1. DDD, p. xv: “the copyist … was entirely w i t h o u t palaeographical training and did not even take the pains to inform himself of the meaning of familiar contractions. Although a classical student, he blundered on from sentence to sentence without a thought whether the wording yielded any sense at all.”

2. PW, I, v. Cf. the sentiments in the Wyclif Society's first report, printed at the end of PW, I

3. Buddensieg, , in the preface to his edition of De veritate sancte scripture, I (London, 1905)Google Scholar, cited by Michael Hurley,“‘Seriptura Sola’” (see note 6), p. 294, n. 63.

4. PW, I, vii.Google Scholar

5. Noteworthy exceptions would be such older writers as Lechler, Gotthard, John Wycliffe and his English Prcvrsors (trans. Lonmier, P., London, 1884)Google Scholar, who devoted a long section (p. 223- 361) to Wyelif's philosophical and theological system, and Reginald Lane Poole, whose studies of Wyclif's thought were certainly based on familiarity with the sources (see his Wyclif and Movements for Reform [1889] and Illustrations of the History of Medieval Thought [1884], passim). But it is remarkable how little these works offer beyond an acouaintance with the external physiognom’ of Wychf's ideas.

6. Fürstenau, H., Johann von Wiclifs Lehren von der Einteilung der Kirche und von der Stellung der weltlichen Gewalt (Berlin, 1900):Google ScholarDe Vooght, Paul, Les sources de la doctrine chrétienne d's rès thècle et du début de XVe (Bruges: Desclée De Brower, 1954), pp. 168–200Google Scholar and passim. Cf. also the very solid study of Hurley, Michael, S. J., ‘[ Scriptura sola': Wyelif and His Critics,” Traditio. XVI (1960), 275–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Wyclif's philosophy has also suffered at least relative neglect; perhaps the recent work by Robson, J. A., Wyclif and the Oxford Schools (Cambridge, 1961)Google Scholar, will mark a turning point. Here it may be remarked that the pioneering work of Thomson, S. Harrison, especially his ‘The Philosophical Basis of Wyelif's Theology,” Journal of Religion, XI (1931), 86–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar, points out a path that remains largely untrodden.

7. E. g., Hurley, op. cit., p.277, refers to the “almost interminable length and complete lack of style” of Wyclif's works, and he quotes Rashdall's characterization — “perhaps the most intricate and obscure of all the great scholastic host.” McFarlane, K. B., John Wycliffe and the Beginnings of English Nonconformity (L on d o n, 1952), p. 93Google Scholar, is relatively generous: “Reading him may be magnificent, but it is not fun …”; he mentions “the unrelieved sobriety of his performance,” “its gracelessness and lack of polish.” Workman, H. B., John Wyclif, I (Oxford, 1926), 134Google Scholar, judges that Wyclif's works are repellent to all but enthusiasts, “not only by their subject-matter but also by their diffuseness, as well as by their heavy Latin.” Reginald Poole, Lane, DCD, I, xx–xxiGoogle Scholar, also complains of the base Latinity of Wyelif's age as well as of the extreme debasement of the scholastic method.” He is joined here by Trevelyan, G. M., England in the Age of Wycliffe (edition of 1909, repr. London, 1948), p. 182Google Scholar: “It is probable that few will ever study his writings. The interest and meaning of his Latin books are obscured to the modern reader by the jargon of the mediaeval schools.” Against these and similar complaints I would register my own impression that Wyelif's Latin is a perfect vehicle for his thought, which in turn is the expression of a mind both brilliant and penetrating. Far from finding Wydlif humorless, I have been continually delighted by his dry, biting, acidity. He is graceless, to be sure, but who cares.

8. Carlyle, A. J., A History of Mediaeval Political Theory in the West, VI (2nd impr.; London, 1950), 62.Google Scholar

9. Workman, op. cit., I, 261f.

10. McFarlane, op. cit., pp. 99, 85. McFarlane also insists on regarding Wyclif's works as “occasional” pieces, rather than “the peaceful and systematic unfolding of a considered philosophy” (p.86); his arguments here are correct, but they do not prove that Wychf 's works fail to comprise a system. however turbulent the circumstances of their origin.

