 |
 |
| Back | Home |
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of
Religious Knowledge, Philip Schaff Vol. XII:
Abridged and edited for
greater clarity. |
|
JOHN
WICLIF (WYCLIFFE) (c. 1324–1384)
English reformer; Bible translator
John Wyclif, the most prominent of
the Reformers before the Reformation, was born at Ipreswell (the modern
Hipswell), Yorkshire, England, perhaps between 1320 rind 1330; he died at
Lutterworth Dec. 31, 1384. His eminence rests not only upon his works, which
still have influence, but upon his ecclesiastical activities. Although the
Reformers of the sixteenth century knew and valued his life and works, his fame
has grown largely in modern times, which have brought his productions into more
complete knowledge, these in former times having suffered eclipse and long
rested unknown. There are still many riddle concerning his life and activities,
and many events occurring during his academic period are still obscure; but
enough is known to secure his position among the men who foreshadowed the
Reformation, together with the reasons for this preeminence.
Wyclif seems to be the best form of the
name. The family from which he came was of early Saxon origin, long settled in
Yorkshire; it became extinct in the first half of the nineteenth century,
remaining true to the Church of Rome until the end. In his day the family was a
large one, and covered a considerable territory, and its principal seat was
Wyclifl'e-on-Tees, of which lpreswell was an outlying hamlet. His year of birth
is not noted in contemporary sources, and the data afforded by his writings are
so general that no secure conclusions can be based upon them. Yet they seem to
indicate that his birth year is to be reckoned rather before 1320 than after.
His childhood and youth fall in a period when England was winning increasing
regard abroad, and when the ecclesiastical-political position of the land was
marked by a leadership in influence which did not seem likely to diminish.
Wyclif probably received his early training near his home.
No
reports are left to determine when he first went to Oxford, with which he was
so closely connected till the end of his life. While it is certain that young
boys were enrolled at the universities of the Middle Ages, such cases were
exceptions. The normal curriculum of the universities of the period is well
known, and consequently the university course of Wyclif is also approximately
known. The time when he was at Oxford was about 1345, and then a series of
shining names was adding glory to the fame of the university - such as those of
Roger Bacon, Robert Grosseteste, Thomas Bradwardine, William of Occum, and
Richard Fitzralph. To the writings of Occam, Wyclif owed much; his interest in
natural science and mathematics was considerable, but he applied himself most
diligently to the study of theology and of ecclesiastical law, and also early
won recognition in philosophy. Even his opponents acknowledged the keenness of
his dialectic. His writings prove him to have been well grounded in Roman law
and in that of his own country, as well as in native history -- in this last
branch he set great store by the Polychronicon of Ranulf Higden. In the
university there was no lack of sharp friction both political and scientific.
As in other universities of the period, the students were enrolled in
"nations"; in Oxford there were two of these -- the northern or "Borealcs" and
southern or "Australes," each of which had its procurator chosen by the corps
or nation. Wyclif belonged to the former of these, in which the prevailing
tendency was to seek a reduction in Papal power(anticurial), while the other
was curial in its preferences. Not less sharp was the separation over
Nominalism and Realism. Wyclif was a Realist. In the midst of these
controversies the university studies of Wyclif were pursued. A family whose
seat was in the neighborhood of Wyclif's home, Bernard Castle -- had founded in
Oxford the college named after itself ---Balliol. To this Wyclif belonged,
first as scholar, then as master, and had finally attained to the headship not
later than 1360.
When
he received from the college the presentation in 1361 of the parish of
Fylingham in Lincolnshire, he had to give up the leadership of the college,
though he received the courtesy of permission to live at Oxford; original
testimony indicates that he had rooms in the buildings of Queen's College. His
university advancement followed the usual course. While as baccalaureate he
busied himself with natural science and mathematics, as master he had the right
to read in philosophy, and in this he soon gained repute. But of marked
significance was his zeal in Bible study, which he pursued after becoming
bachelor in theology. His fidelity, truth, and diligence led Simon Islip,
archbishop of Canterbury, to place him at the head of Canterbury Hall in
Decernber, 1365, in which twelve young men were preparing for the priesthood.
Islip had designed the foundation especially for secular clergy; but when he
died in April of 1366, his successor Simon Langham, a man of monastic training,
turned the leadership of the college over to a monk. Though Wyclif appealed to
Rome, the issue was unfavorable to him. This case would hardly have been
thought of again had not contemporaries of Wyclif, such as William Woodford,
erroneously seen in it the genesis of his later energetic assaults upon Rome
and monasticism. Between 1366 and 1372 he became a doctor of theology; as such
he had the right to lecture upon systematic divinity, which right he zealously
exercised. But it is an error to trace to these lectures the origin of his
Summa, which was due to other stimuli. In 1368 he gave up his living at
Fylingham and took over the rectory of Ludgershall in Buckinghamshire, not far
from Oxford, and this was a position which enabled him to retain his connection
with the university. Six years later (1374) he received the crown living of
Lutterworth in Leicestershire, which he retained till his death. He had already
resigned a prebend in Westbury because it was contrary to his convictions to
hold command of more positions than those in which he could personally exercise
the cure of souls.
