German Lutheran theologian; b. at Breslau Nov. 10, 1819; d. at Halle Apr. 12, 1870. He received his education in his native city, the principal factors there being August Hahn (q.v.) in theology and Karl Julius Braniss in philosophy; he was for some years a private teacher, and for a year was editor of a conservative magazine; became a lecturer in the University of Breslau, treating logic, psychology, and history of philosophy; was made extraordinary professor of theology at Berlin in 1854, lecturing upon New-Testament exegesis, dogmatics, ethics, and symbolics; in 1861 he was called as professor to Halle, where he spent the rest of his life. He was interested in politics, and served as a member of the house of deputies, coining the somewhat famous epigram: No democrat can be a Christian and no Christian can be a democrat. The works of theological interest coming from his pen are: Abhandlung uber die Cosmogonie der heidnischen Volker vor der Zeit Jesu und der Apostel (The Hague, 1850); Geschichte des Heidenthums in Beziehung auf Religion, Wissen, Kunst, Sittlichkeit und Staatsleben (Breslau, 1851-1853), a pioneer work in the domain of comparative religion; Der deutsche Volksaberglaube der Gegenwart (Hamburg, 1860); and his principal work, Handbuch der christlichen Sittenlehre (2 vols., Berlin, 1862; Eng. transl., Christian Ethics, 2 vols., New York, 1873), in a field little cultivated by theologians at that time. In his theology Wuttke was a defender of Lutheran orthodoxy, though in his work he was not one-sided either as a Biblical or as a confessional theologian. While he did not take foremost rank as a thinker, he was regarded as one of the most philosophical and learned of the defenders of the Lutheran standards. He was interested and active in support of home and foreign missions, as well as in fortifying and supporting the work of pastors.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Evangelische Kirchenzeitung, 1870, pp. 708 sqq.;the sketch by L. Schulze in Wuttke's Sittenlehre, vol. i., pp. iii. sqq., 3d ed., Leipsic, 1874; ADB, vol. xliv.
John Wyclif, the most prominent of the Reformers before the Reformation, was born at Ipreswell (the modern Hipswell; 44 m. n.w. of York), Yorkshire, England, perhaps between 1320 and 1330; d. at Lutterworth (12 m. s. of Leicester) 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. It is true that many a riddle still proposes itself concerning the course of his life and activities, and that many events occurring during his academical period are still involved in obscurity; but at least enough is known to make secure the rank he takes 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 Wycliffe-on-Tees, of which Ipreswell was an outlying hamlet. His birth-year 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.* 1 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 in the neighborhood of 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 mere lads 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 (see UNIVERSITIES), 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 Occam (qq.v.), and Richard Fitzralph (see Appendix). 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
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 December, 1365, in which twelve young men were preparing for the priesthood. (2) 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 quite 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 he 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 (q.v.), whose activities hardly reached England. [Even if it were certain that older evangelical parties did not exist in 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 practise represented by the Iro-Scottish Christians of the pre-Roman time persisted till the time of Wyclif and reappeared in Lollardism. 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
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. in 1365, it is said, had menacingly demanded it. 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 suffered his claim to fall to the ground. However sure may be the fact of 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 so to act 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 over looks 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 (Cunningham; cf. Fasciculi Zizaniorum, p. 3, London, 1858) over theological questions (utrum Christus esset humanitas), or ecclesiastical-political ones (De dominatione civili; De dotatione ecclesiae). 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 he committed a sin who held that the temporal power might deprive a priest, even an unrighteous one, of his temporalities; Wyclif regarded that priest a sinner who incited the pope to excommunicate laymen when these had deprived wicked clergy of their temporalities, 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 (Sermones, iii. 199) 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
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 man 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 theologiae, 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 annates and indulgences is simony. But his entrance into the politics of the day was made in his great work De civili dominio. 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 opposition to the governing methods of the rule of the Church and the straightening out of its temporal possessions. [These are conveniently given in DNB, lxiii. 208-209.] 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 propositions 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. 3
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 recalled 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
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, 1378, 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. The latter then took up the usage according to which one who remained for forty-four days under excommunication came under the penalties executed by the State, and 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 (whom 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 lost 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
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 passages 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 fords 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 antipope 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 someone 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 blasphemia." To be
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 (see below).
