ANTE-REFORMATION REFORMERS by Talbot W. Chambers, D.D.

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Nov 18, 1889

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 15, No. 44.

ANTE-REFORMATION REFORMERS.

By Talbot W. Chambers, D.D.

1. THE first one is an Englishman of high repute, John Wycliffe (1320–1384). He was a rector all his life, but maintained also a residence at Oxford, which was the center of his activity. His hostility to the papal system was at first far more on political than on doctrinal grounds, but gradually he was led to a revolutionary attitude toward the Roman see. He was instrumental in securing the first complete English version of the Bible. He denounced monks and friars, and set on foot an active propagandism by sending throughout the country a number of simple priests whose sole business was to proclaim the truths of the gospel and bear testimony against the religious errors that prevailed. In his writings he distinctly rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation, and denied any change of substance in the elements of the Lord’s Supper. More than once he was denounced as a heretic, and the attempt made to enforce the usual discipline, but in every case the protection of powerful nobles secured him immunity, and he died a natural death. But so evident was his departure from the established opinions of the church of his day, that the great reforming Council of Constance in 1415 ordered that his bones should be dug up and publicly burned, an order which was carried out in 1428. Imperfect as his views were on many points, it can hardly be doubted that he had seized upon the great principle that each human soul is immediately responsible to God, and needs no mediation of any priest, and that to it the sacraments, however desirable they may be, are not absolutely indispensable. And he is with justice called the morning-star of the Reformation. He lived and died in the communion of the church, yet no man doubts that the survival of his teachings among the English people prepared the way for the general and rapid uprising in the next century.

2. Of all the persons affected by Wycliffe’s teaching and example, none were so thoroughly quickened as John Huss, of Bohemia (1369–1415). He was, like Wycliffe, a rector, and also closely connected with a university. He esteemed and used the writings of the English reformer, without, however, coming in conflict with the ecclesiastical authorities, at least for some years. But, as early as 1403, some of his doctrines were condemned at a university disputation, and in after years he was repeatedly excommunicated by the pope, and in 1415 was formally condemned by the Council of Constance and burned as a heretic. One of his most marked peculiarities was his regard for the Scripture, which he incessantly proclaimed to be an infallible authority and the supreme rule of faith and conduct. Another was his view of the church, in which he shared the opinions of Wycliffe. He held that it was the body of Christ, it consisted only of those who have from eternity been chosen unto life, and therefore the pope was in no proper sense its head, for it is not a monster with two heads. He differed from his English teacher in that he firmly maintained the presence of the real body of Christ in the holy supper, although unwilling to define the manner of it, nor did he deny any place to works in the justification of the sinner. But the emphasis he put upon Christ crucified as the only Saviour, and upon the spiritual character of the church, and, consequently, the universal priesthood of believers, was enough to bring upon him the anathema of pope and council. But his name and influence and teaching long survived his martyrdom, as Rome felt for a century afterwards. And when, some years since, the five hundredth anniversary of his birth was celebrated in Bohemia, the whole nation arose in a body to do him honor, and even the Roman Catholic clergy were obliged, at least outwardly, to sympathize with the national outburst.

3. Without any sort of connection with either of the foregoing was Savonarola, of Florence (1452–1498), a Dominican monk, who never renounced his vows. He was a staunch advocate of purity in public life and private, wielded great influence by his tongue and pen, and in due time came into open conflict with the papal court. His sincerity, his energy, and his boldness, inflamed an animosity which did not rest until he was hung upon a gallows and then burned. But it was not on points of doctrine. He always acknowledged the authority of the Roman Church and of the pope, affirming, however, that the latter should be resisted when enjoining anything contrary to the divine word. Nor did he anticipate any of the doctrinal views of a later age. He enforced the need of faith in order to salvation, but in equal measure the need of good works. He never professed, never admitted, any departure from the accepted doctrine of his day. His contention was not anything wrong in the constitution of the church, or in its authorized teaching, but in the administration of its discipline, and in the manners and lives of many in high places. Accordingly, his followers, after his death, asserted their fidelity to the truth, and refused to coalesce with Protestants. The very pope, Alexander VI., who condemned him and prohibited his writings, afterwards withdrew the prohibition. A severer inquiry, fifty years later, sanctioned all save fifteen sermons. St. Felip de Neri (“the apostle of Rome”), and St. Catharine of Ricci, adored the friar as a saint. Benedict XIV. judged him to be worthy of canonization. And some of his writings were used as text-books and reading manuals in schools under the control of the hierarchy. His “Confessionale” was frequently reprinted and used as a handbook for confessors.

When Savonarola was in prison he composed two meditations, which are full of the spirit of exalted piety, and which, when printed, obtained great celebrity. One of these, called the “Miserere,” from the first word of the psalm (the fifty-first) upon which it was composed, was republished by Martin Luther, in 1524, with a preface, in which he speaks of it as a precursor of Protestant doctrine, although “some theological mud” was still found sticking to the author’s feet. He says the reader will see in it the martyr’s “distrust and despair of his own strength, and a pure image of faith and hope in God’s mercy. Neither in the strength of his vows nor the rule of his order; neither in his priestly robe, in masses, nor in works, did he rest his hope, but solely in the gospel, in faith, and in righteousness.” Now, as we are reminded by Professor Villari, it is very true that in this critical period, when he was forsaken by almost every friend, surrounded by foes, subjected to cruel tortures, and with no prospect of release from his dungeon save by a cruel death, he despaired of himself and put his sole and whole trust in God. Nevertheless, it is a great mistake to say that he ever renounced or failed to maintain the value of those good works and religious ceremonies which the church of his day upheld. So far from this was he that he was apt to exaggerate their importance almost to the point of superstition. A man’s position is to be judged, not from a single composition, nor from select portions of his writings, but from his entire utterances, from the general scope and dominant tone of his thinking and speaking. Estimated by this standard, Savonarola was no more a Protestant in his day than Dr. McGlynn is in ours.

During his last imprisonment his jailer often besought him for some written words on virtuous living. Savonarola at last consented, and wrote the following:—

“Virtuous living depends wholly on grace; wherefore we must strive to attain grace, and, having won, to increase it. To examine our sins, to meditate on the vanity of earthly things, are means towards grace; confession and communion incline our hearts to receive it. Certainly it is a free gift of God, but when we have a strong contempt for the world, a strong desire to turn us toward spiritual things, then we may say that even if grace be not in us, it is assuredly drawing nigh. Therefore, perseverance in virtuous living, in good works, in confession, in communion, in all that draweth us nearer unto grace, is the true and certain way to procure its increase.”

Such, then, are the three men who stand conspicuous in the ecclesiastical history of their period; alike and yet how different! All were lovers of the truth, upright in life, and outspoken in their opposition to every form of ungodliness. All had the root of the matter in them, and whatever their failings, exhibited an eminently Christian spirit even under the greatest provocation. And yet while the two earlier advocated principles and practices utterly at war with the reigning system of the church, the third one sought only a reform of morals and left doctrine untouched. The former have never been exempted from the charges brought against them while they lived, while the latter was completely rehabilitated, and his memory vindicated, by the lineal successors of those who hounded him to death. Rome claimed Savonarola as a Romanist; she never dreamed of making such a claim upon Wycliffe or Huss.—Talbot W. Chambers, D.D., in N. Y. Observer.