(Christian History) 11. Foundations of the Reformation — David Guzik

With this lecture we want to cover the subject of some of the early reformers because Even though Martin Luther did an amazing work in the early part of the 16th century He was very clearly Preceded by some people who in one way laid the groundwork for what he did.

But in another way illustrated that they were not able to do what Martin Luther actually did or you know. We could say what God used Martin Luther to do, but for whatever reason it just didn't happen with those men.

The Four Periods of Church History and the Reformation

It's helpful as I've done often in the beginning here to just sort of review where we've been. We're coming up now into our fourth period of church history the Reformation. We started with a look at the Apostolic Church.

That was AD 33 approximately to the year 100 approximately then the early church from approximately 100 to about the year 312 the conversion of Constantine and that radical change of Status for the church in the Roman Empire.

Then we talked about that very large period of time that we called the Christian Empire from 312 to 1500 again the 1500 date is approximate if I wanted to be more exact I would have put 1517 the year Martin Luther.

Well the year most people attribute the Reformation to have begun when he posted his 99 95 theses and then finally we're getting now Into the period of time known as the Reformation and we list that from 1500.

I give it a date 1650 which sort of goes to the end of the Thirty Years War which we'll talk about that in a later time. We just remind ourselves of something that we looked at at a previous session some of the important sort of cultural Foundations for the Reformation we talked about the plague and the black death and how much that influenced things everything from economy to spiritual outlook to Government and and politics it had a huge impact.

We talked secondly about the Muslim and Turkish threat to Europe thirdly about the Renaissance and the revival of learning. Fourth about the invention of the modern printing press and the media explosion that followed it.

The Woodcut and the Reformers Who Prepared the Way

Fifth about the discovery of the new world and sixth about the spread of biblical knowledge. There's something I want to show you up on our PowerPoint right now, and it's a woodcut. From oh, I suppose sometime in the 16th century that I really like the way that this woodcut looks.

And how it illustrates a principle that we're going to emphasize in this session and in a few of our future lectures. First of all you see on the far left here John Wycliffe, and he's sort of striking together some you know.

Maybe a flint and a stone you know together there to make sparks. The the flame is ignited by John Huss who passes it on next third in the line to Martin Luther. Who passes it on to Philip Melanchthon who actually was a successor of Martin Luther?

I like this woodcut for obvious reasons is because it really shows that though Luther was a very Important man in what God did in the church at that time. He was actually you know one man in a chain of men that God was using to impact the church in An important way and so I just sort of like that that picture and today We're going to talk about these three early reformers that I think had a pretty important influence on what Luther was and what he did.

John Wycliffe’s Life and Early Opposition to the Church

John Wycliffe John Huss and then a third one Desiderius Erasmus. John Wycliffe is a great example of an early reformer. He was an Englishman. He was born in the year 1324 and he died approximately 1384 so he lived for 60 years.

He lived through the turmoil of the Avignon Papacy you remember that great schism where Popes? Rival Popes were Excommunicating one another and all of that embarrassment that it was for Europe in general and the Roman Catholic Church in in specifics.

He lived also Seeing firsthand the corruption of the institution of the papacy. Wycliffe was educated at Oxford, and then he began to teach there. He was supported by what's known as a benefice. Do you remember what I was telling you about how each? clerical office had a Income appointed to it.

Well, he actually received the income from a parish church. But then he would hire somebody For half of that income to actually pastor those people in a sense what he had was what you might call a church Sponsored scholarship so that he could pursue his career as a university professor and as a scholar.

Wycliffe saw the problems in the church. And he began his protest against the church in what we might say was a political way. He took the side of the King of England against the church in their many struggles regarding taxation of one another.

Later in his life. He adopted more of a doctrinal and theological protest against the church. But but to begin with he sort of began his struggle with the church in this political way now. I described to you before How all throughout the Middle Ages?

