From Constance to Worms: Hus & Luther

"Today you roast a goose, but you will hear a swan rise from the ashes whom you will be unable to roast."

-Jan Hus

The above quote is unlikely to be authentic from Hus, if for no other reason one only need look at the various versions of it out there (and especially the ones that give a date of "a hundred years from now" after the word "but"), but its attribution is nonetheless important as it has long been used (by those who believe it to be true or those who doubt its authenticity) to draw a connection between the Czech Reformer and the German Reformer Martin Luther, who just over a hundred years later posted the 95 Theses upon the doors of the Castle Church in Wittenberg.

This picture depicts Hus (right) and Luther (left) together serving communion in both kinds - a common point between their individual reformations.

Last year when teaching for my local synod's school of theology a class on the Reformation, I found myself reading quite a bit about the Council of Constance, which was a significant moment in studies of Reformation History for both its role in the rise of concilliarism (the laying of ultimate church authority upon a council) and the execution of one of the single most prominent reformers of the church prior to the period of Reformation that came with Martin Luther: Jan Hus (often put as John Huss in English). As I read a detailed accounting of the council (particularly from History of the Christian Church Vol VI by Schaff) I remember being struck by how many similarities existed between Hus' trial and that of Luther at the Diet of Worms. And today felt it might be a nice day to share some of those commonalities.

It should also be noted that Luther himself had exposure to Hus' works and had carefully examined the decrees of church councils, especially in advance of and in the aftermath from the Leipzig debate of 1519 where he and Johann Eck debated the topic of church (and especially Papal) authority. There Hus was directly cited and used by Eck to decry Luther's teachings and Luther (after examining some of Hus' teachings that were condemned) claimed the church may have wrongly charged him a heretic. The next year in his Address to the German Nobility he outright stated :

"...we must honestly confess the truth and stop justifying ourselves. We must admit to the Bohemians that John Hus and Jerome of Prague were burned at Constance against the papal, Christian, imperial oath, and promise of safe-conduct...Second, the emperor and princes should send a few really upright and sensible bishops and scholars [to the Bohemians]. On no account should they send a cardinal or a papal legate or inquisitor, for such people are most unversed in Christian things. They do not seek the salvation of souls, but, like all the pope's henchmen, only their own power, profit, and prestige. In fact, these very people were the chief actors in this miserable business at Constance." 

These words suggest that Luther has some knowledge of the events of the Council of Constance. They are significant to me, because they cause me to wonder if (and this is something I have never heard any scholar suggest or reflect upon) Luther's words at the Diet of Worms were drawn from his knowledge of the Hus' words at the Council of Constance, especially since we also know Luther came to hold Hus in high esteem as a Christian, saying at one point that if Hus "is to be regarded as a heretic, then no person under the sun can be looked upon as a true Christian."

Luther before the Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms

Let's begin with Luther. Expecting an opportunity to speak before the emperor he was met instead with two questions that were to be answered in the affirmative or negative (yes or no): was the pile of books on the table before him his (to which his lawyer asked the names of those books to be read aloud) and would he recant of their errors, which had already been judged? To the first question he answered in the affirmative, and indicated he had written more than what was laid out on the table. He asked for time to consider the second question since it touches God, the Word, and salvation. Following a one day reprieve he then gave his reply. It was roughly a 10-minute speech (first given in German, then repeated in Latin), during which he was being pressed for a simple answer. He divided his works into three parts: the first laying out clear and plain Christian truths that even opponents embraced, and he certainly could not recant those. The second were directed against the errors of the pope and papacy, which he again could not recant for fear of encouraging such tyranny. The last portion were directed at his opponents and there he confessed of speaking too harshly, but he could not recant the works themselves because these individuals were defending the pope's tyranny. In the end he was reminded that he had not answered the question clearly laid before him, and he was to give a simple answer. It is at this time that we come of the point of Luther's trial at Worms that many know and which I see as having some direct connections to Hus. Luther replies:

Since then your serene majesty and your lordships seek a simple answer, I will give it in this manner, neither horned nor toothed: Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. I cannot do otherwise, here I stand, may God help me, amen.

While most assume that was the end of the diet, or at least Luther's part in it, that was not quite accurate. Though it was hardly as dramatic as the formal hearing or the shouts of "long live Luther" coupled with "to the fire with him" by opposing camps, for days after various dignitaries met with Luther to try to dissuade him from his position. It was only after it was clear all that would not dissuade him and the Emperor Charles gave him permission to leave, choosing to honor the safe-conduct promise he made, that Luther departed.

