By
JAMES HENTHORN TODD, D.D.,
Fellow of Trinity College, and Treasurer of St. Patrick’s Cathedral.
Dublin:
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
M.DCCC.XL.
[Illustration]
¶ The Preface.
A well known popular Writer on the History of the Christian Church
has given it as his Opinion, that whoever will carefully examine the
original Records, will soon be convinced that the Merits of _Wyclyffe_,
as a Reformer, have been considerably exaggerated.[1] How far this is
true or not, the Writer of these Pages will not attempt to determine;
but certain it is, that to “examine the original Records,” with a View
to discover the real Doctrines and Opinions of _Wyclyffe_, is much more
easily said than done; and the Reader who seeks for Satisfaction from
the Biographers of the Reformer, or from the Historians of the Period,
will soon be convinced that the original Records, and above all, the
still remaining Writings of _Wyclyffe_ and his Followers, have never been
examined with the Care and Attention necessary for the Purpose of forming
a just Estimate of his Opinions, and of the Merit of his Efforts at a
Reformation of the Church.
The List of _Wyclyffe’s_ Writings published by Bishop _Bale_, in his
Work, _Scriptorum Majoris Brytanniæ Catalogus_[2], has been necessarily
made the Basis of all that subsequent Writers have collected. It has been
reprinted, with many useful additions, by the learned and indefatigable
_John Lewis_[3], of whose Labours every Student must speak with
Gratitude. Mr. _Baber_[4] also has done much towards assisting future
Inquirers, by the very valuable List of the Reformer’s Writings that he
has compiled. Here, however, we must stop; Mr. _Vaughan’s_ Compilation[5]
has not added much to our Knowledge of the Subject, nor can it be
commended either for Accuracy or Learning; and Mr. _Le Bas_[6] does
not profess to do more than follow his Predecessors. His humbler Task,
however, has been executed with great Elegance and Judgment.
The Truth, therefore, is, that until the Works of _Wyclyffe_, real
and supposititious, be collected and published, it is vain to talk of
determining his Opinions, or fixing his real Merits as a Reformer; and
it is with the Hope of directing Attention to this Subject that the
following Tract is now printed. The learned _Henry Wharton_[7] was
willing to believe that all the Writings of _Wyclyffe_ might in his Time
have been recovered: “_omnia ~Wiclefi~ scripta_,” he says, “_in Anglia
adhuc delitescere, et ex Bibliothecis nostris qua publicis qua privatis
in lucem erui posse, lubenter crederem_.” Perhaps we have still all the
MSS. that existed in _Wharton’s_ Time, and it may be still within our
Power to rescue them from the Oblivion in which they have so long been
suffered to remain. But the Chances of their Destruction are every Day
becoming greater, and Delay in such an Enterprize is highly dangerous.
It is true that many of these Documents will be found dry, and to the
popular Reader uninteresting; buried in the barbarous Latinity of the
Schools, or concealed under the perhaps still more obsolete English of
the fourteenth Century. But they who would engage in such a Labour as
the Publication of the Works of _Wyclyffe_, must be above the narrow
Influences of modern Utilitarianism. They must keep in View a higher
Field of Learning than comes within the Sphere of Mercantile Speculators
in Literature, or Useful Knowledge Societies. They must feel that the
Value of these Documents as Compositions, is but a secondary Object in
their Publication; the great End must be the Discovery of Truth, and the
Preservation of the Remains of an illustrious Character in our History.
What nobler, what more imperishable Monument could the Gratitude of
England raise to her first Reformer, than a complete and uniform Edition
of his extant Writings?
The Editor is fully sensible that the Tract which is now for the first
Time given to the public, is very far from being a favorable Specimen
of the Works of _Wyclyffe_. But it commended itself for Publication on
many Grounds: First, its Shortness. Secondly, its early Date; for it
bears internal Evidence of having been composed in the Year 1356[8],
and must, therefore, (if really by _Wyclyffe_,) have been the earliest
of his Writings. Another Motive for publishing this Production is
furnished by the Consideration, that, if it be genuine, it reveals to
us a Fact not dwelt upon, so far as the Editor knows, by any of the
Reformer’s Biographers; namely, the Connexion which existed between the
earlier Doctrines of _Wyclyffe_, and the prophetical Speculations of the
_Beguins_, circulated under the Name of the famous Abbot _Joachim_.