At Oxford he developed a comprehensive
activity as academic teacher; there he penned his first reformatory writings
and also preached with success. But it was not in these fields that Wyclif
gained his position in history; this came from his activities in ecclesiastical
politics, in which he engaged about the middle of the seventies, when also his
reformatory operations began. In 1374 he was among the English delegates at a
peace congress at Bruges. It has been the general opinion that he was given
this honorable position in consequence of his spirited and naturally patriotic
behavior with which in the year 1366 he sought the interests of his country as
against the demands of the papacy. It seems as though he had already a
distinguished place as a patriot and reformer; and it suggests the answer to
the question how be came to his reformatory ideas. There have been many
erroneous ideas as to this, particularly with reference to Wyclif's relation to
earlier reform movements in the Church. Little can be said in favor of a
connection with the Waldenses, whose activities hardly reached England. [Even
if it were certain that older evangelical parties did not exist is England
before the time of Wyclif, he might easily have been influenced by continental
evangelicals who abounded, whose views were combated by men the works of whom
were known to the English reformers. But it seems incredible that continental
parties, who were sorely persecuted in the various countries across the channel
from England should not have found their way to a land where the inquisition
was not at work. Besides, it is highly probable that the older type of doctrine
and practice represented by the Iro-Scottish Christians of the pre-Roman time
persisted till the time of Wyclif and reappeared in Lollardisrn. A.H.N. ]
Rather the root of the Wyclifite reformatory movement must be traced to his
Bible study and especially to the ecclesiastical-political lawmaking of his
times and of those immediately preceding him, He was well acquainted with the
tendencies of the ecclesiastical politics to which England owed the honorable
position which she possessed in the fourteenth century. He had given study to
the proceedings of Edward I. (1272-1306), England's most popular king, and had
not only attributed to them the basis of parliamentary opposition to papal
usurpations, but had found a model therein for methods of procedure in matters
connected with the questions of worldly possessions and the Church. Many
sentences in his book on the Church recall the institution of the commission of
1274, the activity of which prepared so much pain and sorrow for the English
clergy. He considered that the example of Edward I. should be held in mind by
the government of his time; but that with keener implements and to higher
purposes the aim should be a reformation of the entire ecclesiastical
establishment. And similar was his position with reference to the enactments
induced by the ecclesiastical politics of Edward III. (1327-76), with which he
was well acquainted, which appear fully reflected in his political tracts. His
own tendencies were in complete accord with the laws of Edward I. and his
grandson of the same name.
The Reformer's entrance upon the stage
of ecclesiastical politics is usually related to the question of feudal tribute
to which England had been rendered liable by John Lackland (1200-16), which had
remained unpaid for thirty-three years until Urban V menacingly demanded it
1365. It is related that the whole country was aroused in one patriotic mass on
account of this demand of the pope, and that parliament the next year declared
that neither King John nor any other had the right without its agreement to
subject England to any foreign power. Should the pope attempt to enforce his
claim by arms, he would be met with united resistance. It is further said that
Urban recognized the mistake he had made and dropped his claim. However sure
the pope's demand, of such a patriotic uprising, there was no talk, The tone of
the pope was, in fact, not so threatening, and it was not his intention to act
in such a fashion as to draw England into the maelstrom of politics of western
and southern Europe. It was to be expected that sharp words would be heard in
England, and this because of the close relations of the papacy with the
hereditary foe of England, the French kingdom. It is asserted also that on this
occasion Wyclif was prominent, that he served as theological counsel to the
government and composed a polemical tract dealing with the tribute, and
defended an unnamed monk over against the conduct of the government and
parliament. This would place the entrance of Wyclif into politics about
1365-66. But the tract upon which this conclusion is based, which is known only
from an incomplete and incorrect reprint by Lewis, takes its occasion from
circumstances which arose a century later. Wyclif's earlier activities in this
direction were exercised in the narrower circle at Oxford, and his more
important participation began with the peace congress at Bruges. There in 1374
negotiations were carried on between France and England respecting peace, while
at the same time commissioners from England dealt with papal delegates
respecting the doing away with ecclesiastical annoyances. Wyclif was among
those who served in these affairs in consequence of a decree dated July 26,
1374. If it be claimed that his appointment in this case was due to his earlier
stand against the demands of the papacy, the claim overlooks the fact that the
choice of a harsh opponent of the Avignon system would rather have broken up
than have furthered the peace negotiations, and, once more, that he was
designated purely as a theologian, and so considered himself, since a noted
Scripture scholar was required alongside of those learned in civil and canon
law. There was no necessity here for a man of renown, still less of a pure
advocate of state interests. Illustrative of this is the fact that a
predecessor in a like case was John Owtred, a monk, who yet formulated the
statement that St. Peter had united in his hands spiritual and temporal power -
just the opposite of what Wyclif taught. In the days of the mission to Bruges
this monk still belonged in the circle of friends of Wyclif. It will therefore
be seen that the construction hitherto placed on Wyclif's part in this mission
was altogether too exalted, since he took by no means a leading Part.
