Until about 48 hours ago, I had not heard of Hadrian Saravia (1530-1612. Dates vary slightly). He was a Protestant leader who was involved, among other things, in the translation of the King James Version Bible. He was, apparently, the only non-Englishman who worked on the translation— supporting the translation of the first third of the Old Testament. While that is a nice thing to have on one’s CV, for me the most interesting thing is that he was one of the first Protestants to push for Christian Missions.

In 1590 he published, De Diversis Ministrorum Evangelii Gradibus Sicut a Domino Fuerunt Instituti. This was in support of Christian Missions over 200 years before William Carey’s “An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathen” and only 73 years after Martin Luther’s “Ninety-five Theses.” So this is a pretty big deal. There just wasn’t much about Protestant Christian missions during this time.

The early Protestant Church was not very missional. I know this seems to be a hot take right now as a lot of Calvinists, and some Lutherans, try to argue that at least their part of the Reformation was missional from the beginning. In support of this, there is an awful lot of “cherry picking” from historical trees that are, frankly, lacking  much fruit.

A better case can supporting the lack of missional fervor, outside of the general lack of missional writing and missional activity during the first two centuries of the Protestant Reformation, can be seen in the theological disputes between Savaria and Theodore Beza (1519-1605)— the intended heir to Calvin’s Geneva. Part of the argument appeared to actually be about the commission of the Church— the call to be missional.

In 1590, Savaria came out with a treatise in support of the Episcopacy. However, in it came a strong support for the call of the church to missions. The work was in Latin, but an English version came out in 1591 or 1592. Below is an excerpt on the Commission of Christ to the original apostles, and how it still applies to the church today. Some of the argument sounds a lot like that of William Carey centuries later.

This version was in 16th century English, but I modified it into 21st century spelling… but in other ways did not change it. You can read the original (English version, the earlier Latin version is easier to find online) with the original spelling in the link below:

The command, to preach the gospel, and the commission, to all nations, we understand to be so given in charge to the Apostles, that withal it obliges the church also; neither did the charge of preaching the gospel to the incredulous heathen, respect the apostles only, but all future ages to the world’s end. In the last of Mathew, when the Lord had said, that all power was given unto him in heaven and in earth, and had commanded, that they should go forth, and teach all nations, etc. he added; I am with you unto the world’s end. Which cannot be restrained to the Apostles only, seeing it concerns all whom he commands to preach, and to whom he promises his divine presence for ever: neither can this promise be divorced from the former command, and thereby it appears, that Christ commanded the church also; that Apostles having taken heaven, order might be taken, that the gospel might be preached to the Gentiles in all coasts, upon all occasions. And verily if the Apostolic authority had been Temporary, that also had been a personal gift, and particular: neither would they have presumed to have taken themselves companions and co-partners in that Apostolic charge, to the which themselves only were appointed of the Lord. But when as they knew, that their office, and whatsoever authority they had received, was rather given to the whole church, then to their sole selves; they thereupon were bold, to make others, joint partners with them in their Apostle-like power, whom they also knew should be their successors. Neither in nature, could so great a work be finished of so few laborers: and therefore also the commandment of the Lord, could no further bind the Apostles, then for the term of their mortality: in the which time, the Lord did not purpose to determine, either the promise of his help, or the preaching of his word.

The Apostles then had need of many helpers in the Lord, and fellow-laborers for the business of the Lord: the which when they could not accomplish themselves, they left their posterity to finish that, which themselves could not effect. Had the Apostles carried their commission to heaven with them, and besides the private care of particular Churches, the Bishops (whom the Apostles left their successors) had thought the further propagation of the gospel did nothing pertain to them: I doubt me, the confines of Christ his kingdom had never been enlarged to so great a monarchy as it is. What need I remember you of the rare and memorable examples, of the thrice reverend fathers in the Primitive church? With what serious study, with what earnest desire, with what constant endeavor, and last of all, with what great labors, and many streaming showers of the blood of Martyrs, were the churches of old planted, watered, and increased? It is a thing better known and commended, then that I need to repeat it, or themselves to repent it.

Notwithstanding there be some in these days, which take up but to shrewdly this sentence of ours: as if it were some Anabaptist fancy, when it is said, that the Church has at this day, if not Apostles, yet Apostolic Ministers: but as for the fancy, (if Anabaptist) let themselves look to that, lest they take themselves by the nose. For my part, I would but know, whether the gospel eyet <supposedly “eyet” can mean island… but that does not seem to work, so I don’t know. Maybe it is the verb “eyes”> at this day, now after a 1500 years, be come to the ears of all Nations.

—“Of the diverse degrees of the ministers of the gospell. Of the honor which is due unto the priestes and prelates of the church. Of sacrilege, and the punishment thereof.” By Hadrian (or Adrien or Adrian) Saravia, 1591. Chapter 17. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A11498.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext

It is so strange I have not heard of him. If it was not for a chance remark by David Hesselgrave in his book “Pardigms in Conflict” I will would not know. Perhaps this is because there are not as many Episcopalians desperate for any crumb of evidence that their historic roots were missional.