It remains, however, to be proved, that the Tract now printed is really
_Wyclyffe’s_; and this, the Editor admits, seemed to him an additional
Reason for selecting it for Publication; inasmuch as it served at once
to raise the Question, How far we have certain Grounds for attributing
to _Wyclyffe_ the Writings that exist under his Name; nor is it perhaps
too much to say, that this is a Subject which the learned World has
never been in a Condition to consider fully. Yet there is no preliminary
Question more deserving of Attention, if we would form a just Estimate
of our Reformer’s Merits; for it must be evident to every reflecting
Reader, that if we are in any Degree uncertain of the Genuineness of such
Writings as are quoted under the Name of _Wyclyffe_, the Conclusions
drawn from them, as to the Nature and Character of his Doctrines, must be
in the same Degree uncertain, and destitute of Authority.
In the present Case, the Grounds upon which the following Treatise has
been assigned to _Wyclyffe_, are no more than these:—First, that it is
found in a MS. Volume of the fourteenth Century, which contains several
other Tracts, that are believed to be _Wyclyffe’s_. Secondly, that it has
been ascribed to _Wyclyffe_, by Bishop _Bale_, Mr. _Lewis_, and, after
them, by his more modern Biographers.
These Remarks are not made with a Design to cast any Doubt on the
Genuineness of the following Treatise. It is very probably by _Wyclyffe_,
although we have no better Reason than the Authority of _Bale_ for
thinking so. But if any Reader should entertain a Doubt on this Subject,
deeming the Tract unworthy of our Reformer, (as many will doubtless
feel it to be very different from what they would have expected from the
Pen of _Wyclyffe_,) the Editor must confess himself unable to satisfy
such Scruples; nor is he aware of any Argument by which the Authority
of _Bale_ and _Lewis_ can be supported. The Conclusion, however, to
which he desires to bring the Reader, and for the Sake of which he has
hazarded these Remarks, is simply this, that until the various Treatises
attributed to _Wyclyffe_ are collected, and rendered accessible to the
Learned, it is vain to think of deciding the Question how far any given
Tract is worthy or unworthy of his Pen. One other Particular, concerning
the following Work, remains to be considered. Mr. _Vaughan_[9] tells
us that “this is one of the Reformer’s Pieces that is to be found only
in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin;” and this may, for aught we
know, be true, although perhaps it only means that no other Copy of the
Tract was elsewhere found by Mr. _Vaughan_. Certain, however, it is,
that Bishop _Bale_ has entered the Treatise in two different Places of
his Catalogue, and under two different Titles; from which we may infer,
that in his Time, or in the Times of those from whom he copied, the
Tract was found in two different Collections. In one place he enters it
thus[10]:—(See No. 84 of _Lewis’s_ Catalogue.[11])
“_De simonia sacerdotum_, lib. 1. _Heu magni sacerdotes in
tenebris._”
In another place[12] he gives it the Title under which it is now
published, and describes it thus[13]:—
“_De ultimâ ætate Ecclesiæ_, lib. 1, _Sacerdotes, proh dolor!
versantes in vitiis._”
It is by no means improbable, therefore, that a second Copy of the Tract
may still exist, under some Disguise, in our public or private Libraries.
The Volume from which the Treatise is now printed, is preserved among
the MSS. of Archbishop _Ussher_, in the Library of the University of
_Dublin_. It appears to have been once the Property of Sir _Robert
Cotton_, whose Autograph is found on the lower Margin of the first Page,
in his usual Form of Signature[14]:
“_Robert Cotton Bruceus._”
On the upper Margin of the same Page, in a Hand of the early Part of the
sixteenth Century, now nearly obliterated, may be traced the Words,
“_Wiclefe roas a thousand thre hūderyd thre schorr and uiij._”
Over which Sir _Robert Cotton_ has written,
“_Anno 1368. Wicklif workes to the Duk of Lancaster._”
Nothing appears in the Volume to indicate the exact Year in which it
was transcribed, but the Hand-writing would lead us to assign it to the
latter End of the fourteenth or Beginning of the fifteenth Century. It is
imperfect in some places, but contains a very valuable Collection of the
Tracts of _Wyclyffe_, for a complete List of which the Reader is referred
to some Papers that were published in the Year 1835, in the _British
Magazine_[15]; where he will also find an Account of the Treatise, now
for the first time printed, “On the last Age of the Chirche,” with an
Exposure of certain Mistakes that have been committed respecting it.
