¹ ‘The Christian Tradition and the Various Christian Traditions,’ World Council of Churches Division of Studies Bulletin 1/2 (Oct. 1955) 11.Google Scholar

² Ibid. Cf. also Stählin, W., Allein: Recht und Gefahr einer polemischen Formel (Stuttgart 1950); Cullmann, O., La Tradition (Paris-Neuchâtel 1953); Ebeling, G., Die Geschichtlichkeit der Kirche und ihrer Verkündigung als theologisches Problem (Tübingen 1954); Skydsgaard, K. E., ‘Schrift und Tradition,’ Kerygma und Dogma 1 (1955) 161-79; Scripture and Tradition (ed. W. Dillistone, F., London 1955); Robert Nelson, J., ‘Tradition and Traditions as an Ecumenical Problem,’ Theology To-day 13 (1956) 151-65.Google Scholar

³ Cf. R. Geiselmann, J., ‘Das Missverständniss über das Verhältnis von Schrift und Tradition und seine Überwindung in der katholischen Theologie,’ Una Sancta 11 (Sept. 1956) 131–50; ‘Das Konzil von Trient über das Verhältnis der Heiligen Schrift und der nicht geschriebenen Traditionen,’ Die mündliche Überlieferung (ed. Schmaus, M., München 1957) 123-206; ‘Die Tradition,’ Fragen der Theologie Heute (eds. Feiner, J., Trütsch, J., Böckle, F., Einsiedeln 1957) 69-108; a work by Dr. Geiselmann in three or four volumes entitled Lebendiger Glaube aus geheiligter Überlieferung is to be published shortly by Herder. Cf. also G. Söhngen, ‘Überlieferung und apostolische Verkündigung,’ Die Einheit in der Theologie (München 1952) 305-33; Bouyer, L., Du Protestantisme à l'Église (Paris 1954), English Translation, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism (Westminster, Maryland 1956); Tavard, G. H., Holy Writ or Holy Church (London 1959).Google Scholar

⁴ Les sources de la doctrine chrétienne d'après les théologiens du XIV ^e siècle et du début du XV ^e avec le texte intégral des XII premières questions de la Summa inédite de Gérard de Bologne (t 1317) (Desclée De Brouwer 1954). The published report of the Chevetogne Conversations of 1951 (Charles Moeller, ‘Tradition et Œuménisme,’ Irénikon 25 [1952] 337-64) rea ds in part like a summary of the above work.Google Scholar

⁵ Dom David Knowles, The Religious Orders in England II, The End of the Middle Ages (Cambridge 1955) 98 n. 3.Google Scholar

⁶ The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages (ed. and Emden, Powicke, Oxford 1936) III 269.Google Scholar

⁷ Lechler, J., Wiclif und die Vorgeschichte der Reformation (Leipzig 1873) II 344-6.Google Scholar

⁸ Quoted by Schlauch, Margaret, ‘A Polish Vernacular Eulogy of Wycliff,’ The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 8 (1957) 66 n. 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹ The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (2nd ed. Oxford 1952).Google Scholar

¹ Ed. Harris, E., WS [= Wyclif Society] 1886. In De dominio divino 1.8 (ed. L. Poole, R., WS 1890, 55) Wyclif refers to this treatise as De Incarnacione Verbi. For date cf. B. Workman, H., John Wyclif: A Study of the English Medieval Church (2 vols. Oxford 1926) I 332.Google Scholar

² A decretal of Clement V is quoted in c. 7 (ed. cit. 122) and one of Gregory IX in c. 10 (ibid. 168-9). In the Oxford Oriel MS this latter citation and Wyclif's comment on it is omitted. Harris suggests that ‘perhaps a Lollard copyist or his employer did not set much store by a papal anathema. It is even possible that Wyclif himself in his later years may have preferred to withdraw an argument which rests on the dictum of one Pope, Alexander III, the patron of Thomas à Becket and adversary of Henry II, and which had been reissued by another, Gregory IX, the oppressor of Henry III.’ (ibid. xviii).Google Scholar

³ De ben. Incarn. 9, 7 (WS 159, 121).Google Scholar

⁴ For criticism of Wyclif's Christology cf. Netter's Doctrinale I.1.39-44 (ed. I, Blanciotti, Venice 1757, 207b-36d).Google Scholar

⁵ There are frequent references to the doctores moderniores and the new ‘logic of universals’ which asserts omnia universalia esse signa. In c. 9 (ed. cit. 155) Roscellinus is referred to as ille clericus in fide devius. Google Scholar

⁶ De ben. Incarn. 8 (WS 140).Google Scholar

⁷ Ibid. 1 (WS, 7). Wyclif's De anima or De actibus anime has been edited by Dziewicki, M. H. in Miscellanea philosophica I (WS 1902) 1–127.Google Scholar

