especially in the latter part of his reign. An embassy had been sent to
the pope, Gregory XI., in 1373, respecting the appointment of bishops,
the reservation of benefices, and other matters in which Edward and his
parliament declared that the pontiff had largely encroached on the
ancient customs. Some partial concessions were made, but the English
king was far from being satisfied with the extent of them, and it was
resolved in 1374 to send another embassy. The name of Wiclif stands
second on the list of commissioners, the first name being that of the
Bishop of Bangor, who had been employed in the previous negotiation;
with them were united five other persons. The conference was held at
Bruges, where the papal nuncios met them. Wiclif appears to have stayed
in this city from August, 1374, till July, 1376. What results were
obtained are not exactly known. For Wiclif himself the consequences were
probably of much importance. At this time, it will be remembered, the
pope's residence was at Avignon, and the papal court had attained to a
rather bad eminence. It is not probable that, with his strong feelings
of the responsibility of the office of a minister of religion, Wiclif
would become more attached to the dignitaries of the church from the
closer intercourse he would now have with them. His visit to Bruges may
have produced as strong an impression on his mind as was wrought on that
of Luther by his journey to Rome. In fact, according to Dr. Vaughan,
"his rebukes, which had hitherto been directed toward the head of the
church but distantly and by implication, are applied in that quarter,
soon after this time, with unsparing severity."
During his absence at Bruges the king marked his satisfaction with his
conduct, by conferring on him the rectory of Lutterworth in
Leicestershire, and a prebendal stall in the collegiate church of
Westbury, in the diocese of Worcester. The principal commissioner, on
the other hand, received his reward from the pope, who translated him to
the see of Hereford, and a few years after to that of St. David's. A few
months only elapsed after the return of Wiclif, when he was summoned to
appear before a convocation to answer the charge of holding heretical
doctrines. What was the exact nature of the heresies does not appear;
they were probably not definitely stated, owing to a strange scene that
occurred. The convocation was held at St. Paul's, February 19, 1377, and
that edifice was crowded by the populace, as well as by the clergy, long
before the reformer made his appearance. When he arrived it was between
two of the most powerful nobles in the land, one the king's eldest
surviving son, the celebrated John of Gaunt, the other Lord Percy, the
Lord Marshal of England. With Gaunt Wiclif had probably become
acquainted at Bruges, for, during his stay there, the duke had visited
that city, as ambassador, to conduct some negotiations with the minister
of the French monarch; and no doubt Wiclif, from his official position,
would have some intercourse with him. The support of the duke and of
Lord Percy arose most likely from political rather than religious
motives. The dignity of these nobles scarcely sufficed to procure an
approach through the crowd to Courtney, bishop of London, who presided
on the occasion. Some slight tumult occurred in making their way, which,
being perceived by the bishop, he called out "Lord Percy, if I had known
beforehand what masteries you would have kept in the church, I would
have stopt you out from coming hither." To this rough salutation the
Duke of Lancaster replied, "He shall keep such masteries here, though
you say nay." Percy desired Wiclif "to sit down, as he had many things
to answer to, and needed to repose himself;" but the bishop declared it
to be unreasonable that one cited before his ordinary should sit, and
peremptorily affirmed that "he must and should stand." Gaunt replied
that Percy's motion was but reasonable, and continued, "As for you, my
Lord Bishop, who are grown so proud and arrogant, I will bring down the
pride not only of you, but of all the prelacy in England." The bishop
told him to "do his worst;" and after some further bickering, the duke
vowed that sooner than submit to such words he would "pluck the bishop
by the hair out of the church." The bystanders had been growing excited
by these outrageous proceedings; and now, fancying the duke would
proceed to violent acts, they rose in a body for their bishop, and the
duke and his followers were compelled to a speedy flight. The Londoners,
not content with driving the duke and his friends from the church,
assembled in a tumultuous mob and proceeded to his palace, but he had
made his escape, and they contented themselves with reversing his arms.
They then proceeded to the house of Lord Percy, which they damaged, but
they did not succeed in finding its owner: an unlucky priest, however,
whom they found, and imagined to be Percy in an assumed habit, they
hung. The mayor and aldermen were afterwards removed from their offices
for not suppressing the riot, but none of the rioters appear to have
been punished. It does not seem that Wiclif took any part in these
discreditable proceedings, nor that the mob attempted to injure him. Of
course, he would be far more obnoxious than ever to his opponents, and
from this period they appear to have pursued him with more determined
hate.
After this meeting Wiclif devoted himself to his parochial duties,
but in a few months he was summoned from them to answer new charges.
