Sundays: 9:00 AM Sunday School | 10:30 AM Worship Service

Watch Live

|

Contact

|

App

|

Sunday School

Lesson 7: Pre-Reformation Movements

Speaker
David Capoccia

Listen to Audio Save MP3
Reading Tools:

Aa

Auto Transcript

Note: This transcript and summary was autogenerated. It has not yet been proofread or edited by a human.

Summary

This lesson traces the pre-reformation movements of the late Middle Ages, showing how God preserved a faithful remnant even as the official church drifted into apostasy. The Waldensians, Lollards, and Hussites each challenged Roman Catholic corruption and pointed people back to Scripture, paving the way for the Protestant Reformation.

Key Lessons:

  1. God always preserves a remnant of faithful believers, even when the institutional church has gone astray — the Waldensians, Lollards, and Hussites demonstrate this truth across centuries.
  2. The authority of Scripture over all human institutions, including the papacy, was the driving conviction behind each pre-reformation movement — sola Scriptura was not invented by Luther but recovered by earlier reformers.
  3. Making the Bible available in the language of the people was a revolutionary and dangerous act that transformed communities — from Peter Waldo’s French translations to Wycliffe’s English Bible to Hus preaching in Czech.
  4. Faithfulness to Christ may cost everything, including one’s life, yet God uses the suffering and martyrdom of His people to advance His purposes across generations.

Application: We are called to hold fast to the truth of Scripture with both courage and love, neither becoming so tolerant that we compromise the gospel nor so separatist that we isolate ourselves from genuine believers. We should be willing to stand for biblical truth even when it is costly, trusting that God preserves His church.

Discussion Questions:

  1. How do we distinguish between genuine heresy that requires separation and secondary disagreements where we should maintain fellowship?
  2. The Waldensians, Wycliffe, and Hus all prioritized getting Scripture into the hands of ordinary people — what are the modern equivalents of barriers that keep people from engaging with God’s Word?
  3. Hus was willing to die rather than recant truths he found in Scripture. What lesser costs might faithfulness to biblical truth require of us today, and how can we prepare to pay them?

Scripture Focus: Acts 4:19-20 (Peter’s refusal to stop preaching), Matthew 19:21 (Jesus’ call to the rich young ruler that convicted Peter Waldo), 2 Timothy 3:12 (all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted), and 1 Corinthians 11:18-19 (factions and divisions in the church).

Outline

Something.

Introduction

Well, it is nine o’clock. Good morning.

Let us begin Sunday school. Welcome back to our last session of our short medieval church history series. This is also the last Sunday school before we take a break in July and August. Remember, no Sunday school during those months. Though I think there will be one special Sunday because of a kingdom worker visiting that will have Sunday school class. Just pay attention to that. But otherwise, no Sunday school in July and August.

Now, fittingly, this last lesson will focus on the transition between the medieval church and the reformation church. We’re going to look at the pre-reformation movements that are trying to get the church back to the Bible, but whose adherents end up getting pushed out of the official church and persecuted.

Nevertheless, these pre-reformation movements represent both a growing awareness of the need for fuller reformation and they also help pave the way for that fuller reformation in the 1500s.

Here’s my agenda for today’s class.

We’ll take a moment to review church history up to the end of the Middle Ages. We’ll briefly consider other dissenting religious movements in the latter middle ages. And then we’ll learn more specifically about three important pre-reformation movements: the Waldensians, the Lollards, and the Hussites.

Let’s ask God’s blessing on this time.

Heavenly Father, it’s a pleasure to look again at what you’ve done in history and especially, God, how you blessed, raised up, and preserved a remnant. God, I pray that we would take encouragement so that we also might be faithful in our day as these brethren were in the latter middle ages. In Jesus’ name, amen.

Review of Church History Timeline

To briefly recap where we’ve already been in church history, allow me to show you a little timeline.

The Patristic Church (33–500)

In the first 500 years of the church, approximately 33 to 500, we have the Patristic or early church.

We begin with the Ante-Nicene fathers, the ones before a particular council. These would be the apostolic fathers, the second century apologists, the pre-Nicene fathers. You may remember them from the church history 101 course.

In the very beginning, they are enduring waves of persecution. They are spreading the gospel. They are combating heresies.

“In the first 500 years of the church… they are spreading the gospel and combating heresies.”

Then the Council of Nicaea happens.

Does anybody remember when that happens? It’s a date worth remembering: 325 AD. We have the Council of Nicaea.

The reason it’s good to remember that date is because that date more or less marks the start of the imperial church. Christianity is not only legalized and tolerated under a certain ruler, but it becomes promoted. Which ruler is that?

That’s right: Constantine, or in Constantinople eventually. But Constantine the Great unifies Rome the year before in 324 and sponsors the Council of Nicaea in 325.

The Imperial Church and Rise of the Papacy

Consequently, we have the Christianization of Roman society under Constantine and his successors. But we also have the paganization of the church.

More and more unconverted persons were brought into the church, and more and more pagan practices—old pagan practices—found their way into Christianity.

“We have the Christianization of Roman society but also the paganization of the church.”

Nevertheless, the latter patristic period is a great time of theological work with people like John Chrysostom, Augustine, and Leo I supplying the church with extremely helpful arguments on behalf of biblical doctrine, not to mention many examples of true Christian devotion.

During the time of the imperial church, the patriarch system—remember those five most important churches guiding the church—falls firmly into place. The patriarchs of Rome begin asserting their first assertions of total supremacy.

The patristic period ends around the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Does anybody remember what date is traditionally assigned to that?

It is when the last Roman emperor in the west is deposed.

The Early Medieval Church (500–1000)

In the next 500 years, from approximately 500 to 1,000, we have the early medieval church, which as we’ve seen by now in this course, becomes increasingly ritualized and paganized.

Though various churchmen and popes try to put the church back on track, the church is drifting more and more into error, yet it is not yet apostate.