11. See Ladner, G., “Aspects of Medieval Thought on Church and State,” Review of Polities, IX 1947), 410f.Google Scholar and passim. Also his “The Concepts of [Ecelesia] and [Christianitas] and their Relation to the Idea of Papal [Plenitudo potestatis] from Gregory VII to Boniface VIII,” Miscellanea historiae pontificiae, XVIII, (1945)Google Scholar, passim.

12. See Ullmann, W., Medieval Papalism (London,1949)Google Scholar, passim; also Tierney, B., Foundations of the Conciliar Theory (Cambridge, 1955)Google Scholar, passim, esp. pp. 87ff.

13. For the significance of Bernard's De consideratione see Hayden, V. White, “The Gregorian Ideal and Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, “Jonrnal of the History of Ideas, XXI (1960), 321–348Google Scholar; for the deeretists see Tierney, op, cit., pp. 23ff.

14. Tierney, op. cit., pp. 45f. For a parallel sentiment of a theologian see Nicholas of Lyra's gloss on “The gates of hell shall not prevail against her” (Mat. xvi, 18): “… it is clear that the church does not exist in men by reason of ecclesiastical or secular power or office, for many princes and popes, as well as lower dignitaries, have been found to have apostatized from the faith. Therefore the church exists in those persons in whom there is true knowledge and confession of faith and truth.” (Postifla, in loco).

15. Emerton, E., The Defensor Pacis of Marsiglio of Padua (Cambridge, Mass, 1920) pp. 78–80Google Scholar; cf. Bartoš, F. M., “Myšlenka svrchovanosti lidu v husitské” Husitstvi a cizina (Prague, 1931), pp. 154ffGoogle Scholar, esp., p. 170, n. 45, where it is observed that Gregory XI had already in 1377, noted the correspondence of Wyclif's doctrines to Marsiius's but that except for Emerton no one had picked the point up; Bartoš agrees with Emerton.

16. De ordine christiano, OM, p. 136.

17. DPP pp. 250f. Cf. also DOR, pp. 35f., where an objectionable doctrine based on Innocent III's deeretal “Solite” is blamed not on the pope but on “glosatores, sacre scripture et ranionis ignari, ‘qui’ textum papalem inficiant.”

18. DE, p.5 “nullus vicarius Christi debet presurnere asserere se esse caput ecclesie sancte catholice, ymmo nisi habuerit specialem revelacionem, non assederet se esse aliquod membrum eius.” DPP, pp. 66f. “Nec aliquis fidelis ad tantum infatuatur, Ut credat Deum ex pacto eleetoribus assistere et suam eleccionem qualiscumque fuerit confirmare.”

19. Responsiones ad XLIV conclusiones, OM, pp. 226f.

20. DE, pp.25ff.

21. Responsiones, OM, pp. 226f.

22. E. g.,DPP, pp. 86f. For praises of Bernard see DPP, p. 137, OM, pp.22f.; for a more reserved attitude see OM, p.232.

23. PW, II, 681ff,Google Scholar; OM, pp. 361f., 131, 136f. Above all, see the Conclusiones XXXIII sive de paupert ate Christi, OM, pp 19–73, passim.

24. E. g., DPP, p. 333: “… clerus ecclesie claudicat in duas partes divisa, scilicet in partem Christi et partem cesaream …” DC'Clerus cesareus est multitudo sacerdotum, qui temporali dominio sunt dotati, cuius patronus instabilis dicitur esse papa at regula lex papalis.”

25. Ad argurmenta emuli veritatis, OM, p. 262: cf. DE, p. 352, OM, p. 133, PW, II, 669.

26. Tierney, op. cit., part III.

27. DE. pp. 112ff, 409f., cf. DCD, IV, 432Google Scholar, where Augustine is quoted as authority for the argument.

28. DE, p. 7; DUD, I, 394ff.Google Scholar See also infra, 3, A.

29. E. g., De fide catholica, OM, p. 116: “Nec est racio quare ponenda foret predestinacionis gracia quin per idem ponenda esset virtus ala que est in predestinato radix vol minera ad virtues alias adquiribiles et deperdibiles sibi aecidentaliter inessentes.” Also, DE, pp. 90f., esp.: “illos autem quos videmus vivere aecundum legem Dei reputamus ease filios regni.”