There was this very frequent tension between the Kings and the Popes, right? The Popes always wanted to exert their authority over the Kings and the Kings always wanted to exert their authority over the Popes.

Well Wycliffe sided with the King of England against the Pope and A lot of it was because he saw the papacy as an essentially corrupt institution. Wycliffe was heavily influenced by Augustine's teaching and he believed very strongly in the doctrine of predestination.

If you were to ask him who belongs to the church He would say the elect do and if you were to ask him well who knows who the elect are he would say only God. Does therefore he would say you cannot exactly locate the true church on earth now again?

This is a different idea from Roman Catholicism, right? Even though Roman Catholicism owed a great deal to Augustine at the same time with their very strong identification with the church as A visible sort of institution and organization on earth.

They felt that there was no problem with identifying where the true church was on earth. So Wycliffe emphasized salvation by God's election and the church emphasized salvation by receiving the church's sacraments so here we see sort of the growing division between Wycliffe and the Roman Catholic Church, and he also had a a Distinct philosophical outlook regarding the nature of reality.

It gets into some of these very complex arguments about the nature of reality that go all the way back to the time at Aristotle. But were picked up with great enthusiasm by medieval scholars. But because of his philosophical outlook regarding the nature of reality Wycliffe had a great deal of trouble with the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Transubstantiation which of course says that the bread and wine of communion Actually become the real body and blood of Jesus now this doctrine had been around a long time in the medieval Roman Catholic Church.

But it was concretely established in the year 1215 at the fourth Lateran Council and when it's established Concretely by a council in that way. It just sort of ends all debate. Wycliffe argued that the doctrine was unbiblical and he argued that it was a historical novelty.

In other words that that's not what they taught in the New Testament. You know, it all comes back in many ways to that Latin phrase. I shouldn't say the Latin phrase. You could take the English phrase as well, but it's the Latin phrase emphasized in the Roman Catholic Mass.

And the phrase is hawk s corpus meum. This is my body in the Roman Catholic Mass. That's one of the high points of the mass where the priest holds up the wafer the communion wafer and he says hawk s corpus meum.

This is my body that statement you could say became the foundation for the Roman Catholic teaching of transubstantiation. That the illiterate people which was a great deal number of people in medieval times.

When they saw the priest holding up the wafer and when they heard him say hawk s Corpus meum and they heard that that that wafer was transformed into the actual body of Jesus Christ. They thought it all was magical and actually the phrase we use in English to describe a magical incantation hocus pocus.

Comes from that Latin phrase hulk s corpus meum. It comes from that very phrase. Well bit because of his devotion to scholarship and the lack of confidence in the church Wycliffe promoted the idea of sola scriptura.

I mean think about it. It's only logical if you don't have confidence in the Pope. If you don't have confidence in the institution of the church, and if you don't have much confidence in church councils either.

Where are you going to put your confidence? Well, the logical answer is of course in the Word of God and that's where Wycliffe put it. He asserted the pre-eminence of the scriptures over the church. Over the Pope over the councils and he argued for the right of every Christian to read and interpret the Bible for himself.

You know. We discussed this at the end of a lecture last time about how the Roman Catholic Church was so afraid of this idea of putting the Bible into the hands of the common men and one Of the reasons why they were afraid of that was because they said if you do that Everybody will read the Bible and interpret it for its for themselves and you'll end up with a thousand different denominations.

And we have to say that the fear of the Roman Catholic Church was not irrational because that's exactly what happened. When people were allowed to read the Bible for themselves and interpret it for themselves instead of just receiving the official church Interpretation of it.

It's true. There was a great fragmentation in the body of Christ. But most of us including myself would say that the trade-off was worth it. That it was far worse to keep the Bible from the common man.

Wycliffe’s English Bible and the Lollard Movement

And that of course would have been the opinion of John Wycliffe as well. You could say that Wycliffe's greatest work was his translation of the Bible into English. His followers read the scriptures and Memorized those passages of scripture and they recited them publicly throughout England.