Now lets look at Hus. His time in Constance lasted months as opposed to days, however his replies at certain moments are significant as we look at Luther's. Hus was invited to the Council by the "King of the Romans" Sigismund under a promise of safe conduct to confess his faith and teachings before the council for examination. Much like Luther, he was warned by friends not to go but answered the summons in full realization it may cost him his life. He spent a good deal of the time imprisoned after he was accused of attempting to flee (what many scholars argue was a superfluous charge), first in the dungeon of a convent, later in a bishop's castle. Unlike Luther, he was not granted an advocate for his hearings. Unlike Charles, Sigismund did not honor his promise of safe-conduct (the very thing that made Luther nervous to trust Charles' promise). The council defended the decision by stating heretics had no right to safe conduct, since any promise made that would be prejudicial against the church was a promise that could (indeed must!) be broken. When Hus was finally brought before the Council's committee to judge his case, his responses were also constantly interrupted, and he was prompted to reply "Yes or No". It was then in his second hearing, when asked about his response to the charges laid against him, he too invoked God and his conscience being on his side and that being enough. Hus too had regular meetings with ecclesiastical dignitaries urging him to recant and submit to the church's decision, to which Schaff writes "He was convinced that none of the articles brought against him were contrary to the Gospel of Christ, but canon law ruled at councils, not Scriptures." In meeting with his chief inquisitors on July 5th, he stated that he would gladly be burned a thousand times than abjure which would offend those whom he had taught. Most notable may however be his response, first given on June 8th, 1415 when the 39 charges were read against him (later repeated in one of the final attempts by the cardinals to convince him to retract his work), he expressed himself ready to revoke his statements that were proven by scriptures and good arguments to be untrue, but he would not revoke any that were not so proved. Unlike Luther, his persistence would not end in him walking away but rather being condemned, burned, and his ashes scattered down stream.

Jan Hus before the Council of Constance. 

We can see in his responses many elements of Luther's final speech in his own trial. Like Luther, Hus appealed to God and his conscience (well, Luther to God's Word and conscience). Hus also showed distrust in the decisions and did not hold high the authority of councils and insisted that it must be by scripture and sound arguments - something Luther did too (although he was generally more skeptical of the philosophy of his day being so steeped in Aristotelian thought and asked for "clear reason", more akin to his concept of the "plain meaning" of things). And lastly, they both were clear they would recant on those grounds, but only those grounds and otherwise would not.

Luther drafted his own defense for his trial, but when that was brushed aside and he was asked for a simple answer of yes or no, his response may very well have been formulated by his knowledge of Hus' response 106 years earlier. This may be especially true if Luther felt at that moment, when his words were brushed aside that he was bound to die. At that point, we may wonder if he felt it best to go out in a similar manner to Hus, trying to tie himself in succession (although Luther's triumphant arm raise as he walked out of his hearing has been likened to that of knights raising their lance after a successful joust). We may never know for sure, but given the similarities of their responses (granted Hus had more as well and his were spread out over some time as opposed to Luther's being condensed in a single speech), it is surprising that I have yet to encounter any discussion on the similarities of their responses (even if one simply postures that they are similar by coincidence and not intention as I am more inclined to believe).

Perhaps there is a letter by Luther saying he made the whole speech up himself. Perhaps the themes of his speech are too similar to what he'd been saying all along to not feel so clearly and authentically Luther. Or maybe he was once asked about a connection and denied it. It should perhaps be noted that in Address to the German Nobility he did at one moment say the jury on Hus as a heretic was still out for him, and that was one year before Worms. Although his response upon reading Hus that year when some Hussites sent him some of the man's work, along with his exposure to some of Hus' sermons during his time in Erfert were all positive and his hesitancy in that treatise may also be out of concern that he might lose support if deemed a Hussite which Eck was already charging him of being after the Leipzig Debate.

Nevertheless, one thing is certain: Luther's survival at Worms was owed in part to Hus' death at Constance. For one, Luther's refusal to go to Rome (and Frederick's refusal to surrender him) prior to Worms was owed in part to the knowledge that Hus was not given a fair trial nor was his safe passage honored. And when the German princes upon Charles' election insisted upon (among other things) his promise that no German would be sentenced without a trial in Germany they wanted that honored for Luther. The sad reputation that many (especially out of Bohemian and Polish lands) held for Sigismund may also have shaped Charles' willingness to honor his word, considering he wanted Luther killed and Lutheranism to be snuffed out (something he finally moved for in the Smalcald Wars). With the delicate state of his wars with France and Turks he could not afford rejection by the German princes. But even the Catholic princes did not want Luther put to death. While some of that may be based in the power struggle that was going on between the princes and emperor, it also is almost certainly because of their knowledge of the fallout of Hus' own death, which entailed a bloody war in Bohemia and a crusade called against Hussites that ultimately failed and required concessions to the Ultraquists. That coupled with the greater success under the Borgias of suppressing the movement of Giralomo Savonarola they knew it was better for Luther to recant than to be a martyr.