Probably some of his more inveterate enemies had forwarded to Rome
statements of his heterodox notions, for on the 22nd of May, 1377, the
pope issued four bulls against him, addressed respectively to the
Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, and the University of
Oxford, and with these was sent a letter to the king, stating that
information had been received from creditable persons that John Wiclif,
rector of Lutterworth, and professor of theology, had been actively
engaged in propagating certain detestable and erroneous notions utterly
subversive of the church. These bulls authorise the incarceration of
Wiclif, and his examination upon the various matters stated: the results
of the examination were to be transmitted to the pope for his
determination. The charges preferred are probably nearly similar to
those that would have been brought forward at the convocation but for
the unexpected disturbances. These charges, or "conclusions" as they are
called, show that the pontiff was most moved by their appearing to
question his pre-eminence. They state that Wiclif denied the political
supremacy of the pope, and asserted that the whole race of men agreeing
had not power to ordain such supremacy--that it was beyond the power of
God himself to confer it. That he denied the efficacy alike of
benediction and of excommunication assumed by priests; that absolutions
are valueless except as they agree with the law of God; and that the
spiritual power of the ministers of religion does not differ in degree.
These bulls vary only in trifling particulars. They impress alike on all
to whom they are sent the urgent necessity of extirpating such
detestable heresies, which they liken to those of Ganduno and Marcillus,
condemned fifty years before by Pope John XXII. These men opposed the
papal see on political grounds; and it is plain from the tone of the
bulls that it was the attack on his temporal authority that disconcerted
Gregory. Before these documents could arrive Edward III. had ceased to
live, and his decease afforded Wiclif a little breathing time. The other
parties to whom they were addressed did not take any public proceedings
in connexion with them till several months had elapsed. The University
of Oxford seriously demurred at receiving the bull, and, when they had
received it, took no steps for furthering the object of it. The
Archbishop of Canterbury, however, had no such scruples; he addressed a
letter to the Chancellor of Oxford, directing him to make inquiries
respecting the errors referred to in the papal mandate, and to forward
to him the result of his investigations, with his own judgment thereon,
sealed with the University seal: he also directs him to cite Wiclif to
appear at St. Paul's to answer the charges, on the thirtieth court-day
from the 18th of December, 1377. Wiclif appeared not at St. Paul's, but
at Lambeth; but the result was not more hurtful to him than on the
previous occasion. Gaunt was no longer supreme in the court, but the
reformer had now another friend there. The Dowager-Princess of Wales,
the king's mother, at this time possessed much influence, and she used
it on this occasion on Wiclif's behalf. The Londoners, too, appear to
have been now as much opposed to the bishops as they had before been to
Wiclif's friends. They attended, and, by their clamours against the
proceedings, created much confusion; and before the tumult could be
appeased, a messenger from the princess commanded the bishops to abstain
from any decision injurious to Wiclif; they, as Walsingham indignantly
says, "became soft as oil in their speech; so were they stricken with
fear, you would think them as a man who hears not, or one in whose mouth
are no reproofs." Before this convocation was held Wiclif had circulated
an answer to the papal "conclusions;" which, somewhat altered or
corrected, he put in at his trial. These modifications, and his answers
or explanations to the "conclusions," have been declared to be "quibbles
and evasions unworthy of a sensible or of an honest man." But the proofs
adduced by the reverend historian, especially as coming from one so
learned in the theology of the schools, are strangely inadequate to
sustain so grave a charge. The explanations are undoubtedly strained,
but the conclusions are strained too, and the whole bears the appearance
of a scholastic wrangle. It would not be worth while to examine these
answers here, could we afford the space, but we must repeat that to us
they appear anything but evasive, although not consistent with our modes
of reasoning. It does not appear that Wiclif had really expressed his
opinions in anything like the form they bear in the pope's mandate; they
were "conclusions" gathered out of his writings. In judging Wiclif in
this matter it should not be forgotten either, that the only authority
for the paper ascribed to him is Walsingham, who was most unfriendly to
him, and it may be not literally exact. Wiclif concludes his paper by
assuring his judges that he is a true son of the church; that he has not
advanced any opinions without warrant from Scripture and the writings of
holy doctors, as he is ready to show; but that he is most willing to
retract whatever can be proved to be erroneous. The answers were
admitted as sufficient by the bishops, and he was dismissed with a
warning to avoid in future such questionable matters. By Wiclif the
result was considered as a triumph, and the warning disregarded. He was
immediately afterwards attacked on the subject of the papal
infallibility by an anonymous writer whom he calls a "Motley divine"
(Mixtus theologus), who appears to have been not a little startled by
Wiclif's daring, and in consequence to have thought it necessary to
reassert the authority and infallibility of the pontiff in the strongest
terms. Among other things he declared, according to Wiclif, that as the
pope could not commit mortal sin, whatever he ordained must be just. To
which Wiclif replied, that if so, he might remove any book from the
Scripture, and introduce any novelty in its place; and thus, making the
very Scripture heresy, establish heresy in its stead. From this Wiclif
advances to more direct and stronger attacks on a power so enormous and
so capable of abuse, and urges the more influential classes to cast off
so intolerable a thraldom. He attacks with equal vigour his other
positions, but the full swell of his indignation is reserved for the
impious declaration that the pope and clergy could as fully absolve from
sin as the Almighty himself. It is evident that he had now arrived at
the point when he was prepared to oppose to the utmost the papal power.