Several of the Remarks contained in those Papers have been transferred to
the Notes, which will be found at the End of the present Volume.
[Illustration]
¶ The last Age of the Chirche. By John Wyclyffe, S. Th. P.
M.ccc.luj.
[Illustration]
The last age of the Chirche.
Alas forsorwe grete prestis sittinge in derkenessis[16] & in schadewe
of deeþ/ noȝt hauynge him þat openly crieþ/ al þis I wille ȝeue ȝif
þou auaunce me. Þei make reseruaciouns/ þe whiche ben clepid dymes/
ffirst fruytis/ oþer penciouns/ aftir þe opynioun of hem þat trete þis
matir. For no more schulde fatte beneficis be reserued þāne smale/ ȝif
no pryuy cause of symonye were tretide/ þe whiche I seie noȝt at þis
tyme. But Joachur[17]/ in his book of þe seedis of profetis & of þe
seyingis of popes & of þe chargis of profetis/ tretynge þis matir/ &
spekynge of þe rente of dymes/ seiþ þus[18]/ foure tribulaciouns Dauiþ
þe profete haþ bifore seid/ þe seuynty & nyne chapitre/ to entre into
þe Chirche of God/ & Bernard[19] acordiþ þere wiþ/ vpon cantica/ þe
þre & pritty sermon/ þat ben/ a nyȝtly drede/ an arwe fleynge in day/
chaffare walkynge in derkenessis/ & myddais deuylrie/ þat is to seye/
antecrist. Nyȝtly drede was whanne alle þat slowen seyntis demyd hem
silf do seruyse to God/ & þis was þe firste tribulacioun þat ontrede
þe Chirche of God. Þe arwe fleynge in day was desceyt of heretikis/ &
þat was þe secunde tribulacioun þat entred þe Chirche of Crist. Þat is
put of bi wisdom of seyntis/ as þe firste was cast out bi stedfastenesse
of martiris. Chaffare walkynge in derkenessis is þe pryui heresie of
symonyans/ bi resoun of whiche þe þridde tribulacioun schal entre into
Cristis Chirche/ þe whiche tribulacioun or angusch schal entre þe Chirche
of Crist in þe tyme of þe hundrid ȝeer of .x. lettre/ whos ende we ben/
as I wele preue/ & þis myscheif schal be so heuy þat wel schal be to
þat man of holy Chirche þat þāne schal noȝt be on lyue. And þat I preue
þus bi Joachrin[20] in his book of þe deedis of profetis. Men of ebreu
tunge haueþ xxii lettris/ and byngȳn̄ge fro þe first of ebrew lettris/
& ȝeuynge to euery lettre an hundrid ȝeer/ þe oolde Testament was endid
whāne þe noumbre ȝeuen to þe lettris was fulfillid. So fro þe bygynnynge
of ebrew lettris in to Crist/ in þe whiche þe oolde Testament was endid/
weren two and twenty hundriddis of ȝeeris. Þis also schewiþ openly bi
discripcioun of tyme/ of Eusebi[21]/ Bede[22]/ & Haymound[23]/ most
preued of acounteris/ or talkeris. So Cristen men hauen xxi lettris/
& bygynnynge fro þe first of Latyn lettris/ & ȝeuynge to eche .c./ þe
newe Testament was endid whanne þe noumbre of þes assingned lettris
was fulfillid. And þis is as soþ as in þe bigynnynge God made heuene &
erþe/ for þe oolde Testament is figur of þe newe. But aftir Joachim[24]
& Bede[25]/ fro þe bygynnynge of Latyn lettris to þe comynge of Crist
weren seuene hundrid ȝeere/ so þat Crist cam in þe hondrid of .h’.
