14In Czech, “hus” means “goose.”
15Jonathan Hill. The History of Christian Thought (Oxford, England: Lion Books, 2013), 169.
16Elizabeth Solopova, Jeremy Catto and Anne Hudson, From the Vulgate to the Vernacular (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2020), xv.
17However, as I state later, a few of Hus’ works were some of the earliest printed on presses.
18Because the diet, or assembly, ended with pronouncing anathema, or a formal curse, upon Luther, his life was forfeit. Anyone could assassinate him with impunity and likely with a purse for his effort. Luther’s Elector and benefactor, Frederick the Wise, had Martin kidnapped and hidden from the public at the castle in Wartburg. There, Luther spent eleven weeks translating the New Testament from Erasmus’ Greek New Testament into German, and years later he completed the entirety of the Bible, including the Apocryphal books, into contemporary, idiomatic German so that his countrymen could read the Holy Scripture.
19Paul W. Robinson, “Hus, Jan,” Dictionary of Luther and the Lutheran Traditions, edited by Timothy J. Wengert (Ada, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2017), 349.
20Mark Galli and Ted Olsen, “Introduction,” 131 Christians Everyone Should Know (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 369.
21This is a moniker that Luther embraced.
22Francis Lützow, The Life & Times of Master John Hus (London: J. M. Dent & Sons, 1921), 291.
23Ibid., 291.
24AD 1517 is the year Martin Luther famously nailed his “95 Theses” to the castle door in Wittenberg. Even this, 500 years later, is now questioned as being legendary instead of historical. But the fact that Luther did write his theses and that they did quickly go viral throughout Europe is beyond question.
25Luther was commanded to renounce his writings by both the Church and the empire.
26Mark Nickens, A Survey of the History of Global Christianity, Second Edition (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2020), 89.
27Romans 10:17, ESV.