“The church is drifting more and more into error, yet it is not yet apostate.”

During this time, the popes in Rome solidify their hold on secular and ecclesiastical power. We begin to see the beginnings of papal corruption, but also the split in the church over who should be the supreme leader. The east-west schism between Rome and Constantinople takes place when?

It’s actually before 1200. In 1054, we have that official split and charge of excommunication between the eastern and western churches. Islam also appears during the early medieval period, expanding greatly after Muhammad’s death. In what year? I’m just testing you with various dates.

Not quite the 700s. 632. That’s when Muhammad dies and his successors begin expanding the caliphate.

The High and Late Medieval Church (1000–1500)

So that’s the early medieval period. In the next 500 years from approximately 1000 to 1500, we have the high and late medieval church. This is when the official churches—Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy—can be safely identified as going apostate due to church traditions and sacramentalism. So many of man’s ideas have been added to the Bible that the gospel has become eclipsed in the official church.

That’s not to say that nobody is Christian in those churches, but the official teaching of the church is no longer the gospel. During this period, we have the Crusades to the Holy Land, the Reconquista in Spain, and the Northern Crusades around the Baltic.

Scholastic theologians appear with the rise of universities and they rediscover which philosopher?

Aristotle. Aristotle. Very good.

Somebody remembered that from last week.

And these scholastics are looking to apply reason and observation alongside faith.

In this second half of the medieval period, we also have more and more corrupt popes gaining more and more power until the period of Babylonian captivity under which country?

France. Very good. From 1305 to 1377, which leads to the Western Schism from 1378 to 1418. Remember that’s when we have two popes and then three popes, all properly elected but all vying for power and none of them willing to step down.

In the second half of the Middle Ages, we see the church become primarily a means of making money and gaining power with clerical absenteeism, simony, clerical pluralism, nepotism, and the sale of indulgences, all becoming very prominent.

“The church become primarily a means of making money and gaining power.”

I’ve talked about most of those. We’ll talk about indulgences another time.

In the latter Middle Ages, the Western church forbids lay Bible reading.

According to the Synod of Toulouse in 1229, all Western church services are in Latin, though the only ones who can understand what’s being said are academics and the clergy.

By the end of this 500-year period, it is obvious that the church needs big changes—true and full reformation.

Important reformation movements actually begin in the 1100s and 1200s, but reformation proper—that explosion of reformation ideals across Europe—would only come after 1500.

Other Dissenting Religious Movements

Now today I want to tell you about three important pre-reformation movements. But before I do, understand that these are not the only movements of religious dissent.

By the late Middle Ages, more and more people were organizing themselves into lay religious orders. Illegal according to the Catholic Church, but nonetheless existent, a group of friends, say, would get together and encourage one another to holy living and studying the Bible, though without taking monastic vows.

There are also mystical movements that stressed salvation through contemplation of Jesus’ work rather than through the sacraments. One of the most famous devotional works of all time, the Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis, came from this movement and was widely read among Catholics.

Among these more or less positive movements are more heretical or misguided ones. The Cathars, also known as the Albigensians of the 1100s in southern France, sought to expose Catholic corruption and recapture holy living. But according to heretical doctrine, the Cathars were essentially gnostics in the vein of Marcion, supposing that there were two gods in the Bible: an evil creator god in the Old Testament and a good savior god in the New Testament. They had many other strange practices along with this belief.

There were also the Flagellants. If you know what that term means, these people sought to purify themselves through what?

That’s right. Self-whipping.

This practice appeared in the earlier Middle Ages as a form of penance, but it became a popular craze in the 1300s and 1400s. If you were cool, you whipped yourself.

And then you had those who linked church renewal with political revolution. The peasants, oppressed by the money-minded church, the landholding lords, and the emerging merchant classes of the cities, were often attracted to those who had a message of societal purification at all levels. Thus, there were many peasant revolts or near revolts in the high and late Middle Ages. This trend would continue even into the reformation period.

“Those who linked church renewal with political revolution… attracted the peasants oppressed by the money-minded church.”

Now, I just briefly mentioned these other movements to you because I want you to see that the need for reformation, that desire, that deep desire for change, was felt more widely than even in the three specific movements that we’re going to discuss today.

Now, it’s true that some of these would-be reformers take reformation in unfortunate directions. But there are others in these unnamed movements, unknown movements, who are genuinely turning back to the true gospel. Even though we’ll never know these persons, meet these persons, they are our brethren.

But back to our main task.

The Waldensians: First Pre-Reformation Movement

Now I told you before that the joys of studying church history is seeing how God always preserves a remnant. He never allows his truth to be completely snuffed out.

Just when the high middle ages saw the official church going apostate, we find the first pre-reformation movement in the Waldenzians, led by a converted businessman named Peter Waldo.

“The joy of studying church history is seeing how God always preserves a remnant.”

Now I know what you’re thinking. You hear the name Waldo and you say, “Is this guy related to Where’s Waldo?” Sadly, no. There’s apparently no connection.

We don’t have too many details about Peter Waldo. A probably more accurate version of his name is Waldez or Valdez.

Peter Waldo’s Conversion and Mission

Part of the reason for the scanned information on him is that he and his followers were common people and eventually labeled as enemies of the church. But I’ll share with you what we do know.

Peter Waldo was a wealthy cloth merchant from Lyon. That’s in southern France. He became a Christian after listening to preaching, especially after hearing the testimony of St. Alexius, someone who had given away everything to follow Christ.

According to Jesus’s word to the rich young ruler in Matthew 19:21, “Sell what you have, give to the poor, and come follow me.” Waldo was convicted of his own love of money and lack of love for Christ, and he decided he would follow Alexius’s example. He sold nearly all his wealth, gave it to the poor, and then he sought to spread the message of Jesus to others.

Matthew 19:21: “Sell what you have, give to the poor, and come follow me.”

Waldo began to love the scriptures, which by his day were not yet declared illegal for the laity to read. Waldo became determined to give the gift of simple scriptural truth to the people of southern France and northern Italy.