As yet the Reformer could be regarded
by papal partizans as trustworthy, for his opposition to the ruling conduct of
the Church might have escaped notice. Testimony to this comes from a later but
well informed source that found it difficult to recognize him as a heretic. The
controversies in which men engaged at Oxford were rather philosophical than
purely theological or ecclesiastical-political, and the method of discussion
was academic and scholastic. Walden shows the kind of men with whom Wyclif
dealt, though very few writings are preserved which exhibit the method. There
may be mentioned the tilt with the Carmelite monk John Kyningham over
theological questions, or ecclesiastical political ones. Wyclif's contest with
John Owtred and William Wynham (or Wyrinham) were formerly unknown, as were the
earlier ones with his opponent William Wadeford. When it is recalled that it
was once the task of Owtred to defend the political interests of England
against the demands of Avignon, one would more likely see him in agreement with
Wyclif than in opposition. But unanimity of sentiment between them was by no
means complete. Owtred believed that anyone who believed that a temporal power
might deprive a priest, even an unrighteous one, of his government revenues,
sinned; Wyclif regarded that priest a sinner who incited the pope to
excommunicate laymen when these had deprived wicked clergy of these revenues,
and enunciated the dictum that a man in a condition of sin had no claim upon
government. Light upon another opponent of Wyclif has appeared only in recent
investigations. This was the monk William Wynham of St. Albans, where the
anti-Wyclifite trend was considerable. Wyclif complained bitterly of this
Benedictine and professor of theology at Oxford as the one who dragged into the
street the controversies which had hitherto been confined to the academic
arena. But public notice of this was bound to come in any event, since the
controversies were related in their fundamentals to the opposition which found
expression in parliament against the Curia. Wyclif himself narrates how under
the deep impression made upon him by his Biblical studies he came to the
conclusion that there was a great contrast between what the Church was and what
it ought to be, and saw the necessity for reforming it. His reform ideas stress
particularly the perniciousness of the temporal rule of the clergy and its
incompatibility with the teaching of Christ and the apostles, and they make
note of the tendencies which were evident in the measures of the "Good
Parliament" (1376-77). A long bill was introduced, with 140 headings, in which
were stated the grievances caused by the aggressions of the Curia; all
reservations and commissions were to be done away, the exportation of money was
forbidden, and the foreign collectors were to be removed.
It was in this period that Wyclif came
significantly to the fore. He was found among those to whom the thought of the
secularization of the ecclesiastical properties in England was welcome. He had
as patron no less a rnan than John, duke of Lancaster. He was no longer
satisfied with his chair as the means of propagating his ideas, and soon after
his return from Bruges he began to express them in tracts and larger works--his
great work, the Summa theologioe, was written in support of them. In the very
first book, concerned with the government of God and the ten commandments, he
assailed the temporal rule of the clergy---in temporal things the king is above
the pope, and the collection of monies to be paid to the Pope and indulgences
thereby making profit out of sacred things, is sin. But his entrance into the
politics of the day was made in his great work De civili domino. Here
were precipitated those ideas by which the good parliament was governed---which
involved the renunciation by the Church of temporal dominion. From his
formulation the items of the "long bill" appear to have been derived. In this
book there were found the strongest outcries against the entire Avignon system
with its commissions, its exactions, its squandering of charities by unfit
priests, and the like. To change all this is the business of the State. If the
clergy misuses ecclesiastical property, it must be taken away; if the king does
not do this, he is remiss in his duty. The work contains eighteen strongly
stated theses, the point of which was apposition to the governing methods of
the rule of the Church and the straightening out of its temporal possessions.
Wyclif had set these ideas forth before his students at Oxford in the autumn
and winter of 1376, after he had become involved in controversy with such men
as William Wadeford, William Wynham, and others. While he would at first have
preferred to have these matters restricted in discussion to the classroom, he
soon wanted them proclaimed from the very roofs and would have temporal and
spiritual lords take note of them. While the last made earnest assault upon him
and sought to have him put under ecclesiastical censure, he recommended himself
to the former by his mighty attacks upon the worldly possessions of the clergy.
This period began a stage of unusual literary fruitfulness which ended only
with his death.