30. See the texts cited in notes 18 and 23, above.

31. DCD, I, 380Google Scholar: “nulla persona Romane ecelesie requiritur tamqnam mediamen absolute necessarium ad regulandum ecclesiam. Item caput Christus cum sua loge est per so sufficious ad regu1am spouse sue.” DOR, p. 226: “quilibet Christianus ubicunque feurit formatus, fide scripture habet Christum sibi assistentem, et sine alio papa vel conversante episcopo sibi sufficiens ad saluterm.” Cf. Fürstenan, p. 107.

32. See Fürstenau's careful analysis of the pertinent texts, pp. 21–24.

33. DE, p. 423; cf. also pp. 30f.: there are many particular churches militant, distinguished by location and personnel; the one universal church is the collectivity of these, but it is not an actual institution.

34. De fide catholica. OM, p. 112; DE, pp. 418ff.; De servitute civili … OM, p. 158 (“Et neeease est quod ad ultimum in die iudicli cesset potestas huiusmodi coactiva, cum propter suam imperfeccionem non intrat patriam”). The difficulty involved in predicating imperfection of the Church Militant may perhaps have been mitigated for Wychf by his ultra-realist doctrine of time, which individuates singulars. while leaving their species constant. True being is not in time but in “duration,” the eternal present. cf. Robson, op. cit., pp. 159–161.

35. D, pp. 2ff.; DCJürstenau. pp. 48f.: “Videtur mihi quod racia dictat ut ipsi faciant sibi caput, nedum unum genus capitaneornm in religione politica, sed quod quilibet populus appropriet sibi simplex caput ut nos Anglici habemus unum regem benedictum eui secundum doctrinam ewangelii … debemus inpendere obsequium seculare. Et ita est de regnis aliis maioribus sive minoribus, eciam usque ad imperium.”

38. See Fürstenau's discussion of Wyclif's terminology, pp. 8–19; he accuses Wychf of ambiguity and equivocation, in defining the church now as the body of the predestined, now as a comuinnity divisible into three social estates, etc. The discussion in the present text is designed to show that Wychif was not guilty of equivocation.

39. DE, p. 366.

40. DE, p. 365.

41. D, p. 2f.; DOR, pp. 78f. See DOR, p. 1, for the scriptural dossier proving that Christ approved of the “potestas regum et militum.”

42. D, pp. 2f.: ‘Sed caritas que est tercia persona in divinis debet connectere has tres partes.” ‘… omnes iste tres partes debent esse unum corpus ecclesie, currens hilariter in amore ad beatitudinem patrie consequendam.” There is a lengthy discussion of caritas in DCD, I, 103ff.Google Scholar, and an interesting autobiographical passage, ibid., p. 407: ‘…quando fui iunior, dixi quod lex Christi est descriptive lex quam Christus docet ad observandurm … Nune autem non solicitor in talibus, sed voco legerm Christi pro famosiori lege, que directe docet diligere.‘

43. For the pre-Hildebrandine concepts of religio-political thought see, e. g., Ladncr, op. cit.; Arquilliere, H., L'Augustinisme politique (2d ed., Paris, 1955), pp. 147ff.Google Scholar, discusses various ninth-century formulations of the idea that the whole of Christian society is the ecclesia, the corpus Christi. See also Ullrnann, The Growth of Papal Government, ch. XII, for a survey of imperialist theories during the investiture controversy.

44. See Fürstenau, p. 93, for a list of passages; three will suffice here for all: De servstute civili…, OM, p. 148; D. pp. 71f.; DOR, p. 13. For the passage in the York Tractates see MH LLdeL; iii, 666.