The Poor of Lyon and Their Spread

Waldo soon gained a number of followers, both men and women, who fell in love with the scriptures and followed Peter’s example of voluntary poverty and spreading of the gospel. His followers became known as the poor of Leon or the poor men of Leon.

“Waldo became determined to give the gift of simple scriptural truth to the people.”

Here’s what Alio Ka, a historian and pastor of the Waldenzian tradition, says of Peter Waldo.

The word of Christ which the theologian had finally shown him—that’s Waldo—had induced him not only to break the idol in his heart, the love of money, but also to search the treasures hidden in the sacred scriptures. He was not learned, but neither was he so illiterate as to be unable to succeed in this, although he was obliged to read them—that is, the scriptures—in Latin.

Every day he would find new teachings which so filled his soul with joy that he began to speak them to his acquaintances.

Finally, he determined to translate a portion of the scriptures with the assistance of two churchmen—that is, Catholic priests—each of whom was entrusted with a special charge. Stefano Danza was to dictate the translation and perhaps make the annotations, while Bernardo Yedros was to act as Emanuelis.

Though many questions relative to the character of this version have not yet been solved, it certainly was not insignificant either in itself or as a sign of the times. On the contrary, this proved the powerful as well as indispensable lever of the new reaction, and its first effects were already noticeable in Waldo.

This word gained power and authority. It became the hammer that breaks the hearts hardened by error. It may well be said that he had a school for his hearers.

Even the women were witnesses to the things to which they listened, and they spoke of them. Zeal increased and propagated itself, but without confusion, because Waldo directed it, always inspired by the sacred scriptures.

While his disciples went to preach the gospel in the surrounding country, he generally remained in the city and was soon assisted by able co-workers. When the word of God was silent in the churches, it was heard on the squares and in the houses as in the time of the apostles.

Then the clergy became suspicious, censured him, and made him the object of the first abuse and denounced him at Rome. By the way, apologies to any of you watching online not able to see the slides. We weren’t able to get that for today. We do have them here and they’ll be available afterwards when we post the lesson to the website. Just listen to my voice if you’re watching online.

Opposition and Papal Rejection

But you hear in this last part of the quotation that the church eventually became suspicious of Waldo. Indeed, Waldo’s good work did not continue unopposed. But let me ask you, why would the church be suspicious of these poor men of Leon?

They couldn’t control the message.

It was taught by people who weren’t officially part of the Roman Catholic Church. That’s right. The church couldn’t control the message. They perhaps didn’t know what these people were preaching. And that was concerning because especially these are poor, untrained, uneducated people. At least not officially trained. Who knows what message they’re spreading? Only official clergy have permission to preach.

“The church couldn’t control the message… only official clergy have permission to preach.”

And these poor of Leon, they are seeking to translate the Bible into the vernacular. What evil might come of that?

Also, the Waldenzian love of the scriptures led them to denounce some of what they saw in the churches: a lack of preaching and a love of wealth and luxury.

The Waldenzians come under suspicion and even some persecution. Their leader, Peter Waldo, tries to do something about this to fix the misunderstanding about his movement.

Waldo sought official sanction from the pope as a religious order. Actually, you may notice from my description thus far, the Waldenzians are very similar to the still to be founded Franciscans.

Franciscans under Francis of Assisi were established at the end of the 1100s. They’re pretty much the same as the Waldenzians, but Waldo came first and he sought papal sanction first.

The popes, however, were already reluctant at this time to create new orders. They didn’t want too much diversity in the church. That could lead to heresy. And there had never been a monastic order like this one before. Could it be dangerous?

Actually, with the Franciscans, the popes only barely approved that one. It’s because the pope had a dream about Francis that they eventually accepted the Franciscans. But already they were suspicious of this kind of religious order. So when the Waldensians came to the pope for approval and testing, the papal representatives had already determined to reject the group.

One of the ways they did this, for example, was during the interview. One of the interviewers who was determined to show the group’s theological ignorance asked the Waldenzian representatives, “Do you believe that Mary is the mother of Christ?” How would you answer that question?

I mean, isn’t that obvious from the scriptures? Mary is the mother of Christ. Why are you asking me that question? But when the poor of Leon said that they did believe that Mary is the mother of Christ, the examiners erupted in laughter.

Does anybody know why?

So Glenda’s on the right track.

According to the third ecumenical council of Ephesus in 431, that council had determined that the appropriate title for Mary was Theotokos, mother of God, rather than Christotokos, mother of Christ. It was actually Nestorius who was later condemned as a heretic who promoted the title mother of Christ.

So in the eyes of the interviewers, the Waldenzians with their answer had just exposed themselves as Nestorian heretics.

That’s not fair at all.

Waldensian Persistence and Legacy

Denied painful sanction and denied approval of the local bishops, the poor of Leon nonetheless determined to continue spreading the message of the gospel of Jesus.

It is perhaps from this decision that Peter Waldo is called Peter, probably as a nickname rather than as his real name, because it was the Apostle Peter who, when forbidden to preach by the Sanhedrin in Acts 4:19-20, replied, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge, for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.”

Acts 4:19-20: “We cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.”

The Waldensians similarly did not stop even though their movement was deemed illegal. These poor men and women traveled about, working enough to support themselves and then preaching and giving away free copies of the scriptures, especially translations of the Sermon on the Mount.

The group eventually came to reject many unbiblical practices and beliefs of the Catholic Church, such as the veneration of relics, prayers for the dead, purgatory, and transubstantiation.

Unsurprisingly, Waldo was eventually excommunicated by the church, and the poor of Leon were specifically condemned as a heretical movement at the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215.

Many Waldensians were subsequently arrested, tried, and executed by secular authorities, fulfilling the will of the pope.

As mentioned previously, lay Bible reading became officially forbidden by the Catholic Church in 1224, partly in response to the Waldensians.