Wyclif was possessed with the great
desire to see each of his ideas actualized. The fundamental was that the Church
should be poor, as it was in the days of the apostles. He had not yet broken
with the mendicant friars, and from these the duke of Lancaster chose Wyclif's
defenders. While the Reformer offered reassurances, in the explanations which
he necessarily gave later, that it was not his purpose to incite temporal lords
to confiscation of the property of the Church, the real tendencies of the
proposition. remained unconcealed. This was evident as the result of the same
doctrines in Bohemia--that land which was richest in ecclesiastical
foundations--where in a very brief time the entire church estate was taken over
and a most remarkable revolution brought about in the relations of temporal
holdings. Since such views existed as the Curia charged upon him and its
condemnation implies, they must have been strongly emphasized. It was
altogether concordant with the plans of Lancaster to have a personality like
that of Wyclif on his side. Especially in London the Reformer's views won
support; numerous partizans of the nobility attached themselves to him, and the
lower orders gladly heard his sermons. He preached in various churches of the
city, and all London rang with his praises. But he found adversaries. The first
to oppose his theses were monks of those orders which held possessions, to whom
his theories were dangerous. The University of Oxford and the episcopate later
came under blame from the Curia, which charged them with so neglecting their
duty that the breaking of the evil fiend into the English sheepfold could be
noticed in Rome before it was in England. And yet the bishops were not
inactive, as though they would prefer to deal with the case at home. Wyclif was
summoned before William Courtenay, bishop of London, on Feb. 19, 1377, in
order, as one source ironically says, "to explain the wonderful things which
had streamed forth from his mouth." What the exact charges were is not known,
as the matter did not get so far as a definite examination. Lancaster, the earl
marshal Henry Percy, and a number of other friends accompanied Wyclif, and four
begging friars were his advocates, who were whole-hearted in a matter which
affected the question of the ideal of poverty. A great crowd gathered at the
church, and at the entrance of the party animosities began to show, especially
in a wrathy exchange of words between the imperious bishop and the Reformer's
protectors. Lancaster declared that he would humble the pride of the English
clergy and their partizans, even if they had sprung from noble parents (Bishop
Courtenay was of high birth [his father was earl of Devonshire]--doubtless
hinting at the intent to secularize the possessions of the Church. The assembly
broke up and the lords departed with their protege.
The
greater part of the English clergy regarded this encounter with great
irritation, and attacks upon Wyclif now began with vehemence, which found their
echo in the second and third books of his work dealing with civil government.
These books carry a sharp polemic, which can hardly be a cause of wonder when
it is recaIIed that his opponents charged Wyclif with blasphemy and scandal,
pride and heresy. It is concluded from his performances that he had openly
advised the secularization of English church property, and the dominant parties
shared with him the conviction that the monks could better be held in check if
they were relieved from the care of secular affairs. The bitterness occasioned
by this advice will be the better understood when it is remembered that at that
time the papacy was engaged in its war with the Florentines and was in great
straits. The demand of the Minorites that the Church should live in poverty as
it did in the days of the apostles was not pleasing in such a crisis. It was
under these conditions that Gregory XI., who in January, 1377, had gone from
Avignon to Rome, sent on May 22 five copies of his bull against Wyclif,
despatching one to the archbishop of Canterbury, and the others to the bishop
of London, Edward III., the chancellor, and the university; among the
enclosures were eighteen theses of his, which were denounced as erroneous and
dangerous to Church and State. The position may well be taken that the
reformatory activities of Wyclif began here, since all the great works,
especially his Summa theologioe, stand in a more or less close
connection with the condemnation of his eighteen theses, while the entire
literary energies of his later years rest upon this foundation. The aim of his
opponents to make him out a revolutionary in politics, failed. Indeed the
situation in England resulted rather in damage to them; for on June 21, 1377,
Edward III, died, and his inglorious end was a sad contrast to the brilliant
days of Crecy and Maupertuis. His successor was Richard II., who was under the
influence of Lancaster, the protector of the Reformer. So it resulted that. the
bull against Wyclif, although dated May 22, 1377, did not become public till
Dec. 18. Moreover parliament, which met in October, carne into sharp conflict
with the Curia. Among the propositions which Wyclif, at the direction of the
government, worked out for parliament was one which speaks out with
distinctness against the exhaustion of England by the Curia.
When the censure of his theses became
known in England, Wyclif sought to gain the favor of the public. He first laid
his theses before parliament, and then made them public in a tract,
accompanying them, however, with explanations, limitations, and here and there
with interpretations After the session of parliament was over, in accordance
with papal directions he was called upon to make answer, and in March, I378, he
appeared at the episcopal palace at Lambeth to defend himself. The
preliminaries were not yet finished when a noisy mob gathered with the purpose
of delivering him; the queen mother also took up his cause. The bishops, who
were of two minds, satisfied themselves with forbidding the Reformer to speak
further on the subjects in controversy. At Oxford the vice-chancellor,
following papal directions, had confined the Reformer for some time in Black
Hall, from which Wyclif was released at the threats of his friends; not long
after the vice-chancellor was himself confined in the same place because of
this indignity to Wyclif. After this incident, Wyclif claimed that lengthy
imprisonment related to excommunication, should be under the auspices of the
state, not the clergy. Thus he wrote his De incarcerandis fedelibus,
in which he demanded that it should be legal for the excommunicated to appeal
to the king and his council against the excommunication; in this writing he
laid open the entire case and in such a way that it came within the ken of the
laity. He wrote his thirty-three conclusions, this time not merely in Latin but
also in English. The masses of the people, a part of the nobility, and his
former protector, the duke of Lancaster, rallied to his side. Before any
further steps could be taken at Rome in the affair, Gregory XI. died (1378).