⁸ Though he still held the bread ceased to exist at the consecration of the Mass, Wyclif was already exercised by the problem of the Eucharistic accidents. Woodford, who at this time was interchanging notes with him on a friendly basis, was dissastisfied with his explanations, cf. Gwynn, A., The English Austin Friars in the Time of Wyclif (Oxford 1940) 226–7. In the present treatise he touches on the problem but simply remarks (11 [ed. cit. 190]): non sollicitor. Cf. Thomson, S. H., ‘The Philosophical Basis of Wyclif's Teaching,’ Journal of Religion 11 (1931) 86-116; also Dziewicki, M. H., ‘Essay on Wyclif's Philosophical System,’ in his edition of Wyclif's Misc. phil. I v-xxvii.Google Scholar

⁹ These works on dominion, De dominio divino and De civili dominio, are usually dated to the years 1375-6. In all probability, however, Wyclif had begun to turn his attention to the subject from about 1373. In a determinatio against the Carmelite Cunningham (printed by Shirley as an appendix to his edition of the Fasciculi Zizaniorum [Rolls Series 5, 1858] 453-76) which took place about the time of his doctorate in 1372 (cf. Workman, op. cit. II 121), a point arises which, he says, opens up the whole question of dominion but he will postpone consideration of it for the time being (Fasc. ziz. 456). In his determinatio against the Benedictines Uthred of Boldon and William Binham (Opera Minora ed. Loserth, I., 405-14, 415-30), Wyclif is already defending his views on the subject but there is no agreement as to the date of this pamphlet. Lewis (J. Lewis, The History of the Life and Sufferings of John Wicliffe [London 1720] 18, 363-71) put it in 1366. Dom Knowles connects it with treatises of Uthred written probably before he left Oxford in 1367 (The Religious Orders in England II 66, 68). But Loserth (op. cit. xlviii-lvi), Workman (op. cit. I 239) and Fr. Gwynn, Austin Friars 230, prefer a later date. Both the latter connect it with Wyclif's mission to Bruges in the summer of 1374, Workman putting it after his return (1374-5), Fr. Gwynn before his departure in the early months of 1374. A year before this determinatio against the Benedictines, Woodford had already challenged Wyclif's views on ecclesiastic endowments (Op. min. 415). For political background cf. Gwynn, 211-24; for doctrinal background, ibid. 59-73.Google Scholar

¹⁰ De dominio divino (ed. L. Poole, R., WS 1890).Google Scholar

¹¹ Ibid. Prol. 1-2.Google Scholar

¹² D. Knowles, M., ‘The Censured Opinions of Uthred of Boldon,’ Proc. Brit. Acad. 37 (1952) 305–42; The Religious Orders in England II 83-9.Google Scholar

¹³ In view of its interest in relation to the theories of Uthred of Boldon and of some modern theologians and because it does not seem to have been hitherto noticed, I print here the relevant passage from De dom. div. 3.5 (ed. cit. 235): ‘Tercio videtur probabiliter posse dici quod quilibet spiritus humanus citra Christum habet unum momentum ante mortem in quo finaliter mereri poterit vel demereri. Nam iuxta predicta nemo potest beatificari nisi previe mereatur: sed infantes pro Christo occisi, sicut alii statim post baptismum mortui, sunt beati; ergo oportet quod previe mereantur: ergo relinquitur illis una morula ad merendum. Sed quando foret hoc pertinencius quam quando potencie anime non sunt mole corporis nec officio suo regiminis occupate, ut, exempli gracia, per duo vel tria instancia ante mortem? Verumtamen nemo potest salvari nisi ad minimum baptismo Flaminis baptisetur. Et requiritur in Novo Testamento ac Vetere quod omnis salvatus baptisetur efficaciter aqua lateris Christi et gracia Spiritus Sancti. In Novo eciam Testimento requirit Deus pro figura quod nati sibi spiritualiter, qui non baptisantur baptismo sanguinis, baptismo fluminis baptisentur. Quia tamen ista sentencia non patenter omnibus potest elici ex Scriptura, ideo non presumo nisi cum decenti modestia illam asserere.’ In the second-last sentence I have restored the manuscript reading. Poole's emendation (baptismo Flaminis baptisentur) seems to me to miss the point; the reference is to the sacrament (pro figura) of baptism, and only baptism by water, not spiritual baptism (aqua lateris Christi et gracia Spiritus Sancti) involves a sign or ‘figure.’Google Scholar