The Waldensian movement had initially spread into southern France, northern Italy, and even into Germany, but violent persecution reversed the spread.

The poor of Leon were eventually confined to the French and Italian Alps.

Nevertheless, these first pre-reformers plowed up the ground across Europe, and later reformers, especially John Hus in Bohemia, would reap the rich harvest from the soil that was partially prepared by the poor of Leon.

“These first pre-reformers plowed up the ground across Europe for the rich harvest of reformation.”

The Waldensians in the Alps remained until the Reformation of the 1500s and 1600s, when many of them linked up with the Protestant movement. There are actually still Waldensians today in Europe, though they are largely liberal now in their theology.

John Wycliffe and the Lollards

So, high middle age pre-reformation was already underway with the Waldensians in the 1100s and 1200s, but this was mostly a middle and lower class movement and only in France and Italy. Another pre-reformation movement would soon appear in England, this time with the support of some academics and the nobility in the 1300s.

We meet John Wikliffe, called the morning star of the Reformation. John Wikliffe was a great scholar, scholastic theologian, priest, and preacher. He’s also unique in that there are 16 different ways to spell his name. So if you misspell it, don’t worry—you’re probably right in some way or another.

Wikliffe was born into a wealthy family and was brought up to be a clergyman. As a student studying under the Archbishop of Canterbury, Wikliffe was exposed to Augustinian arguments against Pelagianism.

What did Pelagius say again? Salvation by works. Basically, man is not affected in any substantive way by the fall. Man can choose God. Man could be totally righteous. He can do it all on his own.

Augustine wrote against Pelagius. Wikliffe studied Augustine. Thus Wikliffe’s own thinking regarding salvation was greatly affected.

“Wycliffe was called the morning star of the Reformation.”

While Wikliffe did serve in the church, it was the university rather than the church where Wikliffe really flourished, serving for a time as the vice master of Balliol College at Oxford.

Wycliffe’s Arguments Against Clerical Wealth

Wikliffe first began to preach reformation when he argued for the stripping of secular wealth and authority from church clergy.

Now recall that during Wikliffe’s years, it’s the period of the Babylonian captivity where the papacy is basically under the control of France, greatly influenced by France. And who is France’s number one historical enemy?

England, where Wikliffe is. Also, the Avignon popes are trying to get money in various ways to finance their little wars, promoting corrupt practices like simony, the sale of church positions.

The indulgences, the selling of indulgences and annates. What are annates? That is the first year’s wealth of a church when a minister is appointed there actually goes to the pope as a kind of first fruits and then after that whoever is ministering there.

These money-making practices were very annoying to the English king and nobility, particularly John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, who was later regent to the king of England. He was looking for some kind of justification to resist the pope in these areas.

Wikliffe, this university professor and priest, seemed to provide the answer. John of Gaunt supported Wikliffe greatly.

Wikliffe not only espoused his views in the classroom, he also wrote and distributed many tracts and pamphlets.

Here is part of one entitled “On the Avarice of the Clergy.”

Wikliffe writes, “In the rule of Christ, poverty must be understood in the following three-fold manner because Christ teaches us not to bestow alms on the rich in the world or on the rich in the world, though they be blind, halt, infirm, but he teaches us to bestow alms on these three classes of the poor.” But how does the perpetual and universal endowment of the church agree with this rule of Christ?

This doctrine therefore implies and teaches how such alms may be given with profit and foresight and how a wrong done to these three classes of the needy should be amended.

If you’re following that, Wikliffe argues that the great financial endowments given to the church are only leading to corruption.

“The great financial endowments given to the church are only leading to corruption.”

Nothing more ought to be given to each of these churchmen than what he needs to live on. If people really want to show their devotion to Christ by giving alms, they shouldn’t give alms to churchmen, but to whom?

The poor.

Furthermore, if churchmen are not willing to divest themselves of their superfluous wealth, Wikliffe argues elsewhere that it is the duty of secular rulers to seize the wealth of these greedy clergy. This was music to the ears of all the secular rulers in England.

Moreover, Wikliffe exposed other kinds of corruption frequently seen in clergy and monks: greed, worldliness, laziness, and adultery.

While Wikliffe’s arguments were very annoying to English bishops and to the pope in Rome, these church leaders could not do very much in response. Indeed, when the archbishop or the bishop of London summoned Wikliffe to answer for his heretical views, they could not condemn him because of his popularity in England and his support from the English crown.

Wikliffe instead used these confrontational meetings to expose further the abuses of the Catholic clergy.

Wycliffe’s Theological Reforms

A spirited papal faction thus rose up against Wycliffe. But the more they attacked him, the more he looked to the scriptures to defend himself. And the more he looked to the scriptures, the more he found wrong with the Catholic Church and soon added these ideas to his tracts, treatises, and sermons.

Wycliffe was soon arguing against transubstantiation, baptismal regeneration, monasticism as a concept, crusades, forced celibacy, and pilgrimages. These had long been standard practice and tradition in the Catholic Church.

Most significantly, Wycliffe argued that the pope was not the ultimate authority in Christendom.

According to Wycliffe, as he studied the scriptures, there was an invisible elect church in the world—the true Catholic church or universal church. There was also a visible church in which not every member was actually part of Christ’s true church. Even the popes and those who elect them are not necessarily part of Christ’s true church.

Therefore, the way to determine whether to follow the pope or not was if the pope himself was a follower of Christ.

And you’ll know whether the pope is a follower of Christ if he adheres to what? The scriptures, the word of God. And if the pope did not adhere to the Bible, but asserted merely his own opinion, Wycliffe said the pope was actually an antichrist and not to be followed at all.

So you hear from those arguments, Wycliffe is not necessarily calling for the end of the papacy, but he is strongly arguing that the Bible is the authority over all Christians, including the pope.

“If the pope did not adhere to the Bible, Wycliffe said the pope was an antichrist and not to be followed.”

Sola Scriptura and the Wycliffe Bible

This is sola scriptura. Scripture alone ultimately guides the believer in belief and action.