But Wyclif was already engaged upon one of his most important works, that
dealing with the truth of Holy Scripture. Indeed, the sharper the strife
became, the more did Wyclif have recourse to Scripture as the basis of all
Christian doctrinal opinion, and expressly proved this to be the only norm for
Christian faith. To drag this basis from beneath him was the thankless task of
his opponents; it was in order to refute them that he wrote the book in which
he showed that Holy Scripture contains all truth and, being from God, is the
only authority. He did not fail in this book to refer to the conditions under
which the condemnation of his eighteen theses was brought about; and the same
may be said of his books dealing with the Church, the office of king, and the
power of the pope-all completed within the short space of two years {1378-79).
Since all the world, he taught, understands by "the Church" the pope and the
cardinals (vrhom one must obey in order to obtain salvation), it is necessary
to make clear the distinction between what the Church is and what the common
man supposes it to be. The Church is the totality of those who are predestined
to blessedness. It includes the Church triumphant in heaven, those who are in
purgatory, and the Church militant or men on earth. No one who is eternally
Iost has part in it. There is but one universal Church, and outside of it there
is no salvation. Its head is Christ. No pope may say that he is the head, for
he can not say that he is elect or even a member of the Church.
It would be a great mistake to assume
that Wyclif's doctrine of the Church --which made so great an impression upon
Huss, who adopted it literally and fully, was occasioned by the great schism
(1378-1429). In its principles that doctrine was already embodied in his De
civili dominio. How closely the contents of the book dealing with the
Church are connected with the decision respecting the eighteen theses appears
in every chapter. The attacks upon Gregory XI. grow ever more unsparing and in
places are extreme. His stand with respect to the ideal of poverty became
continually firmer, as well as his position with regard to the temporal rule of
the clergy. Closely related to this attitude was his book De officio
regis, the content of which was foreshadowed in his thirty-three
conclusions: One should be instructed with reference to the obligations which
lie in regard to the kingdom in order that he may know how the two powers, the
royal and the ecclesiastical, may support each other in harmony in the body
corporate of the Church. The royal power, Wyclif taught, is consecrated through
the testimony of Holy Scripture and the Fathers. Christ and the apostles
rendered tribute to the emperor. The king is the servant of God. Sinful indeed
is he who opposes the power of the king, since this is derived immediately from
God. For this reason Paul appealed to Caesar, and subjects, above all the
clergy who hold under the king, should pay him dutiful tribute. To this end
temporal power offers protection, justice, and in its earliest times gave
account for its employment. The honors which attach to temporal power hark back
to the king; those which belong to precedence in the priestly office, to the
priest. In what does the royal office consist? The king must apply his power
with wisdom, his laws are to be in unison with those of God. From God laws
derive their authority, including those which royalty has over against the
clergy. If one of the clergy neglects his office, he is a traitor to the king
who calls him to answer for it. It follows from this that the king has an
"evangelical" control. Every one in the service of the Church must have regard
to the laws of the State. In confirmation of this fundamental principle the
archbishops in England make sworn submission to the king and in view of that
receive their temporalities. This is a relation based upon the law. The king
is, moreover, to protect his poor vassals against every damage which might
happen to their possessions; in case the clergy through their misuse of the
temporalities in this respect cause injury, the king must afford protection.
When the king turns over temporalities to the clergy, he places them under his
jurisdiction, from which later pronouncements of the popes can not release
them, If the clergy relies on papal pronouncements, it must be subjected to
obedience to the king.
It appears thus that this book, like those that
preceded and followed, had to do with the reform of the Church in head and
members, in which the temporal arm was to have an influential part. Especially
interesting is the teaching which Wyclif addressed to the king on the
protection of his theologians, i.e., the theological faculty, whose duty it is
to advise king and people in theological concerns. By this was not meant
theology in its modern sense, but rather knowledge of the Bible. Since the laws
of the land are to be in agreement with Scripture, knowledge of theology is
necessary to the strengthening of the kingdom; it is a consequence of this that
the king has theologians in his entourage to stand at his side as he exercises
power. The position of these is that of the prophets under the old covenant. It
is their duty to explain Scripture according to the rule of reason and in
conformity with the witness of the saints; also to proclaim the law of the king
and to protect his welfare and that of his kingdom.
