¹ Both are referred to in MSS as: ‘Repyngdon’, but from Oxford Corpus Christi College MS 54 and Merton Coll. MSS L.2.6 (art. 2) and K.2.2 (art. 17) (Coxe Catalogue MSS 112 and 68) it is clear that Philip Repyngdon composed the sermon-cycle and John Eyton the usury tractate. These works are the subjects of this paper. Details of Repyngdon and Eyton’s careers are in Emden (O) 3 1565-8 and 1 p. 662 respectively. A full discussion of the former is in my forthcoming ‘Writings of a Reformer A Look at Sermon Studies and Bible Studies through Repyngdon’s Sermones super Evangelia Dominicalia’, 2 vols., unpubl. PhD thesis (Univ. of Birmingham 1985) and an edition of the latter’s tract is in preparation from the three extant MSS. The Merton MSS had already been identified but I have discovered a third in BL MS Harley 106, fols. 75^ra-82^vb (modern foliation is followed in all cases).

² The only indication of Repyngdon’s birth-place (other than the circumstantial evidence of his adopted religious surname) comes from the second line of the inscription on his tomb, lost since Bale’s day: ‘Repynton natus, iacet hie Philippus humatus’ (Index p. 324).

³ These assessments are discussed more fully in my ‘Writings of a Reformer’, 129-42.

⁴ Pollard, A. W. (ed.). Fifteenth Century Prose and Verse (London 1903) p. 117Google Scholar; also see Wordsworth, C., Ecclesiastical Biography, 4th edn., 4 vols. (London 1853) 1 p. 277.Google Scholar

⁵ An example of the Victorian view is Perry, G. G., ‘Cardinal Repyngdon and the Followers of Wycliffe’, Church Quarterly Review 19 (1884-5) PP. 59–82Google Scholar. Modified but substantially similar views are found for instance in Kingsford’s, C. L. entry for ‘Repington’ in the DNB 48, pp. 26–8Google Scholar and Gairdner, J., Lollardy and the Reformation in England, 4 vols. (London 1908-13) 1 pp. 3–100Google Scholar, Thompson, A. H., The Abbey of St Mary of the Meadows, Leicester (henceforth Leicester Abbey) (Leicester 1949) pp. 54–60Google Scholar, Knowles RO 2, p. 189 (though these last two historians refrain from criticising Repyngdon for his apparent turnaround) and McFarlane, K. B. in his earlier work on this matter, John Wycliffe ana the Beginnings of English Nonconformity (London 1952) p. 100Google Scholar. It is from Workman, H. B., John Wyclif, A Study of the English Medieval Church, 2 vols. (Oxford 1926) 2 p. 137Google Scholar that we have the view clearly stated that Repyngdon was ‘a cultured, opportunistic ecclesiastic’ and the unfair appendage: ‘That Repyngdon could turn his back on his past was discovered also by the canons of his old abbey of Leicester’, ibid. 2 p. 137. Workman suggests here that Repyngdon was opportunistic in reintroducing episcopal control over Leicester Abbey when he was bishop though he had shown the opposite desire when abbot. However an instance of Repyngdon’s successor, Abbot Rothely, actually exercising ordinary jurisdiction ralione exemptionis occurred on 17 July 1418 where a commission is recorded from the vicar-general of Lichfield diocese to the abbot of Leicester for the latter to inquire into a proposed exchange of benefices, Lichfield Joint Record Office B/A/1/8, fols. 19^v-20^r; I am grateful to Dr R. N. Swanson for this reference. In addition Thompson has suggested (Leicester Abbey, pp. 57-8) that the attempt to gain exemption was prior to 1412 and was possibly on Repyngdon’s instigation, though nothing had been done during his abbacy and it was more probably due to Rothely. The petition for exemption even then was only to last during Repyngdon’s time as bishop which Thompson interpreted as a reaction against an over-attentive interest by him in his former abbey. There is thus no more indication of opportunism here than of zealous oversight of institutions under his charge.

⁶ Trevelyan, G. M., England in the Age of Wycliffe, 4th edn. (London 1909) pp. 301–7Google Scholar however states that Hereford and Repyngdon ‘were genuinely antagonistic to the regular orders, and had qualms as to the metaphysical soundness of Transubstantiation, but they were probably never real Lollards. They both lived to be reconciled to the church and to persecute the heretics of the next generation’ (p. 305). This therefore does allow Hereford and Repyngdon integrity in their positions but does so through distancing them from Wyclif. However Trevelyan seems to reflect elsewhere more the idea that ‘true Lollards’ were more ‘courageous’ and ‘radical’ rhan these academics. He brings forth no evidence for their beliefs being independent of Wyclif and, as his Register and McFarlane’s evidence show, there is no real evidence of Repyngdon being a great persecutor of Lollards.

⁷ McFarlane, K. B., Lancastrian Kings and Lollard Knights (Oxford 1972) pp. 217–8.Google Scholar

⁸ The Register of Bishop Philip Repingdon, 1405-1419, ed. Archer, M., LRS 57 (1963)Google Scholar, 58 (1963) and 74 (1982), particularly the introduction in 57 pp. xviii-xix.