45. DOR, p. 186. quoted by Fürstenau, p. 15; for Isidore's text see the Decretum, XXIII, v. 20.Google Scholar Many other passages in Wyclif could be cited to show his use of this text—e.g., T, p. 308: OM, p. 41; DPP, p. 225—but in all cases he gives it his own twist, to make it refer not to the role of the Lords in coercing pagans into submission, but to their obligation to reduce the clergy to evangelical poverty.

46. OM, p. 231; Bernard's formula is in Patrologia Latina, vol. 182, col. 776. Variants of it appear elsewhere in his works; cf. Ullmann, W., The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages. (London, 1955), pp. 430–432.Google Scholar

47. OM, p. 231: “Nos autem salva reverencia Bernhardi aliter capimus mistice istum textum; gaudernus tamen quod Bernhardus addidit hoc adverbium: forsitan … Et ita videtur textum innuere, non quod papa plus quam ascerdoa alius habeat lane gladium, sed quod quilibet sacerdos cum iustorum sint omnia, habeat potestatem ad pugnandum, cum tali gladio refrenando. Et ad hoc sonat verbum Christi quad dixit Petro: Pone gladium tuum in vaginam.”

48. PW, II, 278.

49. DPP, pp. 7ff.

50. DPP, p. 10.

51. DOR, p. 152; SS, I, 233f.Google Scholar; quoted by Fürstenau, pp. 85f. Cf. also DOR, p. 44, where Wyelif rejects the idea “quod papa solum presit clericis et Cesar laicis”—in fact, he says, “uterque preest utrisque seeundum disparem racionem.”

52. DPP, p. 10.

53. See, e.g., the declaration of the missi of 801/802, in MGH, LL Capitularia I, 239f. Adherence to the creeds and discipline of the faith is enjoined as law. Fichtenau, H.. The Carolingian Empire, trans. Munz, P. (Oxford, 1957), pp. 118ff.Google Scholar, characterizes the externality and superficiality of Carolingian religion.

54. OM, p. 217; PW, I, 314.

55. DDD, p. 11 (God's lordship derived from his creation of the world); DDD, p. 315 (Man's lordship is a loan); DPP, p. 21 (Power granted as means, not as absolute gift). Innumerable passages could he cited on each.

56. DCD, IV, 440Google Scholar (“adhuc manet religio Christi de dominacione et conversacione licitis laycis et illicitis clericis”—this is “dominari vel conversari civiliter”); 441 (“ layci dominantur civiliter, clerici vero evangelice, cum primi habent proprietatem civilem, alii autem occupant bona communia ecclesie”… “dominacio ecelesiastica consistit in communicacione bonorum ecelesie”) That Christ did not have civil dominion, indeed could not have had it, is proven in DOD, III, 60ff.Google Scholar

57. DCD, I, 196.

58. DCD, IV, 485f.Google Scholar (‘omnis civilis dominacio sapit peceatum veniale”); OM, p. 154 (Status enim talium [seiL, seeularium dominorum] secundum quendam gradnn inseparabiliter est superbus”).

59. D, p. 12; DCD, I. 1ff.Google Scholar; cf. Carlyle's discussion, op. cit., pp. 56ff.

60. DCD, I, 212.

61. DCR, p. 56, quoted by Fürstenan, p. 79 (q.v.).

62. Fürstenau, p. 46.

63. See, e.g. Carlyle, op. cit., p. 62.

64. Fürstenau, p 51ff., discusses the subject in great detail, with analysis of pertinent passages, and concludes that Wyclif's statements about loss of dominion were not meant to impl a right of revolution (p.61). cf. Carlyle, op. cit., pp. 54–56.

65. T., p. 377: referring to the change that he had given the populares the right “ad eorum arbitrium dominos delinqnentes corrigere,” which in context clearly implies a right to use force rather than just to admonish, Wyclif concedes the right in three exceptional cases, of which the first and most important is: “Dens … potest praecipere populo sic facere, nec est Dei potentia sic exhausta quin posset movere populum ad taliter faciendum; ergo populares possunt sic facere.” Elsewhere Wyclif justifies withholding material support from a tyrant, in cases where that would help to bring about his fall (DCD, I, 201), and he suggests that excommunication of a tyrant, in the manner prescribed by Mat. xviii, 15–17Google Scholar, would help bring him to heel (DCD, I, 433). Finally, in cases where a tyrant works against God (“iniuria … quo ad causam dei”), “cristianus debet, post correpcioriem evangelicam, preposito suo usque ad mortem, si oportet, confidenter et obedienter resistere” (DOR, p. 8).