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 (q.v.). The whole was revised by Wyclif's younger contemporary John Purvey (q.v.) 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 (q.v.), intended as an opprobrious 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 in-
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 achievements 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 down with apoplexy 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 (see HUSS, JOHN, HUSSITES) 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 (1407). 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 sayings, 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 adduce Henry Knighton, who 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.
It was long ago remarked that the philosophical-theological system of Wyclif would be understood in its fulness only when his chief Latin works were published, but that upon the basis of those already known the view was unsound which had long been current to the effect that from his entrance into public life Wyclif was in possession of a practically completed system of thought. Wyclif's first encounter with the official Church of his time was prompted by his zeal in the interests of the State, his first tracts and greater works of ecclesiastical-political content defended the privileges of the State, and from these sources there developed a strife out of which the next phases, let alone the ultimate purposes, could hardly be determined. One who studies these books in the order of their production with reference to their inner content finds therein a direct development with a strong reformatory tendency. This was not originally doctrinal but had to do with the excrescences of the hierarchical system; and when it later took up matters of dogma, as in the teaching concerning transubstantiation, the purpose in mind was the dissipation of the powers of the hierarchy and return to the original simplicity in the government of the Church. To the question whether there were in Wyclif's academical writings and disputations (none of them are extant) erroneous declarations, one may rather answer with a negative than an affrmative, in spite of the statement of Netter (His Earliest Heresies, 2). For it would have been against the diplomatic practise of the time to have sent to the peace congress at Bruges, in which the Curia had an essential part, a participant who had become known at home by heretical teaching. One may quote here the words of a man most intimately acquainted with Wyclif's works, Waddington Shirley:
"As it is in the light of subsequent events that we see the greatness of Wyclif as a reformer, so it is from the later growth of the language that we best learn to appreciate the beauty of his writing. But it was less the reformer, or the master of English prose, than the great schoolman that inspired the respect of his contemporaries; and, next to the deep influence of personal holiness and the attractive greatness of his moral character, it was to his supreme command of the weapons of scholastic discussion that he owed his astonishing influence" (in his ed. of the Fasciculi zizaniorum, p. xlvii.).
Wyclif must have earned his great repute as a philosopher even at an early date, since this was willingly or unwillingly conceded by his ecclesiastical opponents. A contemporary historian-- for Henry Knighton may be designated as such-- says of him that in philosophy he was reputed second to none, and in scholastic discipline incomparable. If this pronouncement seems hardly justified. now that Wyclif's writings are in print, it must be borne in mind that not all his philosophical works are extant, and that Knighton had not so much these in thought as the learned disputations. If Wyclif was in philosophy the superior of his contemporaries and if he had no equal in scholastic discipline, he belongs with the series of great scholastic philosophers and theologians in which England in the Middle Ages was so rich-- with Alexander of Hales, Roger Bacon, Duns Scotus, William Occam, and Bradwardine (qq.v.). There was a period in his life when he devoted himself exclusively to scholastic philosophy: "when I was still a logician," he used later to say as he looked back upon that period. The first "heresy" which "he cast forth into the world" rests as much upon philosophical as upon theological grounds. But there will be considered here only how he was related to the early philosophers.