⁹ Ibid. 57 p. xix and for his diocesan appointments and administrative practices pp. xix-xxv.

¹⁰ Archer, M., ‘Philip Repingdon, Bishop of Lincoln, and his Cathedral Chapter’, University of Birmingham Historical Journal 4 (1954) pp. 81–97Google Scholar.

¹¹ Reg Repingdon 57 p. xxviii.

¹² In addition to my thesis there is Archer, J. R., ‘The Preaching of Philip Repingdon, Bishop of Lincoln (1405-1419): A Descriptive Analysis of his Latin Sermons’, unpubl. PhD thesis (Graduate Theological Union California 1984).Google Scholar This was not available in rime for this discussion.

¹³ The sermons offer no external clue to dating, nor can the arrangements of Sundays before Lent or after Trinity suggest the year according to dates of moveable feasts. For the sermon-cycle is written according co a standardised format with twenty-five Sundays after Trinity and five between Epiphany and Septuagesima. The dating argument therefore is circum stantial and suggests that a work of this length is unlikely to have been able to have been composed before 1382, when Repyngdon became DD. And likewise it is unlikely to have been composed after 1404, when he became bishop, or even 1393, when he became abbot and held other posts such as chancellor of the university. However the later limit is more safely deduced from the tone of his references to prelates since they seem to be written as if he were not one. Moreover the debate structure evident in many of the sermons suggest a university origin. See further my ‘Writings of a Reformer’, 1 215-31.

¹⁴ Emden(0)3 1566.

¹⁵ Because Repyngdon’s sermons are basically a compilation from a restricted number of sources it has been possible to break down each sermon into the component passages from these sources, detailing the opening and closing phrases for each passage and thereby leaving highlighted those passages which are of Repyngdon’s authorship; see ‘Writings of a Reformer’ 2.

¹⁶ This is part of the commentary on Matthew 23.13 (whence the phrases on shutting up the kingdom) and which in turn is part of the exegesis of Matthew 18.23 from the lection for Trinity 22.

¹⁷ Oxford CCC MS 54, fol. 366^vb ‘Nonne queso hiis diebus multi regnum celorum, id est scripturam sacram, ita claudunt. Si enim frater ordinis mendicancium interpres fuerit scripturarum, si qua forte contra eius validam et spontaneam mendicacionem sonuerunt vel eorum temporale emolumenrum in aliquo iuste retrahere potent, vel ea omnino silebit vel ea cum glosa textui contradicente subdole obscurabit.’

¹⁸ Ibid. fol. 366^vb ‘Sic possessionaris que contra sui et secularis contra sui graduum defectus veritates scripturarum manifeste sonantes nec voluntarie audiet nec reserabit. Vnde et quasi principalis defectus noscitur hiis diebus quod quasi omnes alienorum defectuum sunt exploratores et suorum desides inspectores.’

¹⁹ From Robert Grosseteste, Dictum 15; see Oxford Bodleian MS Laud misc. 374 fol.19^rb-va.

²⁰ Oxford CCC MS 54 fol. 67^rb.

²¹ Ibid. fol. 273^rb.

²² Ibid. fol. 321^ra; there are two folios numbered 321 in this MS: this extract is from the first.

²³ Ibid. fol. 268^rb.

²⁴ Ibid. fol. 12^vb; for the source see Oxford Bodleian MS Laud misc. 165 fol. 201^vb.

²⁵ Oxford CCC MS 54 fols. 134^vb-136^vb; for the source see Bradwardine, Thomas, De causa dei, contra Pelagium, et de vintile causarum (London 1618) pp. 52–3.Google Scholar

²⁶ This sermon is extant only in Oxford Lincoln Coll. MS Lat. 8 s fols. 135^ra-136^vb, Bodleian MS Laud. misc. 635 fols. 236^ra-237^va and Worcester Cathedral MS F121 fols. 145^v-147^v.

²⁷ Oxford CCC MS 54 fols. 79^ra-81^ra.

²⁸ Ibid. fols. 255^ra-257^va.

²⁹ Particularly important for this, since it is not penned by an opponent, is the joint written reply of Hereford and Repyngdon to the Blackfriars Council concerning their views on the twenty-four condemned theses. The subtlety and the meanings of their answers are examined in my ‘Writings of a Reformer’ 1 cap. 1. The text of their reply is in Wilkins 3 pp. 161-2, The Aits and Monuments of John Foxe, ed. Pratt, J., 8 vols. (London 1877) 3 pp. 31–5Google Scholar and Fasciculi Zizaniorum Magistri Johannis Wyclif cum Tritico, ed. Shirley, W. W. (RS 5 1858) pp. 319–28.Google Scholar

³⁰ The Book of Margery Kempe, eds. Meech, S. B. and Allen, H. E., EETS Original Series 212 (London,1940) p. 35.Google Scholar

³¹ BL MS Harley 106 fol. 75^ra ‘Hunc tractarulum ad cuiusdam valentis vicarii rog[a]tum ex sanctorum sentenciis, iuribus [naruralibus] M[o]saicis et ewangelicis et sacris canonibus compilavi.’ This MS has rogotum, utralibet and Mapaicis but these have been corrected against the readings of the Merton MSS.