One last note. Both men end with appeals to God for help. Luther finishes his speech "God help me" and Hus dies singing "O Christ, Thou Lamb of God, have mercy on me."

What do you think? Am I stretching things too thin or am I onto something?

John 2: The Mary Question

So I like to sometimes go into unpreachable but ponderable elements of the Bible texts on here from time to time and today lends us one of those opportunities. For those not up on our Gospel reading for Sunday from John 2 (the miracle of water turned to wine) allow me to post it below for a quick catch up:

1 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine gave out, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." 4 And Jesus said to her, "Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come." 5 His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you." 6 Now standing there were six stone water jars for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. 7 Jesus said to them, "Fill the jars with water." And they filled them up to the brim. 8 He said to them, "Now draw some out, and take it to the chief steward." So they took it. 9 When the steward tasted the water that had become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward called the bridegroom 10 and said to him, "Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the inferior wine after the guests have become drunk. But you have kept the good wine until now." 11 Jesus did this, the first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee, and revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.


Now the question that I ponder this week is this: who is Mary to this wedding that she is aware of the situation before even the chief steward or the bridegroom? I call this unpreachable because we are very firmly going into the realm of speculation in the possibilities I ponder, but I find them interesting to consider:

Scenario 1: For years I assumed Mary must be a family friend. After all, why else get so involved and be so in the know. My problem with this assumption is that it doesn't really answer for me why she would be aware of the wine situation before the steward or bridegroom. Perhaps she happened to be at the right place at right time to overhear the dilemma or maybe she even asked for wine and they told her they were out. But for some reason, the more I contemplate other possibilities, the less likely this one seems to me since it requires her to somehow happen to be in the know. It could happen, but seems odd. Although Jesus' response to his mother may give some weight to it.

Scenario 2: The next one I considered this week - and perhaps most interesting one in terms of the light it sheds on characters of the story - is that Mary is in fact one of the servants. This would answer a lot: how she was aware of the situation, since the other servants appear to be the only other people in the know at the time. It would also explain what Mary is doing in Cana, John mentions her presence before and apart from Jesus (whereas his disciples are more clearly linked with his arrival). Thus this may indicate she was working at this wedding. This would shed a lot of light on Mary's situation presently (especially if, as is generally assumed, Joseph is dead by this point), and would in general jive with the reality that she was not well off (remember Luke tells us that she and Joseph paid the poor man's cost when they presented Jesus to the Lord at the Temple. See Luke 2:24, Leviticus 12:8). The difficulty I have with this is perhaps how easily Mary appears to leave the host's service, as John 2:12 states she leaves with Jesus to Capernaum and I'm unsure if it would be so easily done (although the Greek word here is diakonoi for the servants and not douloi which would be a much more likely term if her service was entered into as a slave).

Scenario 3: This is a family wedding. And to be specific, I'm not thinking simply distant relation (which would be similar in situation and issues as scenario 1) but that this is an immediate relation, perhaps one of Jesus' siblings. A brother seems less likely given the Bridegroom has servants and a steward, and as we mentioned in Scenario 2 Mary and Joseph did not seem to be well off to put on such a gathering, of course that could explain not having enough wine to supply the party. It could also explain why Mary was "there" in Cana, potentially living under the care of that son at this time. Although Jesus' response to her suggests he doesn't see the shortcoming of wine to be the responsibility of her or him. Perhaps then it is a daughter (sister to Jesus), as sisters are mentioned in Mark 6:3. In that situation Jesus' family would only be providing the dowry (*I think - will have to look into this later) but not be responsible directly for the wine, yet it would explain why Mary is in the know and still why she might be concerned about the wedding running out of wine. It would also explain why sisters are not mentioned in the following verse of the family move to Capernaum for a short time. However the Mark reference makes it more likely they were living in Nazareth (though Cana is not far north of Nazareth). Also, I'm still not sure that adequately explains Jesus' puzzled response to his mother.

So that's some of what I'm pondering. Perhaps I missed an idea. What do you think?