His followers were known as the Lawlords. Now before I tell you more about the Lawlords doesn't this sound strangely familiar to the Valdenzis that we studied before. You know whenever you see a great reform movement of the church that really matters that really lasts whenever you see this It's always people getting back to the Word of God and emphasizing that.

Well, anyway Wycliffe's followers those that he sent out preaching those who were so devoted to to his ideals. Were called Lawlords and and the name Lawlord is thought to derive from the old English words Lawlan or Lolan.

Meaning either to mumble or to sing softly it is thought that the Lawlords were given this name because they would constantly mutter or Sing softly the scriptures. There are some people who think that the name was a mocking name a derisive term meaning lazy people.

But that's probably not true. It probably referred to the way that these people were always either singing softly the scriptures or muttering them to themselves. You could say that while Lawlord Lee was great among the common people in the clergy it Also spread to some prominent people.

It was not a movement restricted only to common people and people of lower classes. In the year 1394 a group of Lawlords presented their criticisms of the church to the political and religious leaders.

But it didn't accomplish much. These were the main complaints of the Lawlords. Now again, remember the year 1394 right that's something like a hundred and twenty years before Luther nailed the 95 theses to the church door at Wittenberg, but this is what they they protested.

First of all, they rejected transubstantiation. Secondly, they rejected celibacy among the clergy and religious orders. Third They rejected clergy who also held political office, which was a common thing in that day.

Fourth they rejected image worship as idolatry and fifth they rejected the necessity of the sacrament of confession. The Lawlords traveled very freely among the common people and they lived simply and they often lived on the gifts that people Gave them among the common people.

It seems that the common people loved the Lawlords and they did very much to spread the gospel and to prepare the ground. For later work in England at times rulers and political institutions Supported them because they were against the institutional church and for the common man.

But at other times they face severe persecution With some even being martyred and they were forced generally to be an underground movement. In the year 1401 William Sawtree who was a Lawlord and a follower of Wycliffe was burned at the stake at Smithfield, England.

Smithfield ended up being a place of notable martyrdom for many people in England. He was the first known Christian martyr in England since the days of the Roman Emperor Diocletian. That was about 300 AD.

Another man who was martyred a Lawlord in those days in England was a man named Thomas Bodley a tailor of Avisham. This man was accused of denying Transubstantiation and after giving a very courageous defense of his belief before the Bishop of Worcester.

He was tried in st Paul's Church before the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and many of the clergy of nobility and then he also was burnt to death at Smithfield. There was another leader among the Lawlords who was named Sir John Oldcaster.

And then another man Lord Cobham a distinguished soldier that his castle of Cowling was a very Secure refuge for the traveling preachers and meetings were held there in spite of their being forbidden under severe penalties.

When Sir John was finally captured in Wales He was burnt being the first English nobleman to die as a martyr for his faith. And so after the death of this English nobleman, Sir John Oldcastle who was also Lord Cobham a law was passed that whoever would read the scriptures in English Should therefore from that point on Forfeit their land their goods and their life and be condemned as a heretic to God.

To be regarded as an enemy to the king and a traitor to the kingdom and that he should not have any benefit of sanctuary Anywhere within England and if he continued in his obstinacy He should be hanged for treason against the king and then burned for heresy against God.

What was that the penalty for for reading the scriptures in English. One of the foreign students who listened to John Wycliffe in Oxford was named Jerome of Prague. He returned to Prague and influenced a man that we're going to talk about a little bit later named John Huss.

Wycliffe’s Death and the Enduring Influence of His Translation

Now Wycliffe died a natural death. The church wanted to kill him. But he enjoyed political protection. But in the year 1415 the Council of Constance condemned John Wycliffe as a heretic and Demanded that his body be destroyed that was finally fulfilled in the year 1428 43 years after his death they dug up his body and Burnt the dead corpse in an after-the-fact martyrdom, but his influence lived on.