³² Smalley, B., ‘John WycliP’s Postilla Super Totam Bibliam’, Bodleian Library Record 4 (1953) p. 198Google Scholar it was, in fact, die “Lincolniensis”, constantly written in the margin, that first drew me to MS. Bodl. 716’.

³³ Ibid. p. 204. This article also includes as other sources for Wyclif’s Postilla the Compendium litteralis sensus totius Scripturae by Peter of Auriol, a book owned by Repyngdon (now BL MS Royal 8.G.iii), Grosseteste’s Hexaemeron, also quoted by Repyngdon, and three authors quoted by him and Eyton: Lira’s postills, Aquinas and Duns Scotus (ibid. pp. 197-8).

³⁴ For instance, in the Floretum/Rosarium Theologie canon law is extensively quoted on its own or through a number of commentators or else with the aid of Martin of Troppau’s index, the Margarita Decreti; see Hudson, A., ‘A Lollard Compilation and the Dissemination of Wycliffite Thought’, JTS new series 23 (1972) p. 73Google Scholar and The Middle English Translation of the Rosarium Theologie, ed. Nolcken, C. von, Middle English Texts 10 (Heidelberg, 1979) p. 23Google Scholar. Similarly for the Wycliffite Glossed Gospels canon law was an essential aid for interpreting Scripture; see Hargreaves, H., ‘The Wycliffite Versions’ in CHB 2 pp. 407–8Google Scholar, and note also the important place of Grosseteste and Peyraud. Hargreaves quotes Oxford Bodlejan MS Laud Misc. 235 fol. 2 to show that canon law was used provided that ‘olde lawes of sey ntis and of holy chirche [were] wel groundid in holy writ and resoun’, in ‘Popularising Biblici 1 Scholarship: The Role of the Wychffite Glossed Gospels’ in Lourdaux, W. and Verhelst, D. (eds), The Bible and Medieval Culture, Mediaevalia Lovaniensa, series 1, stud. 7 (Louvain 1979) p. 181.Google Scholar

³⁵ See for instance the two versions, the first incomplete one being unique amongst extant MSS, in Oxford CCC MS 54 fols.344^va-351^ra

³⁶ Ibid. 211^ra-220^rb.

³⁷ Namely Oxford CCC MS 54, Cambridge Pembroke Coll. MS 198, Corpus Christi Coll. MS 82 (both these MSS lack the Trinity 20 epistle sermon), Gonville and Caius Coll. MS 246/492 and Lincoln Cathedral MS 10.

³⁸ Oxford CCC MS 54 fols. 283^vb-284^ra.

³⁹ Smalley, ‘John Wyclif’s Postilla’ p. 204.

⁴⁰ It was not an issue raised in the twenty-four condemned theses, nor is there an entry on usury, for instance, in the Floretum/Rosarium.

⁴¹ Oxford CCC MS 54 fol. 211^rb ‘Nota contra opiniones lollardorum vbi dic[it] quod eque a malis confertur sacrament[um] sicut a bonis, vt hie dicitur per multas raciones.’ The parenthetical additions are hypothetical since the folio has been trimmed for binding.

⁴² Ibid. fol. 212^vb ‘Si dixerint quod merita ecclesie non sufficiunt absque sanctitate sacerdoris hoc ridiculosum est.’

⁴³ Ibid. fol. 215^va ‘Quamuis dominus in sua collacione sacramentorum eciam per malos ministros operetur, non tamen propter hoc minus sed magis peccat sacerdos a quo corpus christi indigne conficitur vel consecratur, vel laicus a quo indigne sumitur. Patet istud per hoc quod quanto dominus liberior est senio, tanto eius ingraritudo est amplius pena digna.’

⁴⁴ Ibid. fol. 215^va-vb ‘Quamuis tarn per bonos quam per malos sacerdotes oblata sacrificia oblate ecclesie preces a liberati domino acceptantur non tamen mediocriter peccant illi a quibus scienter vel ex probabili suspicione ad sacramentorum vel precum ecclesie oblacionem vel eciam prelacie suscepcionem sacerdotes mali preposi tis bonis constituuntur vel conducuntur.’

⁴⁵ Ibid. fol. 215^vb ‘Deus a quo oracio ecclesie per malum sacerdotem oblata acceptatur spirituali oracione talis sacerdotis nomine eius facta non placarur sed pocius irritarur.’

⁴⁶ Ibid. fol. 216^vb ‘Aliud est absolute conficere et aliud digne et ordinate.’

⁴⁷ Ibid. fols. 216^va-218^ra; there are two consecutive folios numbered 218 in this MS and the second is referred to here. For Aquinas’s views quoted here see his Summa Theologiae, 3a.82, 5-8, ed. Gilby, T. elal., 61 vols. (London 1963-81) 59 pp. 112–22.Google Scholar