¹⁴ De ben. Incarn. 1.8, 10 (WS 33, 74).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Ibid. 1.12, 2.3 (WS 85-7, 186).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Ibid. 1.12 (WS 76-89).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ibid. 2.1 (WS 176-9). The same ideas, word for word almost, are found also in the Determinatio contra Kylingham Carmelitam (Fasc. ziz. ed. Shirley, , 453-4).Google Scholar

¹⁸ De mandatis divinis et de statu innocencie (ed. D. Matthew, F. and Loserth, I., WS 1922). As the editors note (p. xxxii) this treatise seems to be in continuation of De dominio divino. Google Scholar

¹⁹ Ibid. 3 (ed. cit. 16).Google Scholar

²⁰ Ibid. 1 (ed. cit. 2).Google Scholar

²¹ Ibid. 3 (ed. cit. 17).Google Scholar

²² Ibid. 6 (ed. cit. 49).Google Scholar

²³ Ibid. 6, 7, 3 (ed. cit. 45, 58, 21).Google Scholar

²⁴ Ibid. 7, 8 (ed. cit. 59, 62, 65).Google Scholar

²⁵ Ibid. 8 (ed. cit. 65); ‘Et videtur probabile quod nulle constituciones prepositorum ecclesie sunt licite vel a populo obligatorie admittende, nisi de quanto sunt media facilitancia ad observanciam legis Christi.’Google Scholar

²⁶ Ibid. 10-4 (ed. cit. 81-151). ²⁷ Ibid. 8 (ed. cit. 66).Google Scholar

²⁸ De civili dominio, lib. 1, ed. L. Poole, R., WS 1885; libb. 2, 3, ed. Loserth, I., 3 vols (II-IV), WS 1900, 1903, 1904.Google Scholar

²⁹ Ibid. 1.1 (ed. cit. I 5): ‘Ex quo patet, quod, si Petrus sit iniustus, quidquid fecerit, sive dormiendo sive comedendo sive quodcunque opus bonum de genere faciendo, continue peccat mortaliter.’Google Scholar

³⁰ Cf. 1.37 (ed. cit. I 265-74).Google Scholar

³¹ Ibid. 1.17 (ed. cit. I 118-24).Google Scholar

³² Ibid. (ed. cit. I 121): ‘Et ex istis videtur mihi quod lex ewangelica per se sufficeret sine lege civili vel vocata canonica ad completum regimen ecclesie militantis.’Google Scholar

³³ Ibid. 1.42 (ed. cit. I 347-51). ³⁴ Ibid. 1.44 (ed. cit. I 394-460)Google Scholar

³⁵ This point is also developed in the previous chapter, 1.43 (ed. cit. I 370-4).Google Scholar

³⁶ Ibid. 1.44 (ed. cit. I 410).Google Scholar

³⁷ Ibid. 2.1, 4 (ed. cit. II 1, 5, 33). Though Wyclif expressly calls him a Benedictine, Workman (op. cit. I 264 n. 1) is ‘inclined to think’ he was the Anglo-Irish Cistercian, Henry Crumpe of Baltinglass.Google Scholar

³⁸ Ibid. 3.18 (ed. cit. III 351): ‘Arguit compendiose et subtiliter more suo. Et revera obligor eo amplius huic doctori meo quo in diversis gradibus ac actibus scolasticis didici ex eius exercitacione modesta multas michi notabiles veritates.’ The monk is not spoken of in such respectful terms; every one of his arguments is said to have a defect of either matter or form or both, cf. 2.1 (ed. cit. II 8).Google Scholar

³⁹ Ibid. 2.1 (ed. cit. II 2).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ibid. (ed. cit. II 2-3).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Ibid. (ed. cit. II 3-4).Google Scholar

⁴² Ibid. 3.25-6 (ed. cit. IV 580, 617-22). We find the same neutral position with regard to the Immaculate Conception in, e.g., a Candlemas Day sermon (Sermones II, ed. Loserth, I., WS 1888, 54), in the De Eucharistia c. 5 (ed. Loserth, I., WS 1892, 138-9), and in the De salutacione angelica (Opera minora, 396) though in this latter Wyclif's language is more pronouncedly impatient with the friars on both sides of the controversy. Cf. infra p. 349 n. 19.Google Scholar

⁴³ Ibid. 2.14 (ed. cit. II 178).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Ibid. 2.7 (ed. cit. II 58-61).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Ibid. 3.4 (ed. cit. III 50).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ibid. 3.7, 12, 19 (ed. cit. III 97-100, 210; IV 399).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Ibid. 2.13 (ed. cit. II 162).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Ibid. 3.24 (ed. cit. IV 548-51).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Ibid. 3.21 (ed. cit. IV 444).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Ibid. 3.24 (ed. cit. IV 538).Google Scholar