Furthermore, Wycliffe—and you can see how this is going to flow out from what I just said—asserted that every person ought to be able to read the Bible for himself.

Each person might thereby be able to read about and trust in the work of Christ for salvation, not the sacraments or their own works. This is just an earlier version of sola fide.

“Every person ought to be able to read the Bible for himself… and trust in the work of Christ for salvation.”

This is the same argument made by the patristic church and what was still being taught in the early Middle Ages: salvation by faith, not ultimately works or sacraments.

You can see his newfound elevation of the scriptures. Wycliffe will be heavily motivated to do the same thing that Peter Waldo did two centuries before—and that is exactly what Wycliffe does: translating the Bible into the vernacular.

With the help of some other professors at Oxford, Wycliffe produces an English translation of the Bible. Eventually the Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha were produced, first based off the Latin Vulgate. So he produces an English Bible—the whole Bible based on the Latin. The Greek manuscripts were not available to him.

Apparently the first version of it was somewhat wooden and stilted. Some others helped him smooth out the translation, and that improved translation became known as the Wycliffe Bible and was soon receiving wide circulation in England.

Actually, over 250 manuscripts of the Wycliffe Bible survive today. Most contain only the New Testament, but 20 of them exist as complete Bibles. The fact that we have so much surviving material from the Wycliffe Bible is a pretty big deal when you consider that these documents are over 600 years old. They were copied by hand without any printing press, and they were actively sought and suppressed by the Catholic Church.

The fact that we have so many still surviving strongly suggests that many in England got their hands on the Bible in their own language because of Wycliffe and his allies. Or at least, not too many people were literate at this time. Even if they couldn’t read it for themselves, they could hear others read it. They could hear the word of God in their own language being read and explained.

This is all very amazing, but you can guess this is going to receive strong opposition.

Wycliffe’s views and his Bible translation were definitely heretical according to the Roman Catholic Church. As Wycliffe began to make more and more controversial statements and to circulate his Bibles, his support among the nobility diminished, and among other academics as well. Even the English crown could not fully support Wycliffe in his more radical views.

But because Wycliffe had still done much service for the English monarchy and because he was particularly appreciated by the queen of England—good Queen Anne of Bohemia—the powers in England would not let the Roman Church get its hands on Wycliffe to kill him.

The Lollards and Their Mission

Though the number of Wycliffe’s opponents grew, he still had his followers who were pejoratively called the Lollards. Now that name is onomatopoetic for those who mumble or babble, something like “lol.”

These are the guys who just do that.

The Lollards were also trying to distribute Wycliffe’s Bibles. Thus they were also called Bible men. That was meant as an insult and a condemnation.

But I think we can understand the Lollards quickly took these names—Lollards and Bible men—as badges of honor. Oh, we’ll take that. We’ll take that title. And they went out as itinerant preachers in pairs across England, preaching or even singing publicly the message of salvation by faith apart from the sacraments and asserting the authority of the Bible over the authority of popes.

They also handwrote tracts and distributed them to those who could read.

“The Lollards quickly took the names ‘Lollards’ and ‘Bible men’ as badges of honor.”

Wycliffe’s Death and Posthumous Condemnation

Wycliffe left Oxford in 1382 but continued to preach in church and to write from his home until his death by stroke in 1384.

When he died, he was technically still a part of the Catholic Church and considered Orthodox. But the storm of hostility in the church against Wycliffe and his followers would break in full force after his death.

About 15 years later, in the early 1400s, the Lollards were officially repressed by law in England. Translation of the Bible into English was again asserted as a crime punishable by the charge of heresy, which can get you executed.

At the Council of Constance from 1415 to 1418—you’ll remember that this is the council that finally solved the question of who is really pope, ending the Western Schism—Wycliffe was posthumously condemned as a heretic. The council ordered that Wycliffe’s body be exhumed and burned, which they finally did in 1428, casting his ashes into the River Swift. And so came an end to Wycliffe and the Lollards.

Or did it? I like this quotation from one later chronicler about Wycliffe.

The chronicler writes, “They burnt his bones to ashes and cast them into the swift, a neighboring brook running hard by. Thus the brook hath conveyed his ashes into the sever into the narrow seas, and they into the main ocean.

And thus the ashes of Wycliffe are the emblem of his doctrine which has now dispersed the world over.” Indeed, the pre-Reformation ideas of Wycliffe did not die out on the British Isles. Many of them made their way to the continent, especially to Bohemia, where a certain John Hus discovered them, even in England. Others would later come and build upon Wycliffe’s groundbreaking work.

“The ashes of Wycliffe are the emblem of his doctrine which has now dispersed the world over.”

But we’ll move on from England for now.

John Hus and the Hussites

Let us journey to Bohemia and hear about another John and his followers. We now arrive at John Hus, or Yan Hus, who was a pre-reformer in Bohemia. Where is Bohemia? That state doesn’t exist anymore, but it existed in the Middle Ages in the territory of modern Czech Republic and a few other surrounding countries. Of the three pre-reformers we’ve looked at so far, Hus had the best popular reception, though he died a martyr’s death at the hands of the papacy.

Actually, the date of his martyrdom is coming up next Sunday. July 6th is John Hus day in the Czech Republic, a national holiday celebrating the reformer.

“July 6th is John Hus day in the Czech Republic, a national holiday celebrating the reformer.”

Who was Hus and how did he connect with Wycliffe? Hus in many ways is just like John Wycliffe. He was a priest, a preacher, and scholastic theologian.

Like Wycliffe, Hus held a high academic post at the University of Prague. Hus was born in the town of Husene, Bohemia, hence his name, Hus, but he doesn’t appear to have come from a rich family.

He traveled to Prague when he was young and made his living as a singer and a servant to clergy.

Hus later made his way into university where he encountered the writings of Wycliffe. Hus became greatly influenced by Wycliffe despite the former being dead. Though the Roman Catholic Church banned Wycliffe’s writings, Hus translated some of Wycliffe’s writings into Czech and popularized them.

