The reformation became inevitable when men illuminated by the Holy Spirit realized the Church as described in the New Testament was nowhere to be seen, as the Church beginning as the body of Christ had become an excuse for power. The Reformation consisted of actions to denounce the corruption and abuse in the Church including: “papal abuse, the false foundation of Papal authority, the ecclesiastical captivity of the Word of God, the superiority of the ‘religious life’, perverted priesthood and usurped mediation, and hierarchical captivity of the Church”.[1] John Hus was a forerunner of the reformation. Studying his life, thoughts and actions we will see what possible influence he may have had on the reformation.
The Babylonian Captivity at Avignon and the Great Schism of the papacy that lasted forty years revealed the corruption and abuse in the Catholic Church. Reforms were in order. John Wycliffe an Englishman, and John Hus, a Czech dared to stand up for their beliefs and demand the church would return to the teachings of the Bible for faith and practice.[2] As Wycliffe started putting in question the authority of the clergy, he was quickly condemned by the Pope in 1377. He argued against indulgences, absolutions, pilgrimages, the worship of images, the adoration of the saints and the treasury of their merits laid up at the reserve of the pope, and the distinction between venial and mortal sins. To him, compulsory confession was “the bondage of Antichrist”, the Antichrist being the Pope. He emphasized the teaching from scripture over any other source.[3] Wycliffe died when Hus was 15, but due to the influence he had on Hus’ work he deserved a mention.[4]
John Hus was born in a family of peasants in southern Bohemia. He studied theology at the University of Prague, before becoming a teacher.[5] A strong link between England and Bohemia was formed when Richard II of England married Anne of Bohemia. This relationship allowed many students from Bohemia to study in England. When some returned, they brought back with them Wycliffe's thoughts. In his student days, Hus became familiar with Wycliffe’s philosophical work. After his ordination, he came upon Wycliffe’s religious writing, and adopted the English reformer’s view of the church under the headship of Christ, rather than the pope, as its true head. [6]
As the preacher at Bethlehem Chapel, Hus used his position to circulate Wycliffe’s teachings. He commonly contrasted the pope’s behavior to Christ’s. The pope rode a horse; Christ walked barefoot. Jesus washed the disciples’ feet; the pope preferred to have his kissed.[7] His main attacks were targeting the Pope, the false hierarchical ecclesiastical system, and the doctrine of salvation by works prescribed by the Church.[8]
In his day resentment towards the clergy was spreading.[9] With his fiery sermons Hus gained widespread support among his fellow countrymen. Reports of Hus’ teachings made it to the Pope, which led to his excommunication by Zbynek, the Archbishop of Prague. Hus continued, attacking openly the Pope’s sales of indulgences to support his war against Naples. Prague fell under papal interdict, which led Hus to go into exile in southern Bohemia when he wrote his major work: On the Church. He was urged by Emperor Sigismund to appear at the Council of Constance. He thought he would have the chance to present his views, but he fell victim of the Inquisition. He was asked to renounce the errors or be burned.[10] The reward for confession was life imprisonment. Hus was accused of heresies that he had never taught. Denying the charges, and refusing to recant, he is burned alive on the 6th of July 1415.[11]
Following his death, Hus’ followers who were called Hussites continued in the engagement, confiscating Church property. One group, the Taborites rejected all in the faith and practice of the Roman Church that could not be found in scripture. Another, the Utraquists, only eliminated what the scripture forbade. Utraquists believed laity should be allowed to take both the bread and wine for mass. Because of the strength and influence of the Hussites, the Utraquists were granted their use of the cup, at the council of Bassel, though the group did not carry on for much longer. [12] The Taborites had a more significant influence, being at the origin of the Moravian Church in Germany. In this way we can say Hus had an influence on John Wesley, as the Moravians led Wesley to the light in London in 1738. Hus’ influence was not limited to this.[13]
Many of Hus’ thoughts were spoken still 100 years after his death during the reformation. These were the beliefs that every man, priest or layman, holds an equal place in the eyes of God. The most important thing, was the personal relation between a man and God. The mediating priesthood and the sacrificial masses of the medieval church are no longer essential, which destroyed the medieval barriers between the individual and God. Both Wycliffe and Hus anticipated Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith alone.[14]
There were two big parallels found between Hus and Luther’s lives. The same way Hus was asked to attend the Council of Constance, and promised safety, before being betrayed, in 1521, Charles V of Spain, invited Luther to the Diet of the Worms. Luther’s friends remembered what had happened to Hus, and warned Luther against it, but he went anyway. Once over there the same as Hus, Luther expressed his need of proof from the scripture in order to recant his views. [15]
In a period of abuse in the Church, Reforms are much need. With the influence of Wycliffe’s work, John Hus, means business, when he attacks the Pope and abuses in the Church. It eventually ends badly for him. But his work had great significance, as we still speak of this man born to a poor peasant family in southern Bohemia. It is hard to evaluate exactly how much influence he had on the Reformation, but his ideas were definitely in line with the thoughts of the reformations, returning to the scriptures for truth, denying the authority of the Pope, and Salvation through grace and Christ, not by works prescribed by the Church.
[1] Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 995-996.
[2] Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language, Updated 2nd ed. (Dallas, TX: Word Pub., 1995), 223-225.
[3] Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language, Updated 2nd ed. (Dallas, TX: Word Pub., 1995), 225-230.
[4] Andrew Miller, Miller's Church History: from the First to the Twentieth Century (London: Pickering & Inglis, 1976), 572.
[5] Robert A. Baker, A Summary of Christian History (Nashville, TN.: Broadman Press, 1959), 162.
[6] Earle E. Cairns, Christianity through the Centuries: a History of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 246.
[7] Shelley, Church History in Plain Language, 230-231.
[8] Miller, Miller's Church History, 577.
[9] Miller, Miller's Church History, 574.
[10] Baker, A Summary of Christian History, 162-3.
[11] Shelley, Church History in Plain Language, 230-2.
[12] Williston Walker. A History of the Christian Church.3rd Ed. (New York, NY.: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970), 273.
[13] Cairns, Christianity through the Centuries, 247.
[14] Cairns, Christianity through the Centuries, 247.
[15] A.M. Harman, The Story of the Church, 3Rev ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press, 2004), 111-112.
No comments:
Post a Comment