That this power would soon have been brought to bear upon him, if
Gregory had lived, is not to be doubted, but he was saved by the
breaking out of the "Great Schism of the West." Pope Gregory XI. died on
the 27th of March, 1378, and while the Italian cardinals elected and
obeyed Urban VI., those attached to the interests of France chose
Clement VII. Urban was acknowledged in England, but he had too much
employment at home to prosecute an English heretic. For the next three
years, therefore, Wiclif was left undisturbed. He spent most part of
this time at Lutterworth, diligently pursuing the course he had already
commenced.
The comparative tranquillity in which he now found himself, he left not
unimproved. He had now resolutely bent the whole of his energy against
the doctrine of the pope's infallibility, and he gladly seized the
opportunity of exhibiting the absurdity of the tenet, afforded by the
rival claimants. His 'Schism of the Popes,' which he now published, is a
keen piece of controversy, and from the circumstances must have been
very effective at the time it was produced. All reserve is now cast
aside in his attacks on the rival heads of the church, whom he contrasts
with Christ and his apostles, and assimilates to Simon Magus.
From this time it may be said that he left the consideration of the
political bearings of the papal usurpation, and directed his attention
to the religious aspect of it. Henceforth, indeed, his writings and
teaching were almost entirely religious. Very much of the confusion
respecting Wiclif's opinions at various periods, and the support they
gained for him from different parties of influence in the country, has
arisen from inattention to the ground on which he received that support.
The commencement of his career was signalized by his attacks on the
mendicant friars. At that time they were opposed, as they had long been,
as interlopers by the secular clergy, and Wiclif was hailed as a
powerful champion by them and by the University of Oxford. Their
admiration of him arose from _party_ considerations, though his dislike
to the friars rested on a far wider basis. During the greater part of
the reign of Edward III. the king and the parliament were engaged in a
determined struggle against papal encroachments. It was prolonged
through the whole of his reign and the greater part of the reign of his
successor, before it terminated successfully for the English monarch.
When so learned and able a clergyman stepped forth as an opponent of the
pope's supremacy, it is not surprising that he should be received with
welcome, and be firmly upheld by the sovereign and his advisers, so long
as he confined himself to the _political_ bearings of the subject; and
if he exceeded those limits a little, it would not in such an age be
taken much heed of. Again, when with a more earnest zeal he set his face
against the corruptions of the clergy of all ranks--when he denounced as
hirelings such as sought after "filthy lucre" and neglected the
spiritual advancement of their charges, and pronounced them the most
desperate of sinners, backed as his animadversions were by the purity
and even austerity of his own life--he would be sure to obtain the
suffrages of serious men of all classes, who would bitterly regret the
contradiction between the lives and the profession of such priests. Nor
is this an imaginary sketch. It appears to have been exactly the course
of events in his life and teaching. His doctrinal views were either not
propagated, or they did not attract much attention till the latter part
of his life. Then a devoted band rallied round him, and, when those who
had used him for temporary purposes had cast him off, they clung to him
with an ever growing intensity of affection.
Nothing is more manifest in tracing his opinions than the increasing
attention he gave to the Scriptures. In his last years they were the
test to which he brought every doctrine, almost every opinion, or matter
of practice. As his regard for the Scriptures increased, his anxiety to
impart a knowledge of them to others increased also. At this time, of
course, the version used in the church was the Latin Vulgate. There had
been at various times portions of the Old and New Testament translated
into the Saxon and English languages, but no complete translation had,
it is probable, been made. Wiclif resolved to enable his countrymen to
read the Word of God in their own tongue--a noble resolution nobly
performed. Aided no doubt by some of the learned disciples who now
surrounded him, he diligently commenced his undertaking, and in due time
completed it. Before the invention of printing the publication of a book
was a very different matter to what it now is. The only mode of making
known the contents of a work then was by transcribing and circulating
many copies, and this was the way in which Wiclif published his Bible.
That it was diligently circulated there can be no question--from the
number of copies of it remaining; and from the certainty that he would
be anxious to diffuse as widely as possible the authority to which he so
constantly appealed, and on the acknowledgment of which the acceptance
of his views depended.[22]
Wiclif's version was not made from the original Greek, but from the
Vulgate, of which it is a faithful representation. The language is firm
and nervous, and was no doubt perfectly intelligible at the time it was
written. But nearly five centuries have passed since then, and many
changes have taken place in our English. There is however, even now,
little difficulty in understanding it, if the uncouth spelling be
disregarded, and it is read with the pronunciation of the northern
counties, as we have ascertained in several trials with different
listeners. The New Testament has been three times printed: by the Rev.