In the year 1476 King Edward the fourth demanded that all Wycliffe's works should be burnt but a hundred and fifty years after his birth about 1534 an English writer declared that Wycliffe's works were being studied all throughout England and all throughout Germany.

You see though his voice was silenced his work spread. Especially through his translation of the Bible into English. That the entire scripture Some three-quarter of a million words was translated from the Latin by Wycliffe and his Lawler disciples.

And it was a very dangerous business to do it because it opened up as it were a direct Pathway to God for the common people that would bypass the priests. And so it's an amazing thing that Wycliffe did now generally how would we assess Wycliffe?

We would talk about him as a man who had the right ideas. Had some measure of political protection, but you know what he didn't have he didn't really have the courage. He didn't have the courage that was necessary to go in your face against the Pope against the whole Roman Catholic Church.

He sort of hid behind his writings hid behind his political protection and mostly let his legacy live on Throughout the the Lawler's. That's why Wycliffe wasn't a Martin Luther. It wasn't that he didn't have the right ideas he had basically the right theological ideas.

It wasn't that he didn't have some political political protection. He did but what he seemed to lack was the courage that Luther had to just stare this awesome Machinery of the Roman Catholic Church and the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire in the face and oppose them now one closing comment on John Wycliffe would concern his translation of the Bible.

I think it's very interesting to look at this and just to sort of get a feel of how different English was in his day than it is in our day. I mean virtually it's a whole nother language. This is from John Wycliffe's translation of the Bible and see if you can figure out what that passage is from it says and he CD.

A man had it three sons and the younger of him CD to the father father. Gooey me the procession of cattle that falleth to me and he departed to him and to the cattle and not after many days. One of all the things were good dared together.

The younger Sony went forth in pilgrimage to a fair country and there he waited his goodness in Lungi lecherously and after that he had he ended all thing is a strong hunger. Was made in that country and he began to how needy.

Of course. That's the beginning of the parable of the prodigal son, right? But isn't it sort of shocking to see how much the English language has changed you and I look at that and we go man. That's tough reading.

But listen, that was like manna from heaven for the people for whom that's how they spoke in in Wycliffe's day. And it was a remarkable achievement that he made to translate the Bible into the common English Language of his day.

John Huss and the Influence of Wycliffe

The whole English-speaking world owes a great debt to John Wycliffe and his work in England. Well, I said that indirectly through this gentleman that I mentioned before Jerome of Prague. Wycliffe had an influence on the second reformer that we want to take a look at and the second reformer his name is John Huss.

You'll see his name represented different ways. Some people call him John Huss Jan. Some people spell his name with two s's some people spell his name with one s. It doesn't really matter. We all know who we're talking about, but he was born in the year 1372 and he died in the year 1415 he lived in a different place than John Wycliffe and he lived a generation after John Wycliffe.

But he carried on many of the same ideas and was rejected by the church just as strongly Huss wed read Wycliffe's writings and was greatly influenced by him interestingly early in his life. You'll never guess what had a huge impact on John Huss.

It was two cartoons that he saw. He saw two cartoons that had a huge impact on him when he was a young man. One cartoon showed in one panel a picture of Jesus wearing a crown of thorns and Right next to Jesus in the other panel was a picture of the Pope wearing a crown of gold and expensive clothes.

Now, you know you just look at that right? You can just imagine a young man looking at that and going this doesn't compute, right? Here's Jesus in a crown of thorns and here's the vicar of Christ on earth, right?

Because that's what he called himself the Pope. Here's the vicar of Christ on earth with a golden crown and sumptuous robes. You could see that that would make a big impact now the second cartoon He saw was a picture of Jesus saying to the sinful woman, you know, the woman taken in adultery.

He said to her your sins are forgiven you. That was one picture right next to it was a cartoon of another picture. It was a picture of the Pope selling indulgences for forgiveness. Now again, what a contrast right?