In Plato, the knowledge of whom came to him through Augustine, he thought he saw traces of a knowledge of the Trinity, and he championed the doctrine of ideas as against Aristotle. The latter Wyclif did not highly esteem, and he said once that Democritus, Plato, Augustine, and Grosseteste far outranked Aristotle. In Aristotle he missed the provision for the immortality of the soul, and in his ethics the tendency toward the eternal. He was himself a close follower of Augustine, so much so that, as Netter reports, he was called "John of Augustine" by his pupils. In some of his teachings, as in De annihilatione, the influence of Thomas Aquinas is to be detected. So far as his relations to the philosophers of the Middle Ages are concerned, he held to realism as opposed to the nominalism which was newly advanced by Occam, although in questions that had to do with ecclesiastical politics he stood related to Occam and indeed went beyond him. His views therefore are based upon the conviction of the reality of the universal, and he employed realism in order to avoid dogmatic difficulties. The uni-divine existence in the Trinity is the real universal of the three Persons, and in the Eucharist the ever-real presence of Christ justifies the deliverance that complete reality is compatible with the spatial division of the existence. The center of Wyclif's philosophical system is formed by the doctrine of the prior existence in the thought of God of all things and events. This involves the definiteness of things and especially their number, so that neither their infinity, infinite extension, nor infinite divisibility can be assumed. Space consists of a number of points of space determined from eternity, and time of exactly such a number of moments, and the number of these is known only to the divine spirit. Geometrical figures consist of arranged series of points, and enlargement or diminution of these figures rests upon the addition or subtraction of points. Because the existence of these points of space as such, that is, as truly indivisible unities, has its basis in the fact that the points are one with the bodies that fill them; because, therefore, all possible space is coincident with the physical world (as in Wyclif's system, in general, reality and possibility correspond), there can as little be a vacuum as bounding surfaces that are common to different bodies. The assumption of such surfaces impinges, according to Wyclif, upon the contradictory principle as does the conception of a truly continuous transition of one condition into another. Wyclif's doctrine of atoms connects itself, therefore, with the doctrine of the composition of time from real moments, but is distinguished by the denial of interspaces as assumed in other systems. From the identity of space and the physical world on the one side, and the circular motion of the heavens on the other, Wyclif deduces the spherical
It immediately follows that Wyclif's fundamental principle of the preexistence in thought of all reality involves the most serious obstacle to freedom of the will; the philosopher could assist himself only by the formula that the free will of man was something predetermined of God. In particulars he demanded a strict dialectical training as the means of distinguishing the true from the false, and he asserted that logic (or the syllogism) furthered the knowledge of catholic verities; ignorance of logic was the reason why men misunderstood Scripture, since men overlooked the connection-- the distinction between idea and appearance. In general, it may be said that Wyclif was not merely conscious of the distinction between theology and philosophy, but that his sense of reality led him to pass by scholastic questions as if they were empty shells. He left aside philosophical discussions which seemed to him to have no significance for the religious consciousness and those which pertained purely to scholasticism, and found no enjoyment in the hairsplitting of a degenerate scholastic and in its inanities. He held that we ought not to roam around in the realm of mere possibilities: "we concern ourselves with the verities that are, and leave aside the errors which arise from speculation on matters which are not." It is more wholesome to concern oneself with the study of verities than to be busy with fictions which one can prove neither to be possible nor useful to mankind; for vast is the number of solid and useful truths which yet are concealed from man.
Since it was from dealing with ecclesiastical-political questions that Wyclif turned to reformatory activities, naturally the former have a large part in his reformatory writings. It would be a mistake to suppose, however, that his opposition to the Church was a continuation of that of the French under Philip the Fair (1285-1314) or of that of the Germans under Louis the Bavarian (1314-46). While he took his start in affairs of church policy from the English legislation which was passed in the times of Edward I., he declined the connection into which his contemporaries brought it under the lead of Occam. Indeed, he distinctly disavows taking his conclusions from Occam, and avers that he draws them from Scripture, and that they were supported by the Doctors of the Church. So that dependence upon earlier schismatic parties in the Church, which he never mentions in his writings (as though he had never derived anything from them), is counterindicated, and attention is directed to the true sources in Scripture, to which he added the collections of canons of the Church. [Wyclif would have had nothing to gain and everything to lose by professing indebtedness to "heretical" parties or to opponents of the papacy whose efforts had come to naught. His reference to Scripture and orthodox Fathers as authorities is what might in any case have been expected. So far as his polemics are accordant with those of earlier antagonists of the papacy, it is fair to assume that he was not ignorant of them and was more or less influenced by them. A. H. N.] To these last, although in his later years he rejected them explicitly as being the laws of men, he frequently had recourse. But in those last years fully authoritative was the Bible alone, which, according to his own conviction and that of his disciples, was fully sufficient for the government of this world (De sufficientia legis Christi). Out of it he drew his comprehensive averments in support of his reformatory views-- not without intense study and many spiritual conflicts. He tells that when he was yet a beginner he was much concerned to comprehend the passages which treated of the activities of the divine Word, until by the grace of God he was enabled to gather the right sense of Scripture, which he then understood. But that was not a light task, for the Word is not to be opened by means of the grammar used by boys; Scripture has its own rules, it contains all verity and has the highest authority; for it is the law of Christ who can not lie, and is, therefore, to be placed above all human writings. The law of Christ is that which all men ought to learn, for the faith rests in it alone. Without knowledge of the Bible there can be peace neither in the life of the Church nor in that of society, and outside of it there is no real and abiding good; it contains all that is necessary for the salvation of men, it alone is infallible, sublime above error and failing, and consequently the one authority for the faith. He then is known as a true Christian who as a priest feeds his flock on the Word of God.