In all the books and tracts of Wyclif's
last six years one may discover an immense and almost unreviewable mass of
attacks upon the papacy and the entire hierarchy of his times. Each successive
year they focus more and more, and at the last pope and Antichrist seem to him
practically equivalent conceptions. Yet there are to be found in his writings
pages which are moderate in tone in dealing with pope and papacy; in fact,
Lechler's opinion that in Wyclif's relations with the papacy three steps of
development are to be discovered finds confirmation both among German and
English scholars. The first step, which carried him to the outbreak of the
schism, involves a moderate recognition of the papal primacy; the second, which
carried him to 1381, is marked by an estrangement from the papacy; and the
third shows him in sharp contest. However, Wyclif reached no valuation of the
papacy before the outbreak of the schism different from his later appraisal. If
in his last years in his keen tracts he identified the papacy with
antichristianity, the dispensability of this papacy was strong in his mind
before the schism. If it. be remarked that it was this very man who labored to
bring about the recognition of Urban VI. (1378-1389), this fact appears to
contradict his former attitude and to demand an explanation. In fact, Wyclif's
influence was never greater than at the moment when pope and anti-pope sent
their ambassadors to England in order to gain recognition for themselves. In
the presence of the ambassadors he delivered an opinion before parliament that
showed, in an important ecclesiastical political question, viz., the matter of
the right of asylum in Westminster abbey, a position that was to the liking of
the State. How Wyclif came to be active in the interest of Urban is seen in
passages in his latest writings, in which he expressed himself in regard to the
papacy in a favorable sense. On the other hand he says explicitly that it is
not necessary to go either to Rome or to Avignon in order to seek a decision
from the pope. Every place is sufficient for the penitent, since the triune God
is everywhere. Our pope is Christ. Here Wyclif has broken with the papacy,
though only with it as it exists. If one thoroughly examines the situation, it
seems clear that he was an opponent of that papacy which had developed since
the donation of Constantine. He taught that the Church can continue to exist
even though it have no visible leader; but as on earth there is no order unless
there be a higher unity, there can be no damage when the Church possesses a
leader of the right kind. But what qualities must such a leader possess? How
does he appear with his pretensions to temporal power? In a word--to make firm
the distinction between what the pope should be, in case one is necessary, and
the pope as he appeared in Wyclif's day was the purpose of his book on the
power of the pope. The Church militant, Wyclif taught, needs a head; but such a
head is not the one whom the cardinals choose but 'one whom God gives the
Church. Such a one is of the elect. The elector [cardinal] can then only make
some one a pope if the choice relates to one who is elect [of God]. But that is
not always the case. It may be that the elector is himself not, predestinated
and chooses one who is in the same case--a veritable Antichrist. One must
regard as a true pope one who in teaching and life most nearly follows Christ
and Peter, whose rule is not of this world. These are the teachings and
fundamentals of Wyclif before the outbreak of the schism; but their expression
became sharper in the later period. The point is that he distinguished the true
from the false papacy. Since all signs indicated that Urban VI. was a reforming
and consequently a "true" pope, the enthusiasm which Wyclif manifested for him
is easily understood as it comes to expression in his work on the Church. These
views concerning the Church and church government are those which are brought
forward also in the last books of his Summa, "De simonia, de apostasia, de
blashemia." To be sure, the battle which had been begun over the theses
was lost to sight in the significance attaching to the more vehement one that
he waged against the monastic orders when he saw the hopes quenched which had
gathered around the "reform pope," and when he was withdrawn from the scene as
an ecclesiaatical politician and occupied himself exclusively with the question
of the reform of the Church.
His teachings concerning the danger
attaching to the secularizing of the Church must have put Wyclif into line with
the mendicant orders, since in 1377 Minorites were his defenders. If he took
the mendicants at that time to be an order worthy of honor, whose zeal for
poverty he praised to the skies, there appear in the last chapters of his De
civili dominio traces of a rift. Upon his making the statement that "the
case of the orders which hold property is that of them all," the mendicant
orders turned against him; and from that time Wyclif began against them a fight
which grew sharper all the time even till his death. This battle against the
imperialized papacy and its supporters the "sects," as he denominated the
orders, finds a large space not only in such of his large later works as the
Trialogus, Dialogus, Opus evangelicum, and in his sermons, but also in a series
of sharp tracts and polemical productions in Latin and English (of which those
issued in his later years have been collected as "Polemical Writings"). In
these he teaches that the Church needs no new sects; sufficient for it now is
the religion of Christ which sufficed in the first three centuries of its
existence. The monastic orders are bodies which have not the least support in
the Bible, which rejoice in vices, cause harm to Church and State, and must be
abolished together with their haughty possessions. Such teaching, particularly
as it was brought forward in sermons, had one immediate effect--in London and
other cities there was produced a serious rising of the people. The monks were
deprived of their alms and were bidden in accordance with these doctrines to
apply themselves to manual labor. These teachings had more important results
upon the orders and their possessions in Bohemia, where the instructions of the
"Evangelical master" were followed out to the letter in such a way that the
noble foundations and practically the whole of the property of the Church were
sacrificed. But the result was not as Wyclif would have had it in England---the
property fell not to the State but to the barons of the land. The scope of the
conflict in England widened; finally it involved no longer the mendicant monks
alone, but took in the entire hierarchy as it was then constituted, the
unflagging zeal of Wyclif carrying it along. An element of the contest appears
also in Wyclif's doctrine of the Lord's Supper.