J. Lewis, the author of his Life, in 1731; by the Rev. H. H. Baber, in
1810; and again, and more carefully, in Bagster's 'Hexapla,' 1841. This
last work contains the six principal English translations from that of
Wiclif to the Authorized Version; and it is interesting to trace the
influence of Wiclif's on all the succeeding versions. Most who examine
them in this work, as they stand side by side, will agree with Professor
Blunt, that "on comparing it with the authorized version of King James,
it will be found that the latter was hammered on Wiclif's anvil."
Besides its vast importance in a higher point of view, there can be no
doubt that Wiclif's translation of the Scriptures did very much to fix
our language. Except Mandeville's 'Travels,' it was the first English
prose work of any importance. Wiclif's Old Testament has never been
printed--it has been spoken of for some years as in preparation for
printing at the Clarendon Press.
But the translation and publication of the Scriptures was not the only
object that occupied his thoughts. Among the plans he had devised for
spreading abroad his views of truth, was the formation of a band of what
he termed his "poor priests." Wiclif had assumed a plain coarse garb,
and they were clad like him. Their duty was to go about instructing the
poor in the truths of the Gospel. They were to be unencumbered by
worldly goods themselves, and they were not to acquire wealth for their
order. They had no benefices, and the reasons for it he explained in a
tract he promulgated, entitled 'Why poor priests have no benefices.' His
principal reasons are--1. The fear of simony. 2. The danger of
misspending the money of the poor. 3. The hope of doing more good by
moving from place to place. Allowing for the difference of the times,
they bear a strong resemblance to John Wesley's original "preachers;"
and they were as effective. Wiclif was untiring in his labours; the
amount of tracts he wrote is surprising, even allowing that he was much
assisted in preparing them. His position and employment at this time
were very similar to Luther's the years preceding his death. His pen was
ever employed, and ever ready for fresh employment. But, important as
were his own labours, it is probable that his poor priests did even more
to diffuse his doctrines; and how widely they were diffused may be
guessed from Knighton's angry assertion--taken as it may and ought to be
with considerable abatement--that "his followers so increased that they
everywhere filled the compass of the kingdom; insomuch that a man could
not meet two people on the road, but one of them was a disciple of
Wiclif." This, he affirms, arose from "the respect they always pretended
for what they call 'Goddis Law,' to which they profess themselves to be
in their opinions and actions strictly conformable."
While thus zealously employed in furthering the great purpose to which
he had devoted himself, his life was an example of what he upheld as the
character of a true priest. His conduct was unblameable, his attention
to his pastoral duties unremitting. Three hundred of his sermons are
said to be still remaining, and they fully prove his energy, fervour,
and devotion--_he_ was no idle, careless priest. Like Milton--who in
many respects greatly resembled him--he believed that he who attempts a
great work must live a life worthy of his undertaking; and the whole of
his own conduct, and the judgment he formed of others, were moulded by
his exalted notion of the dignity of the priestly office.[23]
So long as Wiclif confined himself, in his attacks on the popes and
their agents, to their political claims or their immoral conduct, he met
with the support of the secular authorities; and also of the people,
whose dislike of the papal supremacy was a national far more than a
religious feeling. They could not endure that an Italian or a French
priest should domineer over their country and their king, and they
little liked that his representatives, though Englishmen, should usurp
such power. They would not have a priest to rule over them. When Wiclif
preached against the doctrinal errors of the popes, he was regarded with
suspicion by those who had before most strenuously supported him, and
soon indeed encountered from them strong opposition. In 1381 he
published at Oxford his twelve "conclusions," in which he appears for
the first time to have questioned the doctrine of transubstantiation.
His view of it much resembled that of Luther, and which is still that of
the Lutheran church. The Chancellor of Oxford immediately summoned a
meeting of twelve doctors, who condemned the "conclusions" as heterodox,
and adjudged that all who should teach them in the University should be
placed under the ban of the greater excommunication, suspended from all
their offices and privileges, and imprisoned--and, that the chance of
such errors spreading might be at once cut off, they condemned those who
listened to them to a similar punishment. Wiclif was lecturing in the
school of the Augustinians when their sentence was communicated to him.
He appealed from them to the civil magistrate. Until the parliament, to
which the matter was now referred, should meet, which was not till the
next year, it is probable that Wiclif abstained from teaching his views
at the University, but he developed them more clearly and fully in some
tracts which he now published: one of them, entitled the 'Wicket,' has
been three or four times printed, and is a powerful piece of
controversial writing.