66. Burke, Edmund, Reflection on the French Revolution (Everysman's Library), p. 28.Google Scholar

67. DCD, I, 118; cf. DPP, pp. 338ff.

68. D, p. 1.

69. DCD, I, 192ff.

70. DCD, I, 203–205.

71. DCD, I, 125.

72. DCD, I, 198.

73. DOR, p. 73; cf. Fürstenau, p. 78, n.117.

74. DCD, I, 349.

75. DCD, I, 436.

76. DCD, I, 432.

77. DCD, I, 218.

78. OM, p. 71; DOR, pp. 78f.

79. OM, p. 249.

80. See, e.g., DCD, 1, 435.

81. DOR, pp. 55f., quoted by Fürstenau. pp. 78: “leges regni Anglie excellunt leges imperiales, cum sint pauce respectu earum, quia supra pauca prineipia, relinquunt residuum epikerie [sic] sapientum.”

82. E.g., against the argument that ecclesiastical judges have cognizance of both civil and ecclesiastical causes Wyclif remarks, “nec hodie admittitur in Anglia vel Francia de layco feodo… “ (DCD, IV, 435).Google Scholar In regard to certain opinions about secularization of church property, he says, “Si antem ego talia assererem contra regnum nostrum, olim fuissent in parlamento Elominorum Anglie ventilata” (OM. p. 424). One of his favorite schemes was that the expropriation of the church could be aceomulished easily and gradually by the king's refusal to grant out church temporalities as they fell into his hands one–by–one (D. p. 70; OM, p. 85: etc.). In one of his discussions of whether the king has power to take temnoralitis away from the clergy, Wyclif begins with the confiscation of William the Conqueror and comes down, via the case of the Templars, to his own day (DE, pp. 331f.). He advises the king: 'videtur mihi quod rex Anglie annuatim vel per vices congruas faceret diligenter et perfecte inquiri quantum de bonis regni, qua condicione et quando sit in omnibus et singulis den sui ad manum mortuam devoluturn” (DE, pp. 383f.). These few examples are given to illustrate the way in which Wyclif constantly passes from deductive argument to statements about actual practice; his doctrine never loses its contact with England.

83. DCD, III, 235.Google Scholar

84. DCD, I, 37.

85. E.g., D, pp. 79f.

86. DE, p. 341. Eleemosinarius usually means “almoner” but Wyclif uses it to mean “almsman” (cf., e.g., DOR, p. 5).

87. OM, pp. 61, 408.

88. DE, p. 351; OM, pp. 410f.

89. DCD, III, 77ff.Google Scholar

90. T, p. 298; DE, p. 383.

91. OM, p. 401: “precipuum autem regis officium est servando in se legem Dei facere quod a suis legiis observetur.” D, pp. 1ff.

92. PW, I, 169Google Scholar; DCD, I, 255.Google Scholar

93. DOR, p. 48.

94. E.g., DCD, I, 265ff.Google Scholar

95. T, p. 310; D, p. 85.

96. OM, p. 400. The context is a discussion of apostolic communism, which is now impractical because of men's sinfulness. “Lex tamen Christi foret optima ad reducendum genus humanum ad statum innocencie,” He evidently means only a relative innocence, not the absolute innocence existing before the Fall.

97. OM, pp. 413f.

98. OM, p. 9: “… prodest multum viatoribus studere evangeliurn sedule in illa lingua in qua ipsis sentencia evangelii magis patet … “ The good number of English sermons and treatises left by Wyclif and his followers are further documentation of this point (see Workman, op. cit., I, Appendix C, “Wyclif's English Works”).

99. OM, p. 378.