lettre/ Crist steye to heuene/ and aftir þat/ undir .k’. lettre/ Crist
delyuered his Chirche fro nyȝtly drede/ þe whiche was þe firste drede þat
Goddis Chirche was inne. Aftir þat/ vndir .m. lettir/ Crist delyuered
his Chirche fro þe arwe fleynge in day/ þat was þe secunde tribulacioun
of þe Chirche/ & þat was demynge by Joachim[26] & oþere þat vndir .m.
lettre schewede þe multitude of heretikis contraryinge þe birþe of Crist
his pascioun & his assencioun/ in þat þat .m. lettre most figured Crist.
Euery lettre in þe abece may be sounded wiþ opyn mouþ saue .m. lettre
one/ þe whiche may noȝt be souned but wiþ clos mouþ. So Crist myȝte noȝt
come out of þe maydenes wombe/ but sche hadde be clos. And þes ben uerse
of .m. lettre/
College claustris exire solent patefactis/
Una sed ex istis nō egreditur nisi clausis.
Aftir þat/ vnder .x. lettre/ was þe þridde tribulacioun in Goddis
Chirche/ þe whiche .x. lettre is last of Latyn lettris/ & þe þridde
tribulacioun schal be schewid in þe hondrid ȝeere of .x. lettre. I preue
it bi two resouns/ þe firste is þis. Petir þe Apostle þe whiche was
in þe tyme of .I. lettre/ myȝte not vttirly distrie Symoun Magus/ but
bi helpe of Poul[27]/ þe whiche was þe þritteneþ Apostil. So/ ȝif .x.
lettre be þe þritteneþe fro .I. lettre/ in þe tyme of .x. lettre Crist
schal clanse his Chirche fro marchaundise walkygnge in derkenessis. Þe
secunde resoun is suche. Ȝit cam noȝt þat tribulacioun þat schal be in
Goddis Chirche bi cause of chaffare walkynge in derkenesses/ & þat þat
is prophesied schal come. Siþþe þanne þat we ben in .x. lettre/ as it is
schewid/ þis tribulacioun schal come in .x. lettre oþere aftir/ but aftir
.x. lettre/ þat is þe last of Latyn lettris/ schal be no tribulacioun
in Goddis Chirche bote þe fourþe & þe laste/ þe whiche schal be bi þe
deuel of mydday/ þat is Antecrist[28]/ þe whiche tribulacioun bi no Latyn
lettre may be certefied/ as þes þre bifore. Ffor his comynge oonly to God
is knowen/ & knowleche of him to God oonly reserued. Whefore it folwiþ
þat vndir .x. lettre schal be schewid þilke tribulacioun þat schal be in
Goddis Chirche/ by resoun of chaffare walkynge in derkenessis.
Þat we ben vndir þe hundrid ȝeere of .x. lettre/ I schewe schortly by
Bede[29] vpon þe profetis of Sibille/ and by Joachim[30] in þe book of
þe seedis of profetis/ & oþere writeris of stories. Ffro þe bygynnynge
of Latyn lettris to Crist Ihū/ were seuene hundrid ȝeer/ and fro Crist
til now/ þrittene hundrid ȝeer and sixe & fyfty[31]/ so þat þere ben to
come of our abece but foure & fourty ȝeer/ & bi þis of þe hundrid ȝeere
of .x. beþ passid sixe & fifty ȝeere. Þe synnes bi cause of whiche suche
persecucioun schal be in Goddis Chirche our tyme ben þes/ for Goddis
Chirche is foundid in kynrade of prelatis. Þis same rekened Joachim[32]
in þe bookis bifore. Also for goodis of holy Chirche þat prelatis wiþ
holdeþ to hem/ as pensiouns/ firste frutis/ fermes/ prouendris/ þe
whiche may wel be clepid collibiste/ þes synnes and oþere suche ben
marchaundise walkynge in derkenessis. Þe manere of tribulacioun schal
be such as Joachim[33] seiþ in þe book of þe charge of profetis. Men of
holy Chirche schal be seyd in a manere of careyne/ þei schal be cast out
as dogge in myddis placis. Her wiþ acordiþ Carnosencis/ in a book þat
he clepiþ pollicraticon[34]/ þe seuenþe book/ þe tenþe chapitre/ & he
aleyeþ Gregor seiynge þus/ pestilencis/ smyttingis to gidere of folkis/ &
hurtlynge to gidere of rewmes/ & oþir harmes schal come to þe erþe/ for
þat worschipis of holy Chirche beþ ȝeue to vnworþi men. And in þe eiȝteþe
book[35]/ defaute of prestis among Goddis folk bryngiþ in tirnauntis. Þat
þis tribulacioun is nyȝe/ and whanne it schal come/ bi hem þat tretiþ
þis matir is/ whanne men schulle wante teeþ/ and comynly alle children/
boren siþþen þe first pestylence/ ben such þat wanten eiȝte grete teeþ.