These teachings Wyclif promulgated not only in his great work on the truth of Scripture, but also in numerous other greater and lesser writings. For him the Bible was the fundamental source of Christianity which is binding on all men, who are therefore obligated to know it. From this one can easily see how the next step came about, viz., the furnishing of the Bible to the people in their mother tongue. Also not difficult to understand is the honor title of "Doctor evangelicus" which English and Bohemian Wyclifites gave to their master. Of all the reformers who preceded Luther, Wyclif most emphasized the importance of Scripture: "Even though there were a hundred popes and though every mendicant monk were a cardinal," he taught, "they would be entitled to confidence only in so far as they accorded with the Bible." Therefore in this early period it was Wyclif who recognized and formulated the formal principle of the Reformation-- the unique authority of the Bible for the belief and life of the Christian.
Upon this Biblical foundation was reared the structure of Wyclif's doctrinal teachings. But he did not shake himself clear of scholastic methods. His doctrine of God bears on its face the stamp of speculative realism. He rejects the view that the idea of the Godhead is a mere general conception, as well as the conception that a personal God is an individual, since both these rest upon a nominalistic basis. The omnipotence of God is for him not at all unlimited
The same tendency is discoverable in his anthropology and his doctrine of the freedom of the human will and of sin. He regarded as especially important the affirmation of the freedom of the will, being conscious that the ethical worth of an action is conditioned by this. The complete guarding of the holiness of Deity is an especial care, and he would not admit at all the imputation of responsibility in God for the existence of evil. He held fast to the conception that in the innermost region of the heart and of the will there is at least a relative autonomy elevated above all compulsion. He also affirmed the view that evil is not a positive existence, but rather a non-existence, not an activity but a defect. These views were inspired by Augustine. He did not hesitate to state these ideas in his sermons, but he carefully guarded against the thought that it was permissible to do evil that good might result. In his doctrine of the person of Christ he held to the ecclesiastical view as it was speculatively constructed by Augustine, Anselm of Canterbury, and others. Above all was emphasized the incomparable exaltation of Jesus Christ as the one mediator between God and man, the living medium between man and man's one Ruler; and this he expressed in manifold methods and with many illustrations, as: "Christ is the Saint of all saints, the one Fountain of salvation." The saints, he taught, attained their dignity through the imitation of Christ. With respect to the festivals of the saints and their cult the "Evangelical Doctor" affirmed that they could be of service only so far as the soul could be through them inflamed with the love of Christ. In that Wyclif clearly and consciously established the truth that salvation was through Christ alone, and with this as a fundamental, he showed himself a real precursor of the Reformation. How far he dealt with the order of salvation and did not oppose the Roman-scholastic doctrine of the merits of the saints may on the other side be recognized from his dissent on the subject of the merit of works and his declaration for the truth of the free grace of God in Christ. He stressed the affirmation that faith is a gift of God which comes by grace to men. And with this corresponded his ethics, in which he valued humility as the root of all virtues, while the germ of Christian virtue is love to God and one's neighbor. Yet he did not possess the Biblical and really Evangelical idea of faith; he still adhered to the scholastic conception according to which faith becomes what it should be only through love, i.e., he ascribed justification in the presence of God to sanctification and good works, and did not deny all merit to the latter. Justification through faith alone was not within his view.