Hus’s Rise and Preaching

Hus completed a master’s level of university education at the University of Prague, also known as Charles University, and he was ordained as a priest in 1400. A few years later, Hus became rector or head of the University of Prague and preacher at the city’s great Bethlehem Chapel, which could hold up to 3,000 in attendance.

What did Hus preach at the chapel?

He preached reform. Hus, like Wycliffe, sought to reform the church by exposing the corruption of the Catholic clergy, including the Pope. Hus also preached the Bible in the language of the people, which was unusual for the time, and people loved to hear John Hus preach.

Hus once said in one of his pamics regarding the greed of the church. Quote: “One pays for confession, for mass, for the sacrament, for indulgences, for churching a woman, for a blessing, for burials, for funeral services and prayers. The very last penny which an old woman has hidden in her bundle for fear of thieves or robbery will not be saved. The villainous priest will grab it.”

Here’s historian B.K. Kyper speaking on John Hus’s preaching.

When Hus became acquainted with the writings of Wycliffe, he began to preach against the corruption of the clergy. Long before the birth of Hus, strong opposition to the Roman Catholic Church developed in Bohemia. The Waldenses were especially numerous in that country. The preaching of Hus met with a hearty response among the common people and the nobility.

“Hus won almost the whole of Bohemia to his views.”

Hus taught many ideas which later became the main teachings of the reformers. He taught that the holy Catholic Church consists of the total number of the predestined. He distinguished between being in the church and being of the church. He taught that one could be in the church and yet not be a real member of it.

Of the universal church of Christ, Christ alone is head. Popes and cardinals are not necessary to the government of the church.

Growing Opposition to Hus

Well, the Roman Catholic Church tolerated Hus for a time, but they were eventually going to come down on him. At this point, this late time in the Middle Ages, there was no way this was going to go unopposed.

During the period of the Western schism, various popes condemned what was called Wikliffism in Prague and they ordered the writings of Wikliffe to be turned over and burned. These things that Hus was really enjoying and popularizing, they said, “Get rid of that. You better burn it.” At first, Hus and his fellow professors complied.

But as more and more Bohemians, including the king, King Wenceslaus the Fourth, supported Hus’s views, and as more and more of Hus’s opponents left the university and the kingdom, Hus and his followers became bolder in their response to the Roman church.

Hus and his associates, later known as Hussites, were excommunicated by the Pope in 1410, the first of five pronouncements of excommunication against Hus.

To make sure that no repercussions came against Prague for harboring him, Hus moved back to his hometown. But he continued to preach and write.

For example, when one pope proclaimed a crusade against Naples, which was a Christian kingdom but supported a rival pope, that pope sought to finance the crusade through the sale of indulgences. Hus strongly condemned both actions as being Antichrist.

“Hus moved back to his hometown but continued to preach and write.”

Bohemia was becoming more and more Hussite, though opposition remained. Meanwhile, the Hussites were spreading their teaching freely into the surrounding kingdoms: Poland, Hungary, Croatia, and Austria. They were hearing the same word that Hus was preaching.

Enter Sigismund, heir to the Holy Roman Empire and to the throne of Bohemia.

I’ve mentioned in this course several times the Holy Roman Empire, but I probably should explain at least once what that actually was.

The Holy Roman Empire is a misleading title. As some have explained, quoting Voltaire, it wasn’t Holy, it wasn’t Roman, and it wasn’t an empire.

Instead, this polity was a confederation of mostly German princes led by an elected emperor. If you can see on the slide, the yellow golden portion which extends from Germany in the north all the way down to the top of Italy was the Holy Roman Empire. It existed approximately from 1050 onwards and going into actually the Napoleonic era if I remember correctly—a long-lasting polity, but again, it’s a confederation.

It’s a very decentralized confederation of various principalities and bishoprics and even free cities.

Over this polity, the emperor did not have absolute power. He had to rely on the backing of various princes and bishops to get things done. Bohemia and Austria were both kingdoms within the empire. The principality of Saxony was also part of the empire, which is the area in which Martin Luther would later appear.

This is the Holy Roman Empire. Sigismund is the new emperor and as he ascends, he not only wants to see the issue of the pope resolved. He also wants to see religious unity restored to Bohemia, which after all is his future kingdom. Sigismund is also the king of Croatia and Hungary. He therefore calls a council in Constance, part of the Holy Roman Empire in southwest Germany in 1415 to resolve both these issues. Sigismund is the one who calls that council that’s going to resolve the Western schism.

The Council of Constance and Hus’s Trial

This council also condemned Wycliffe as we just saw. Now, the emperor invites Hus to attend, promising the reformer safe passage.

But should he go?

On the one hand, this is a Roman Catholic council outside of Bohemia. Despite the king’s promise, it might not be safe for him.

On the other hand, Prague and Bohemia need religious unity. This just might be the way to bring it about.

Hus agrees to go. But just in case, he puts everything in order before he leaves, including his will.

On his way to Constance, Hus is treated like a hero. Here’s what John Foxe says in his book of martyrs about that journey.

John Hus was summoned to appear at this council and to encourage him, the emperor sent him a safe conduct. The civilities and even reverence which Hus met with on his journey were beyond imagination.

The streets and sometimes the very roads were lined with people whom respect rather than curiosity had brought together. He was ushered into the town with great acclamations and it is said that he passed through Germany in a kind of triumph.

He could not help expressing his surprise at the treatment he received.

Hus says, “I thought I had been an outcast. I now see my worst friends are in Bohemia.”

When Hus first arrived at Constance, he had relative freedom. There was a schedule posted announcing a coming debate between Hus and an opponent.

But after a couple of weeks, under the pretense that Hus was planning to run away, Hus under papal orders was arrested and put in chains. Sigismund became outraged and he threatened to dissolve the council. But the papal representatives assured the emperor that one was not bound by any oaths made to a heretic.