Here's Jesus giving away forgiveness free and here's the Pope selling it. The contrast between Jesus and the Pope illustrated by those cartoons made a huge impact on John Huss. Now, where did Huss live.

Huss’s Preaching in Prague and His Critique of Roman Catholic Practice

Huss lived in Bohemia? Specifically in the city of Prague in that city. There was a church called Bethlehem Chapel, which was specially set apart for preaching in the language of the people. Instead of preaching in Latin you need to understand that, you know in the typical Roman Catholic mass.

They have a Segment of the mass that is set aside for a sermon a homily. They call it the the preaching time. But oftentimes in the medieval world. Not only was the mass itself held in Latin, which was not the tongue of the common people so they couldn't understand it, right?

They thought hawk s corpus mayum was hocus pocus. But not only was the whole mass conducted that but even many times the sermon the homily Was also preached in Latin because the priest thought well. That's the language of scholars and education and I need to show everybody that I'm a scholar.

Well in Prague, there was a specific church Bethlehem Chapel set aside and they said in this church We're gonna preach sermons that people can actually understand. What a great concept. Well here Huss preached and he made a huge impact on the city with his simple teaching of the scriptures.

So here he is. He's a Roman Catholic priest, right? And he's teaching sermons as part of the mass. But he's sort of setting a commotion going in the city because he's bringing them the Word of God. Well as he studied the word more and taught the word more certain Objections came to the mind of John Huss first of all He opposed the practice of keeping the cup from ordinary Christians.

Now you should know in the Roman Catholic idea of communion, right there's the bread and there's the cup and and all the Communicants all the people taking communion come up to the front and they receive the bread, right?

They've received the wafer of communion but in those days in the Roman Catholic Church. And I should say it is still this way in many parts of the world and it only is only recently changed just about anywhere but especially in medieval times.

The cup that represented the blood of Christ, of course in Roman Catholic theology, it held the blood of Christ, right? The priest alone drank that. In other words when they took communion none of the people got to drink from the cup.

Only the priest took of the cup. Now I would myself was raised in a nominally Roman Catholic home. I went to many many masses when I was a child. I had my first communion. I took communion in the Roman Catholic Church many times.

Never once was the cup ever offered to me. Never once. Now I understand that in some Roman Catholic churches today They do offer the cup to people if they want to take it in communion. But but again if it happens in some places, it's a very recent practice.

The overwhelming tendency to say the laity cannot have the cup now. Why did they say this? Well, they did it for two reasons first. They had a theological answer. You would say well. Isn't it important for somebody to receive both the body and the blood of Jesus Christ.

And the theological answer was well, yes. But the blood is contained within the body, right? If you were to eat a portion of somebody's body as kind of grotesque as that sounds. You would be eating their blood too, right.

Because their blood courses through their body. So that was the theological excuse that they gave but then they had actually the greater reason was simply a practice reason. The practical reason was this was the very blood of Jesus Christ within that cup and They could not risk the chance that one of the laity would spill the cup.

What a total outrage if for some reason for some purpose. The the layperson would jiggle the cup or spit some of it out and the precious blood of Jesus Christ would spill on the floor. You see what crazy extremes this doctrine of trans desensitization led people to.

In any regard they opposed that they said why do we keep the cup for ordinary Christians? Secondly, he says I think that the Bible is a greater authority than the Pope or any of the Cardinals. You and I would regard that as a matter of fact, but again, it was revolutionary in his day.

Thirdly, he wasn't shy about condemning the corruptness of the clergy and he freely criticized people for worshiping images and statues for believing and Contrived and faked miracles and for having a superstitious spirit in the Christian life.

He also condemned the sale of indulgences. He thought that for the thought of basically behind a indulgence. We'll talk about it more in one of our future lectures. But the basic thought behind an indulgence is that for a financial gift to the church?

You can purchase time off of purgatory. For either yourself or for someone else. And so John Huss protested these things and he had an extremely effective ministry in Prague but then also in all the surrounding area of Bohemia.