His conception of the Church, as shown above, was different from that usual in his day; it was not the congregation of the bishop of Rome but the communion of those elected of God that formed the Church. Not prelates and priests as such, but all pious members of Christ belong to that Church. Like Augustine, he made a distinction between the "true" and the "pretended" or "mixed" body of Christ-- unconverted hypocritical brothers are in but not of the Church, i.e., they do not belong to it. Of no man, not even the pope, can one be sure that he is a member of the Church; one can not recognize him as such except by his ethical fruits. So he applied the ethical measure, and by this he reached his conclusion with respect to the claims of Urban VI. and Gregory XI. to be true popes. His entire teaching respecting a true and a false papacy, a true and a false priesthood, rests upon this principle. Just as the powers of the apostles were equal, so may in the present no pope arrogate to himself the rule of the Church; if Peter possessed any prerogative above the others, it did not relate to jurisdictional powers but to his greater humility. The Church of his own day, he thought, needed no other ministry or priesthood than that of the primitive Church. He would, therefore, make no distinction between priest and bishop; every "elect" may assume the office of priest, even though he have no episcopal ordination he is a real priest made of God. His most serviceable work is the preaching of the Gospel, more precious than the distribution of the sacrament, and among all works charity is the noblest, best, and most desired. With this all the blessings and consecrations of wax and bread, of palms and candles, of salt and of other things, which have no relation to faith and so are to be rejected, similarly the worship of relics, the cult of the dead, pilgrimages, and worship of images do not compare. For the preacher nothing is more worth while than preaching; the only question is, what shall he preach to the people? Certainly not those comedies and tragedies, those apocryphal events and trifles, with which the preachers tickle the ears of their congregations in order that their purses may be made to ring with money after the sermon; but rather preach the Gospel truth. And this is to be done in a way that fits the capacity of the hearers. The object of the sermon is to induce the imitation of Christ: "because today the Word of God is not heard, spiritual death broods over all." Consequently this is to be brought to renewed life, and in the two languages- -Latin for the learned and the common speech for the rest of the people. Hence in his Latin sermons Wyclif addressed himself to the learned, the priests, and those who were candidates for priesthood. His earlier sermons which he preached while he was teaching, those out of his ear-
His teaching on the sacraments occupies much space in his writings. If the sacrament is simply the symbol of a holy object, an invisible grace, then seven is an insufficient number to express the sacraments, since of such signs there are many. For example, preaching God's Word is as much a sacrament as any one of the seven which bear that name. While according to this test the number seven is too small, it is too large if the Biblical basis of their ordination be the norm. For the Lord's Supper the Scripture testimony is the strongest; for Extreme Unction (q.v.), the weakest. Among the sacraments the former, rightly administered, has saving power; but there is a further condition for the operation of grace in the sacrament which lies in the repentant attitude and the posture of the soul of the recipient. The operation of salvation does not depend upon the ethical condition of the priest who administers the sacrament-- teaching contrary to this is not to be discovered in the writings of Wyclif. Upon the Lord's Supper Wyclif spent much thought as the one which was of all the holiest and most worthy. But he fought his hardest against the Roman-scholastic doctrine of its transformation. The usual opinion has been that Wyclif made his first attack upon transubstantiation in 1381, but the date must be carried back to 1379, while the basis of his teaching is to be found in earlier writings and formulations. It was, however, in 1381 that he first cast aside in sermons and theses, in polemic tracts and philosophical treatises, and finally in a comprehensive work, the ecclesiastical teaching that after the consecration the bread and the wine are changed into Christ's body and blood in such a way that only the appearance (the accidents but not the content) of bread and wine remained. The sacrament of the altar is rather natural bread and wine, but sacramentally it is body and blood. After the consecration the host remains local and substantial bread, but concomitantly in a figurative and sacramental sense it is the body of Christ which believers receive spiritually. Wyclif attempted to make this clear by the use of illustrations. Just as there is a double vision, the physical and the spiritual, so there is a double eating. Hence in the sacrament we do not see with the physical eye the body of the Lord, but by faith as in a mirror and by parable; similarly, as an image is complete at every point of a mirror, so is it with the body of the Lord in the consecrated host-- we do not touch or grasp it, we do not masticate it, nor, in general, do we take it corporeally, but spiritually and completely intact. When Wyclif entered upon his campaign against what he called the "novel" doctrine of transubstantiation, it was his express purpose to oppose those "heathenish" views according to which every priest was in a position to "create" the body of Christ, a thought which seemed to him horrible in that there was ascribed to the priest the transcendent power by which a creature gave existence to his creator. Moreover, God was humiliated when men asserted that the Eternal could daily be created, while that holy thing, the sacrament itself, was by this means desecrated. After Wyclif had once broken away from the doctrine of the Church on transubstantiation, he handled the subject with unwearying zeal in his philosophical and popular works, in his greater productions, his small tracts, and especially in his sermons.