To his proposition that the Bible ought
to be the common possession of all Christians was due the fact that it now was
made available for common use in the language of the people. Indeed the
national honor seemed to require this, since there were members of the nobility
who possessed the Bible in French. Wyclif set himself to the task. While it is
not possible exactly to define the part which he had in the translation--which
was on the basis of the Vulgate-there can be no doubt that the inception was
due to his initiative, and that the successful carrying out of the project was
due to his leadership. From him comes the translation of the New Testament,
which was smoother, clearer, and more readable than the rendering of the Old
Testament, which was done by his friend Nicholas of Hereford. The whole was
revised by Wyclif's younger contemporary John Purvey in 1388. Thus the mass of
the people came into possession of the Bible; but the cry of his opponents may
be heard: "The jewel of the clergy has become the toy of the laity." As a
matter of fact, not merely those who bore a proud name, but members of the
middle class possessed it, and in spite of the zeal with which the hierarchy
sought after heretical books and aimed to destroy it utterly, and in reality
did, in course of time, do away with very numerous copies, there still exist
about 150 manuscripts, complete or partial, which contain the translation in
its revised form. From this one may easily infer how widely diffused it was in
the fifteenth century. For this reason the Wyclifites in England were often
designated by their opponents as "Bible men." Just as Luther's version had
great influence upon the German language, so Wyclif's, by reason of its
clarity, beauty, and strength, worked mightily upon the English tongue.
Another task to which Wyclif gave
himself was preaching and the care of souls, himself toiling as preacher to the
people and as their teacher. Inasmuch as it was his desire to do away with the
existing hierarchy on the ground that it had no warrant in Scripture, he put in
the place of its members the "poor priests" who lived in poverty, were bound by
no vows and had received no formal consecration, and preached the Gospel to the
people. These priests as itinerant preachers spread abroad among the people the
teachings of Wyclif. Two by two they went barefoot, clad in long dark-red robes
and carrying a staff in the hand, this latter having symbolic reference to
their pastoral calling, and passed from place to place preaching the
sovereignty of God. The bull of Gregory XI. impressed upon them the name of
Lollards, intended as an shameful epithet, but it became later a name of honor.
Even in his time the "Lollards" had reached wide circles in England and
preached "God's law, without which no one could be justified."
In
the summer of 1381 Wyclif formulated his doctrine of the Lord's Supper in
twelve short sentences, and made it a duty to advocate it everywhere. Then the
English hierarchy proceeded against him. The chancellor of the University of
Oxford had certain of the declarations pronounced heretical. In the auditorium
this fact was announced to him, whereupon he declared that neither the
chancellor nor any other could change his convictions. He then appealed---not
to the pope nor to the ecclesiastical authorities of the land, but to the king.
He published his great confession upon the subject and also a second writing in
English intended for the common people. His performances grew in keenness, his
following ever became greater. His pronouncements were no longer hedged in by
the bounds of the classroom, they spread to the masses. "Every second man that
you meet," writes a contemporary, "is a Lollard." In the midst of this
commotion, which moved onward in victorious fashion, fell the great peasant
uprising (1381), called forth by the misery of the suffering masses under
epidemics, failure of harvests, and mistakes of government. Although Wyclif
disapproved of the revolt, it was laid to his charge. And yet his friend and
protector Lancaster was, among the revolutionaries, the most hated of all, and
where Wyclif's influence was the greatest the uprising found the least
semblance of support. While in general the aim of the revolt was against the
spiritual nobility, this came about because they were of the nobles, not
because they were of the Church. So prosecution was directed against Wyclif.
His old enemy, Courtenay, now archbishop of Canterbury, called (1382} an
ecclesiastical assembly of notables at London. During the consultations an
earthquake occurred (May 21); the participants were terrified and wished to
break up the assembly, but Courtenay declared the earthquake a favorable sign
which meant the purification of the earth from erroneous doctrine. Of the
twenty-four propositions, attributed to Wyclif without mentioning his name, ten
were declared heretical and fourteen erroneous. The former had reference to the
transformation in the sacrament, the latter to matters of church order and
institutions. It was forbidden from that time to hold these opinions or to
advance them in sermons or in academic discussions. All persons disregarding
this order were to be subject to prosecution. To accomplish this latter end the
help of the State was necessary; the upper house, frightened by the uprising,
was won over, but the commons rejected the bill. The king, however, had a
decree issued which permitted the arrest of those in error. The citadel of the
reformatory movement was Oxford, where were Wyclif's most active helpers; these
were laid under the ban and summoned to recant, and one of them, Nicholas of
Hereford, went to Rome to appeal. In similar fashion the poor priests were
hindered in their work. Finally the chief blow fell upon himself. On Nov. 18,
1382, a synod was opened at Oxford, before which he was summoned; he appeared,
though apparently broken in body in consequence of a stroke of paralysis, but
nevertheless strong in conviction and unbent in will. That he recanted is a
baseless slander. He still commanded the favor of the court and of parliament,
to which he addressed a memorial. He was neither excommunicated then, nor
deprived of his Living.