Here's a couple quotes from John Huss. He says if he who is to be called Peter's vicar follows in the paths of virtue. We believe that he is his true vicar and the chief pontiff of the church over which he rules but if he walks in the opposite paths, then he is a legate of Antichrist at variance with Peter in Jesus Christ.

I Like this quote from us. He basically looks at the Pope and remember these were days of incredible corruption in the papacy, right? Pope said mistresses. Popes were drinkers. Popes were gamblers. Popes were Politicians far before they were spiritual leaders.

They were wonderful patrons of the arts, but they weren't spiritual leaders by any hand. Well, what Huss is essentially saying is you Pope say you're the vicar of Peter? Well, then fine act like it. If you acted like Peter, we would respect you as the vicar of Peter.

But if you don't act like people if you don't actually represent Peter, then don't claim to be his representative. I mean, it's a very logical simple argument. Another great statement of Huss's is that he says the words which Christ said to Peter.

Verily I say to you whatsoever. You shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever. You shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven because of Misunderstanding frightened many Christians so that they are filled with servile fear.

While others are deceived by them and grow proud because of the witness of their supposed power. Therefore the following things are to be laid down. First that it is not possible for a priest to loose or bind anything.

Unless such loosing and binding takes place in heaven. Second that for the justification of the wicked man. There is needed infinite power by God which he cleanses this from spot and stain and grants grace.

You see again. This is Huss just speaking very Logically very wonderfully about these ideas that that it isn't up to the church. It isn't up to the church that supposedly has this great power to excommunicate.

Because he mentions this scripture about binding on earth and binding in heaven. Basically, the Roman Catholic Church took that to mean that they had the absolute power specifically the Pope had the absolute power to excommunicate.

That's why they're always excommunicating people and They believe that when the Pope excommunicates you you're damned that's it you're going to hell. Again, I just need to impress upon you in the medieval world.

It meant a lot more than it would today. What would it mean to somebody today if the Pope excommunicated them they'd yawn, right? Oh, so what. Pope who cares, you know, I can have my own relationship with God.

I don't need to go through you, but that wasn't the medieval mindset at all. They felt that if the Pope Excommunicated you it mattered. And then for a third quote from John Huss. He says no Pope is the manifest and true successor of Peter the prince of the Apostles if in Morals, he lives at variance with the principles of Peter and if he is avaricious or greedy.

Then is the vicar of Judas who loved the reward of iniquity and sold Jesus Christ, isn't that choice? You Popes you say you're the vicar of Peter or much more the vicar of Christ. I'll tell you what you are.

You're the vicar of Judas because he's the one that you really represent. Well, of course, you can only imagine how the religious authorities objected when John Huss spoke out against church teachings and practices.

They commanded that Huss's and Wycliffe's writings be burned and they had a big Bonfire in the courtyard of the palace there in Prague. They asked Huss if he was ready to obey the Pope's commands and stop preaching.

Huss’s Trial, Martyrdom, and the Three Conditions for Reformation

He said yes, I will obey his commands. So far as they agree with the doctrine of Christ, but when I see the contrary I will not obey them even though you burn my body. In the year 1409 the Pope issued an order that John Huss could no longer preach from his pulpit at Bethlehem Chapel.

Huss and his friends refused to obey after all they felt Jesus Christ commissioned them to preach not the Pope. And so Huss was commanded to appear at a trial for heresy and insubordination at Rome. Instead of going himself Huss set representatives that didn't sit well with the Pope or his men in Rome.

And so Huss was excommunicated. But what was interesting is in Bohemia in what is today the modern-day Czech Republic of Prague the area of that John Huss had a lot of support the people and I should say a lot of his politician friends.

They loved him his friends rallied around him and made it possible for him to continue preaching. Huss was even elected to a prestigious post in a new University. But that didn't end his struggles with the Roman Catholic Church.