“The papal representatives assured the emperor that one was not bound by any oaths made to a heretic.”

Due to political considerations, Sigismund backed down.

Really, it’s politics that doomed Hus. The present king of Bohemia couldn’t allow himself to be seen as a defender of heretics. And the council, which was at that time trying to assert its authority over popes, could not allow its will to be opposed. If the council accused someone of heresy, the council had to be right.

Hus therefore became a pawn to them all. And the result of his trial was decided before it began.

God saw all of this. God knew. And Hus secured for himself great treasure in heaven, whatever the emperor and church were saying.

Hus was transferred to the worst confinement possible. First the dungeon of a local castle, which was next to an open sewer. Then to a cage on the side of a castle exposed to the elements. Hus unsurprisingly became quite sick, but he didn’t die.

In June of 1415, Hus was finally put on trial. But as was common practice at the time, there was a prosecutor but no advocate, no defense attorney, just like Paul in the scriptures.

His opponents cited his writings and his agreement with Wycliffe as heresy. Hus did not deny his writings, asking only that someone show him from scriptures where he had erred.

This they refused to do because they could not. Hus also protested that some of the accusations against him were for doctrines that he never taught. But again, the council could not admit itself wrong in anything. So they only demanded Hus’s unconditional surrender.

The Martyrdom of John Hus

They finally dressed Hus in his priestly robes and asked him once more to recant. When he again refused, unless convinced by scripture, they ceremonially stripped him of his robes and destroyed his priestly tonsure, his haircut. They put a tall paper hat on him on which read “heretic, leader of heretics.”

Then they led him away to be burned at the stake.

Right before he was about to be burned, the 19th century historian Philip Sha tells us that a military commander urged Hus to repent and save his own life. To which Hus replied, quote, “God is my witness that the things charged against me I never preached. And the same truth of the gospel which I have written, taught and preached, drawing upon the sayings and positions of the holy doctors, I am ready to die today.”

“The same truth of the gospel which I have written, taught and preached… I am ready to die today.”

Hus, the faithful man of God, was burned to death and his ashes were thrown into the Rhine River.

So what happened to Bohemia? Was its popular leader Hus executed? Actually, Hus’s good friend and fellow leader was also executed. Two important leaders of this pre-reformation movement are gone.

What will happen now?

The Hussite Wars and Their Aftermath

Well, rather than demoralizing the Bohemians, it enraged them and it moved them further away from the papacy and more toward Huss’s and Wycliffe’s teachings.

The new pope finally elected at the Council of Constance then announced five crusades, remember holy wars granting remission of sins to their participants. Five crusades against the Bohemians between 1419 and 1434 to force these heretics to submit to the Catholic Church. But amazingly, each crusade was soundly defeated.

At the end of these Hussite wars, the Bohemians only rejoined the Catholic Church after a negotiated agreement.

This is the first time that the pope had to negotiate with a target of crusade.

“Each crusade against the Bohemians was soundly defeated — the first time the pope had to negotiate.”

They only rejoined the church after an agreement which was struck by some Hussites of a slightly less radical view than Hus himself. These agreements were known as the Compacts and they had four main stipulations.

Number one, the holy sacrament is to be given freely in both kinds to all Christians in Bohemia and Moravia and to those elsewhere who adhere to the faith of these two countries. Usually by this point in the Middle Ages, at least in the Western Church, only the bread is being given to the laity and only that a few times a year. But they say no, we need to get both and all the time.

Number two, all mortal sins shall be punished and extirpated by those whose office it is so to do. That was something the Catholic Church wanted to make sure of.

Number three, the word of God is to be freely and truthfully preached by the priests of the Lord and by worthy deacons.

Number four, the priests in the time of law, a time of the law of grace, shall claim no ownership of worldly possessions. You can see there are some reformation ideals being realized there, but not all.

The more radical Hussites, though smaller in number, continued to exist in Bohemia until the time of reformation in Germany and Switzerland. Many of the radical Bohemians, the radical Hussites along with others who became eventually dissatisfied with the Compacts, joined the Protestant movement.

Hus, despite his death, had quite a lasting impact not just in Bohemia but also in the surrounding lands. God used Hus and Hus’s followers, just like Waldo and Wycliffe and their followers, as important soil preparers for the crop of reformation that was to be gathered in only about a hundred years after the Bohemian preacher’s death.

So what happened next?

Conclusion and Q&A

Well, the Reformation itself, but the triumph and travails of the Reformation Church, they will have to wait as the subject of our next church history course, which we’ll come back to another time. We come then to the end of today’s lesson and to the end of our medieval church history course.

I hope this short series has been both interesting and helpful to you. I had to leave much out about this crucial period and its people, but if you would like to know more about something or someone, then come talk to me. I’ll tell you about it or I can at least point you in the right direction where you can find it out.

We have about 8 minutes left. Final questions or comments on today’s lesson or on the course?

Glenda, and anyone who opposed them put to death.

So today we are going to be persecuted. That’s right. Glenda is pointing out that the Roman Catholic Church became an enemy of the true gospel and an enemy of the true church. Wycliffe and Hus were right in explaining that the true church is not always the official church. The true church is invisible, and it is true today as in every period of church history: those who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.

Arthur.

I just wanted to mention, for humor, in one of my courses when I was in theology at Rugers, I wrote a paper on the Holy Roman Empire. I used the letters H-O-R-E as an acronym and explained that in archaic language, it was spelled H-O-R-E.

I put it in parentheses in the paper.

Unfortunately, that is the case of much of Christendom and certainly the official church. The Holy Roman Emperors became tools of the papacy to actually persecute people like Wycliffe and Hus and their followers, which is a sad reality. But God sees, God knows, and God uses it all for good.

“God sees, God knows, and God uses it all for good.”