He returned to
Lutterworth, and thence sent out tracts--exceedingly pungent-against the monks
and Urban VI. since the latter, contrary to the hopes of Wyclif, had not turned
out to be a reforming or "true" pope, but had exerted his activities in
mischievous conflicts. The crusade in Flanders called forth the Reformer's
biting scorn, while his sermons became yet fuller voiced and dealt with the
imperfections of the Church. The literary achievemeats of his last days, such
as the Trialogus, stand at the peak of the knowledge of his day. His
last work, the Opus evangelicum, the last part of which he named in
characteristic fashion "Of Antichrist," remained uncompleted. While he
was hearing mass in the parish church on Holy Innocents' Day, Dec. 28, 1384, he
was again stricken with a stroke and died on the last day of the year. His
remains found no quiet in the grave, for in his lifetime the great Hussite
movement arose and set afire the entire West of Europe. The Council of
Constance took cognizance of Wyclif as well as of Huss and declared the former
(on May 4, 1415) a stiff-necked heretic and under the ban of the Church. It was
decreed that his books be burned and his remains be exhumed. This last did not
happen till twelve years afterward, when at the command of Martin V., they were
dug up, burned, and the ashes cast into the Swift which flows through
Lutterworth.
Significant though the work of this man was in the last decade of his
life, none of his contemporaries left a complete picture of his person, his
life, and his activities. It is most difficult to be certain of his external
appearance. While pictures representing him have been found, they are from a
later period. Those of the fourteenth century are strongly typical, and yet it
can not be said with certainty that they belong to a definite individual. One
must therefore be content with certain scattered expressions found in the
history of the trial by William Thorpe (1401). It appears that Wyclif was spare
of body, indeed of wasted appearance, and not strong physically. He was of
unblemished walk in life, says Thorpe, and was regarded affectionately by
people of rank, who often consorted with him, took down his saying, and clung
to him. "I indeed clove to none closer than to him, the wisest and most
blessed of all men whom I have ever found. From him one could learn in truth
what the Church of Christ is and how it should be ruled and led." If one
rejects this testimony as that of a partizan, one may yet site as evidence
Henry Knighton, w0ho says of him that in philosophy there was no one of his
opponents who was his equal, and in Bohemia, according to John Pribram,
"every one cleaves to the declarations of John Wyclif as though he were the
fifth Gospel"; while with a certain excessive warmth Huss wished that his
soul might be wherever that of Wyclif was found. One may not say that Wyclif
was a comfortable opponent to meet. On this account Thomas Netter of Walden
highly esteemed the old Carmelite monk John Kynyngham in that he "so bravely
offered himself to the biting speech of the heretic and to words that stung as
being without the religion of Christ." But this example of Netter is not well
chosen, since the tone of Wyclif toward Kynyngham is that of a junior toward an
elder whom one respects, and in similar fashion he handled also other
opponents. But when he turned upon them his roughest side, as for example in
his sermons or in his polemical writings and tracts, it is not to be denied
that he met the attacks with a tone that could not be styled friendly.
The basis of the reform of the Church
advocated by Wyclif rested upon the fact that he designated the Bible as the
one authority for believers, and so teachings, traditions, bulls, symbols, and
censures go by the board so far as they do not rest on Scripture. He carefully
distinguished Church and State, and relegated the former to control purely in
the spiritual realm; upon that principle are abolished the rights of inflicting
penalties and granting immunities, temporal offices and positions, temporal
power and possessions, as held by the Church. Inasmuch as he would go back to
the apostolic Church for church polity, the fall of the hierarchy and abolition
of monasticism were involved. In worship the chief element was the preaching of
the Gospel.
The Reformer lived and died in the hope that church reform
was something that was soon to be realized, "for the truth of the Gospel
may perhaps for a time by the hostility of Antichrist be obscured in silence,
but can not be entirely done away." In fact, in the period immediately
succeeding the death of the Reformer, Wyclifism made significant progress in
England; under the leadership of such men as Nicholas of Hereford, John Aston,
and John Purvey it penetrated all ranks of society, and eleven years after
Wyclif's death claimed the cooperation of parliament (1395) in its reforms. But
after Thomas Arundel became archbishop of Canterbury, and particularly after
the change in dynasty and the House of Lancaster occupied the throne (1399),
Church and State united to destroy Wyclifism. In the earliest years of the new
dynasty there issued the notorious statute, De haeretico comburendo,
which made it a duty to surrender heretical writings and sacrificed public
heretics to the flames. This was the first English statute that made heresy a
capital offense. In spite of the union of the forces of Church and State, it
was a difficult task to reestablish the unity of the faith against the Lollards
in England. The adoption of severe measures in England was doubtless stimulated
by the transformation of state affairs in Bohemia within the short space of two
decades. The measures which were especially pressed were those against the
itinerant preachers, then against the University of Oxford, where the Wyclifite
traditions remained in strength; in 1408 there issued the
"constitutions," the seventh article of which forbade the translation
of Biblical texts and books into English; finally, the attack was directed
against the advocates of Wyclifism among the nobility, whose most prominent
representative was Sir John Oldcastle, martyred by burning in 1417. Some of the
English followers of Wyclif sought a new home in Bohemia, the most prominent of
whom was Peter Payne. In general, Wyclifism survived the period of persecution,
and in the sixteenth century put forth new branches which finally met and
coalesced with the reform movement which originated in Germany.
J. LOSERETH |
|
|