In the year 1411 Pope John the 23rd called for a crusade against some of his political enemies in Naples. I just want you to think about this. Before that they used to call crusades against the Muslims right against the the unbelievers.

Now Popes are calling crusades against their political enemies in Italy itself. And so to finance the expensive war he authorized the wholesale selling of indulgences. To John Huss that was an outrage that the Pope was selling forgiveness for sins that weren't yet committed.

He vigorously denounced the selling of indulgences and the people of a city defended him and Three men were beheaded for opposing the papal doctrine of indulgences the Pope declared the city of Prague.

Again, that's where John Huss lived and ministered to be under a special curse from God. When Huss saw that his youthfulness in the city of Prague was diminishing he left the town and he started preaching and writing.

Traveling to various cities around southern Bohemia, but the Pope still wanted to put him on trial. So in the year 1414 easy to remember right. 1414 the Holy Roman Emperor Sigmund invited Huss To a special council to consider the charges against him now.

Listen, this was sin. Why do you think that before? When John Huss was commanded to appear before the Pope in Rome, why didn't Huss do it? Well, I'll tell you why because he was afraid for his life, right?

He had friends in Bohemia. He had some political protection in Bohemia, you know, not enough as it'll turn out, but that's why he didn't go to Rome. Now they invited him to another council a council much closer.

Actually in Constance which is not far away from well, it's a lot closer than Rome is to to Prague and Huss agonized over the decision. He didn't want to go to this church council because he believed his life would be in danger if he did it but this is what the Emperor said.

The Emperor said I Promise you John Huss that you will not be harmed. Even if we find you guilty, we'll let you go. You know, this is just a trial to determine the validity of the charges against you.

So Huss agonized over the decision to go or not. He would be leaving his safe home and entering into the territory of his avowed enemies. But after all the Emperor promised him that no harm would come to him and Huss eventually decided to go.

He thought look maybe at the trial I'll be allowed to clear my name and make a defense for the truth. Sadly it didn't work out that way. When John Huss appeared before the the council or actually when he came into the city where the council was to take place.

It wasn't long until he was very treacherously Lured into a trap and they imprisoned him in a dungeon close to the outlet of the city sewer. Before he ever appeared before the council. Then they held the trial and they held the trial with John Huss as a prisoner not as a witness.

I'm sure you know what the verdict was. The verdict was guilty on all counts and they even made up a few more counts that they hadn't thought of before. Before he was finally a condemned for heresy. They allowed one public hearing where John Huss might be allowed to defend his case.

But Huss was not allowed to defend or present his own views. They misrepresented his teaching they condemned him as guilty of heresy and they refused to let him even clarify What he was taught. When Huss was finally condemned the officials at the council shouted We commit thy soul to the devil.

Huss cried out in reply and I commit my soul to the Lord Jesus Christ. As They hurried him out of the council they put a burning crown of Blasphemy upon his head and falling to his knees Huss said into thy hands.

Oh Lord. I commend my spirit. I am willing patiently and publicly to endure this dreadful Shameful and cruel death for the sake of thy gospel and the preaching of thy word on The 6th of June he was condemned and burned at the stake.

Condemned by the same church that had promised him safe passage when he arrived at the stake. They asked him once more to recant his views and this is what he said. He said God is my witness that the evidence against me is false.

I have never thought nor preached except with one intention of winning men if possible from their sins today. I Will gladly die and that's exactly what they did to him. Now think about John Huss compared to John Wycliffe.

John Huss did he have the right theology? Did he have the right ideas? Yes, he did John Huss. Did he have the courage that was needed to make a stand like Luther? Yes, he did. Look at how courageously he died.

But the third question is did he have the political protection he needed to guard him against Rome. That he did not have. So if you want to ask why did not the Protestant Reformation start with John Huss?

It didn't start with John Huss because he did not have. The third of the three elements you need. Yeah, I think you basically needed three elements now again I'm speaking from sort of a technical historical perspective.