Similarly in the case of other sacraments, so far as he did not reject them outright, he did not cease to oppose the arrogated power of the priesthood in whose hands the administration of those sacraments lay. He held that distinction must be made in baptism among the external symbols-- there is a baptism with water and one with the power of God; or he distinguished a threefold baptism-- by water, by blood (that of the holy martyrs), and by the Spirit; the last alone is unqualifiedly necessary to salvation, the first are so to speak the precedent signs, the necessary antecedents. Baptism by water is not to be superseded, however, for children who receive it are also baptized with the Spirit, since they receive the baptism of grace. Confirmation, according to Wyclif, has no foundation in the Bible; it is an arrogation of the bishops to assume that they have the gift of imparting the Holy Ghost. In it they seek an unwarranted increase of their power, without which they assert the Church can not exist. Similarly, consecration of the priests had as little basis in Scripture. He rejected the teaching that the priests received authority from the laying on of hands by the bishop appropriately to perform the offices of the Church, and that the bishop imparted to the priest the Holy Ghost and impressed upon his soul an inextinguishable quality, as well as the assertion that "as by baptism the believer is distinguished from the unbeliever, so by ordination the priest is distinguished from the layman." The apostolic Church had only two grades of clergy, priests and deacons; bishops and priests were the same. There is no priesthood mediating between God and man, no qualification for office dependent upon ordination by a bishop, and no indelible characteristic imparted by priestly ordination. Since Wyclif recognized only a simple priesthood, all episcopal privileges went by the board; the entire hierarchical gradation into orders from pope down to the lowest grades of the first tonsure he called the invention of an imperialized papacy. Once more, for extreme unction no Scriptural basis could be found. The sacrament of confession, too, was one introduced since the time of Innocent III. (1198-1216), for the sake of gain, supplanting confession to God and that of the apostolic Church in the presence of the congregation. The pronouncement of absolution is an encroachment upon the divine power; and there is as little justification for the imposition of penance, since the priest can not
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 (q.v.) 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 extirpate 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 (q.v.), 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 (q.v.). 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 (see LOLLARDS).(J. LOSERTH.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A brief statement of the early editions of such works of Wyclif as were published before the editions now authoritative is made in Hauck-Herzog, RE, xii. 225. For a survey of the list of Wyclif's writings use W. W. Shirley, Catalogue of the Original Works of John Wyclif, Oxford, 1865 (lists 96 Latin and 65 English writings), and cf. Lechlees Life (as below), pp. 483-498, and DNB, Ixiii. 221-222. 'Under the auspices of the Wyclif Society a definitive edition of the Latin works of the Reformer is in progress, 34 vols. having appeared up to 1912, London, 1883 eqq. These volumes have marginal analyses, so that it is easy to follow them throughout. Of the other works there are available the Select English Works of John Wyclif, ed. T. Arnold, 3 vols., Oxford, 1869-71; English Works of Wyclif hitherto Unprinted, ed. F. D. Matthew, London, 1880 (contains also a valuable introduction on the life of Wyclif); Wyclif's Translation of the Bible, ed. Forshall and Madden, 4 vols., Oxford, 1850; his New Testament, with Glossary, ed. W. W, Skeat, Cambridge, 1879; J. Loserth, Die dltesten Streitschriften Wiclifs, in the Sitzungaberichte of the Vienna Academy, vol. clx., of the philosoph: historioal class, 1908.