Mike, I don’t know if you’ve heard this or maybe others have heard this, or if it’s anecdotal or actually written history, but when Hus was burned, I heard that he made a statement: “You may burn this goose, but a swan will rise,” referring to Martin Luther.

Actually, it’s interesting that you mentioned that, Mike, because I had something about that in my notes and I took it out. That is something that has been circulated, but it’s not entirely true. Apparently, Hus didn’t say that. He did say something like—at least according to certain sources—I can’t remember exactly, but he said something like, “You may burn this goose, but after me, more clear-sighted birds will come back and will proclaim even better things than the things that I tried to.”

But someone else made a quotation that had to do with a hundred years. Luther later saw it and put the two together. He conflated what Hus said and what this other person said to say, “Oh, Hus foretold me in a hundred years. He said that a swan would arise, and he’s talking about me because that’s my family crest.”

So it actually comes from Luther, but Luther got it slightly wrong. But Hus was not wrong in his trusting in God’s persevering word and gospel purposes. You can kill him, but God’s truth and God’s church are going to survive, and God’s church will triumph one day.

Handling Heresy Biblically

Who’s next? JMA. I just want to say thank you, Pastor Dave, for the church history lessons. I had one question about people teaching heresy. How do we biblically handle that? Because I’ve seen how the Catholic church was unscriptural in handling people who believed differently from what they believed, and their response was execution and killing. But I wanted to see how we scripturally handle someone teaching heresy.

Okay, that’s a good question, J. Thank you for your words of thanks. I’m not able probably to give the fullest answer that question deserves. How do we, how are we called to deal with heresy?

Certainly, we are not called to round them up and execute them. I think that goes in direct contradiction to what Jesus says in the parable of the wheat and the tares because as you’re trying to root out all the tares, you’re going to get some of the wheat too. So you don’t try and physically kill them.

But Jesus did say that where that arises in the church, it needs to be identified and exposed. And if that person will not move away from that heresy, repent of it, then he needs to be put out. And we must always be on guard, especially today.

There’s always a movement towards ecumenicism. Let’s tone down. Let’s not focus on our differences. Let’s focus on the things that we agree on. And yes, there is such a thing as being too separatist.

That has been a problem of fundamentalism in the twentieth century where it’s kind of like I can’t fellowship with you because you’re slightly different from me and I can’t fellowship with those who do fellowship with you. So just separate, separate, separate, separate. And you become more and more isolated. That is a danger. We want to be away from that.

But so is the danger of becoming too tolerant. And there are some today who want to say, “Hey, we Protestants, basically Catholics are Christians too. We should be together for the gospel.” No, they teach a very different gospel, one that damns and doesn’t save. So we need to be willing to tell the truth about that.

“We need to be willing to tell the truth… with a spirit of love along with zeal for the truth.”

Now we want to have a spirit of love along with that zeal for the truth. We want to see people rescued out of Catholicism and other heretical movements. But we must be on guard for the sake of love actually being unfaithful to Jesus Christ and not being willing to stand up for the truth. That’s my quick answer. There’s probably much more that can be said about that.

All right, Mark has something, just real quick on that. We’ve done a couple things on church history and I remember back in November of 2022 I did a brief, covered some of this same ground which was great, and I love that you went into more detail here. One of the things that we talked about to your question was the difference between factions and divisions from 1 Corinthians 11.

The word factions comes from 1 Corinthians 11:18-19, and that’s where we get the word heresy. So it’s important to identify that. But when there are divisions, those are schisms. I don’t want to get into it too much, but it’s important to distinguish truth from error and understand what that is. That’s necessary.

But divisions over a lack of unity in the truth is not good. So I know there’s a lot more that could be said there, but we want to be careful about how we use the word heresy. In other words, right? Would you agree with that?

Yeah, for sure. That was one thing I was also thinking in response to JMA’s question. I think we are maybe in our particular circles, maybe those who are more consistently taught the word of God, we can become so zealous for the truth that if anything is slightly off, we’re ready to throw the h word at it. Heretic, false teaching, false teacher.

There can be some pretty grievous errors which are not necessarily heresy. And some of the things that you may become really passionate about may actually not be error at all. They’re just your strong conviction and preference. So we do want to be careful about going there too quickly.

So it’s going to be a little bit of I got to do a bunch of things at once, right? I don’t want to be too tolerant, but I don’t want to be too separatist. I don’t want to treat truth like it’s not important, but I don’t want to treat everything like it’s a matter of salvation.

Like if you don’t believe in six-day creation, you’re not a Christian. Or if you have a woman pastor, which is a serious error and is often linked with true heresy, that itself is not heresy. So we want to be careful about that.

I think we have time from—no, we actually don’t have time for anything else. So if you have other questions or comments, come bring them up afterwards. Send me an email. If you want to know more about a particular topic of church history, please do that. But that’ll do for our time today. Let me close in a word of prayer.

Closing Prayer

Lord God, we thank you for the faithful men and women who came before. Even those like Hus and Peter Waldo and the men and women who followed them, who just like the believers in biblical times, Lord, did not love their lives so much that they weren’t willing to go to death for your sake.

God, I’m aware it seems like a very strange thing to us that such could happen. But Lord, sometimes the best way that we can glorify you in our lives is to die for you.

Sometimes the way we can give you the most glory is by suffering for you.

That’s not because you decide to give us the bad lot and others got the good lot. No, Lord, you know exactly what is good for each person. That’s the way to our greatest joy. It’s not in preserving our physical lives and possessions in this world. That’s actually living for you.

Lord, may the testimony of these brothers who lived in a very difficult time, these brethren, may it be something that spurs us on and helps us remember all the truths of your scripture, all the encouragements, all the promises.

Indeed, those who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. In this world, you will have tribulation, but be of good cheer. I have overcome the world. You say, Lord Jesus, let us be of good cheer. Let us by your spirit, God. We definitely can’t do it without your help. By your spirit, help us to stand for your truth, to see captives rescued from the domain of darkness.

Share this sermon:

More from Church History 102: The Medieval Church