Herwiþ acordiþ Merlyn Ambrose[36]/ þat such angusche is nyȝe/ for as by
hem/ in þe tyme of þe myscheif of þe kok/ þat we clepe fraunce/ þat schal
be distroyed by þe sixte of irlond/ þe witt is our kyng wiþ his children.
Sibille[37] acordiþ herto/ þat suche tribulacioun is nyȝe/ in þes verse:
Gallus succuutus aquile victricia signa/
Mundus adorabit/ est vrbs vix presule digna/
Papa cito moritur/ Sesar regnabit vbique/
Sub quo tunc vana cessabit gloria cleri.
Þei þat treten þes verse of Sibille/ alle þat I haue seen/ acorden in
þis/ þat seculer power of þe Hooly Goost elispirid/ & þat deþ/ veniaunce
of swerd/ myscheifs vnknowe bifore/ bi whiche men þes daies schule be
ponyschid/ schulen falle for synne of prestis. Men schal falle on hem/
& caste hem out of her fatte beneficis/ and þei schule seye/ he cam in
to his benefice by his kynrede/ þes bi couenant maad bifore/ he for his
seruyse/ & þes for moneye/ cam into Goddis Chirche. Þanne schal eche
suche prest crye/ Alas/ Alas/ þat no good spiryt dwellid wiþ me at my
comynge into Goddis Chirche. Þe wordis of Josue 2. cᵒ. þe þridde. I seide
þat Crist entrede into hooly þingis/ þat is holy Chirche/ by holy lyuynge
& holy techinge/ preynge þe Fadir for vs. Þe Mayster of Scholys[38]
rehersiþ/ þe þridde book of Kyngis/ þe v. cᵒ./ aftir þe talis of iewis
of Salamon/ þere was a stork hadde a berd/ & his berd was sperid vndir
a vessel of glas/ and whanne þis stork sau his brid/ &. þat he myȝte
noȝt come to hym/ he brouȝt a litil reed worme out of wildirnesse/ &
wiþ his blood he anoyntide þe glas. Þe glass to barst/ & þe brid fleye
his wey. So oure Lord þe Fadir of heuene hadde mankynde in helle/ þat
was glasyne/ þat is to seye britil as glas. To breke it be brouȝt suche
a litil reed worme/ þat was our Lord Ihū Crist/ as Dauiþ seiþ/ þe on &
twenty Salme. 2i.[39] Ego sum vermis/ & non homo/ I am a worme & no man/
& wiþ his blood he delyuered mannes kynde. Zacarie[40] writiþ/ þe nynþe
chapitre/ þou forsoþe wiþ blood of witnesse/ or þi testament/ hast ledde
out hem þat were bounde in þe pyt. So whanne we weren synful/ & children
of wraþþe/ Goddis sone cam out of heuene/ & preyying his fadir for his
enemyes/ & he deyed for vs þanne/ myche raþere now we ben maad riȝtful bi
his blood schule be saued. Poul writiþ to þe romayns. v. cᵒ.[41] He schal
preye for vs. Ihūs wente into heuene to apere to þe semlant of God for
vs. Poul to þe hebrees.[42] Þe whiche semlant he graunte vs to see/ þat
lyueþ & regneþ wiþout eende/ Amen.