The chief early sources for knowledge of Wyclif, apart from his own writings, are: T. Netter, Fasciculi zizaniorum Johannis Wyclif . . . ed. W. W. Shirley, in Rolls Series, London, 1858 (a series of important documents, with a very admirable preface); R. Pecock, The Repressor of Overmuch Blaming of the Clergy, ed. C. Babington in Rolls Series, 2 vols., ib. 1860 (the introduction is valuable); Chronicon Anglia, ed. M. Thompson, ib. 1874; H. Knighton, Chronieon, ed. J. R. Lumby, vol. ii., ib. 1895; Eulogium historiarum sive temporis, ed. F. S. Haydon in Rolls Series, vol. iii., ib. 1863; T. Walsingham, Historia Anglieana in Rolls Series, 2 vols., ib., 1863-64.The authoritative biography is still G. V. Lechler,
Johann von Wiclif and die Vorgeschichte der Reformation, 2 vols., Leipsic, 1873, Eng. transl. by P. Lorimer, John Wiclif and his English Precursors, 2 vols., London, 1873, new ed., 1 vol., with summary of vol. ii. by S. G. Green, 1884, reissue 1904. Books of high importance, after that of Lechler, and dealing with the life, are: John Fox, Book of Martyrs, London, 1632 and often; J. Lewis, Life of Wicliffe, new ed., Oxford, 1820 (valuable for documents cited); R. Vaughan, Life and Opinions of Wyclif, 2 vols., London, 1828, superseded by his John de Wycliffe, ib. 1853; J. Loserth, Hue and Wiclif, Prague, 1884, Eng. transl., Wiclif and Hue, London, 1884; idem, in English Historical Review, xi (1896), 319-328; A. R. Pennington, John Wiclif, London, 1884; R. L. Poole, Wyclife and Movements,for Reform, ib. 1889 (cf. his Illustrations of the Hist. of Medieval Thought, chap. x., ib. 1884; both of these to be taken well into account); L. Sergeant, John Wyclif, Last of the Schoolmen and First of the English Reformers, New York, 1893; G. S. Innis, Wiclif the Morning Star, Cincinnati, 1907; W. Walker, Greatest Men of the Christian Church, Chicago, 1908; J. N. Figgis, Typical English Churchmen, London, 1909.
Other literature dealing with the life, times, doctrines, and influence of the Reformer are: T. James, Apologie for John Wycliffe, Oxford, 1608; A. Varillas, Hist. du Wiclefianisme, Lyons, 1682, Eng. transl. in The Pretended Reformers, London, 1717 (interesting only as being a rather remarkable libel); J. and I. Milne, Hist. of the Church of Christ, vol. iv., London, 1847 (treats this subject with great care); O. Japer, John Wyclife and seine Bedeutung fiir die Reformation, Halle, 1854; F. BShringer, Die Vorreformatoren des 1l,. and 16. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart, 1856; P. Reinhold, Pictures of Old England, chap. viii., Cambridge, 1861; J. E. T. Rogers, Historical Gleanings, 2 ser., pp. 1-63, London, 1870; M. Burrows, Wiclif's Place in Hist., new ed., ib. 1884; R. Buddensieg, Johann Wyclif and seine Zeit, Gotha, 1885 (highly praised); J. Stevenson, The Truth about John Wyclif, London, 1885 (condemns the Reformer's doctrines); V. Vattier, John Wyclife, sa vie, ses oeuvres, so doctrine, Paris, 1886 (a study of the principal writings); F. D. Matthew, in English Historical Review, 1890, 1895; H. Morley, English Writers, vol. v., London, 1890; T. R. Lounsbury, Studies in Chaucer, u. 459-494, New York, 1891; F: Wiegand, De ecclesia, notione quid Wiclif docuerit, Leipsic, 1891; C. Petit-Dutaillis,
1 * The year 1324 is the one usually given; Rashdall in DNB, lxiii. 202-204, reaches a conclusion different from that in the text, and says: "1324 is too early rather than too late a date."
Calvin College. Last modified on 10/03/03. Contact the CCEL.