⁵¹ Ibid. 3.14 (ed. cit. III 256).Google Scholar

⁵² Ibid. 3.2 (ed. cit. III 20).Google Scholar

⁵³ Ibid. 2.13, 3.1 (ed. cit. II 166, III 5).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Ibid. 3.1, 19, 3 (ed. cit. III 5, IV 385-6, III 33).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Ibid. 3.2 (ed. cit. III 23).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Ibid. (ed. cit. III 13).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Ibid. 2.13 (ed. cit. II 163).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Ibid. 3.23 (ed. cit. IV 506-9).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Ibid. 3.2 (ed. cit. III 15-6).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Ibid. (ed. cit. III 21).Google Scholar

⁶¹ Ibid. (ed. cit. III 17).Google Scholar

⁶² Ibid. 3.1, 4 (ed. cit. III 7, 57).Google Scholar

⁶³ Buddensieg, R., who prepared theedition of this work, had it published first in Germany (3 vols. Leipzig 1904), later in England (3 vols. WS 1905-7). He had done the same with the Polemical Works. In the Wyclif Society edition of De veritate sacrae scripturae the pagination of the Latin text is the same as that of the Leipzig edition, with the marginal notes translated into English. The preliminary matter is also the same in both editions, except that a chapter by chapter analysis of the contents was not included in the WS edition and that the Preface has been toned down in the English translation; e.g., the remark (Leipzig edition p. vii) that the lion's share of the work of editing Wyclif has fallen to the Germans, who have been responsible for twenty-nine volumes while the English scholars for five only, has been omitted. The translation of the Introduction does not always follow the German text closely; one whole passage dealing with the views of Kropatscheck (p. xl) is very curiously omitted.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ De veritate sacrae scripturae 1 (ed. WS I 2): ‘Dixi sepius, quod ista est vera de virtute sermonis secundum quamlibet eius partem et quod professores scripture sacre debent sequi eam in modo loquendi quoad eloquenciam et logicam plus quam aliquam alienam scripturam gentilium.’Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Ibid. 3 (ed. cit. I 54).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Wyclif himself does not add this important qualification without which the position of his adversaries is open to serious misunderstanding. They rejected his interpretation of Scripture as unorthodox, absurd etc.: because he held it to be the true inspired meaning they were, from his point of view, attributing unorthodoxy, doctrinal error, absurdity etc. to the author of Scripture.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Ibid. 7 (ed. cit. I 148) and passim. This assertion is of course an operalis assercio. Those of Wyclif's contemporaries who rejected most of his interpretations of Scripture as false were, he considered, rejecting most of Scripture itself as false and thus declaring in deed (operalis locucio) that Scripture was for the most part false. To conclude from Wyclif's statement that there existed a group of theologians who formally taught Scripture to be for the most part false is nothing less than a gross misunderstanding of Wyclif's thought and of the whole point of this treatise in particular. Buddensieg however (op. cit. I xxi) and Dom De Vooght (op. cit. 193 n. 2) did not avoid the pitfall.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Ibid. 1, 2 (ed. cit. I 1-19, 40-2).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Ibid. 12 (ed. cit. I 278-9).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Ibid. 2 (ed. cit. I 23-7).Google Scholar

⁷¹ Ibid. 17 (ed. cit. II 49-51).Google Scholar

⁷² Ibid. 19 (ed. cit., II 110-1).Google Scholar

⁷³ Ibid. 3 (ed. cit. I 57, 61-2).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Ibid. 6 (ed. cit. I 107-17).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Ibid. 8 (ed. cit. I 167-82).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Cf. supra, in notes 68-73.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Ibid. 9 (ed. cit. I 194-202).Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Ibid. 15 (ed. cit. I 386): ‘patet, quod necesse est stare concorditer exposicioni sensuum, quos sancti doctores concorditer elicuerant.’ Cf. ibid. 2, 15 (ed. cit. I 35-9, 380) etc.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Ibid. 7, 17, 19, 20 (ed. cit. I 148; II 43, 106, 133); cf. above n. 66, 67.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Ibid. 29 (ed. cit. III 166): ‘tercio patet, quod, quicunque cristiani non sequntur Cristum in moribus, nedum non sunt cristiani, sed nec pape, episcopi vel alii recti officarii Jesu Cristi.’Google Scholar

⁸¹ Ibid. 32 (ed. cit. III 287): ‘dogma operis … locucio facti.’Google Scholar

⁸² Ibid. 20 (ed. cit. II 131): ‘nonne lex Cristi in scriptura tradita per se sufficit?’ Wyclif not infrequently uses the term ‘tradere’ with reference to Scripture, cf. 7, 20 (ed. cit. II 152; II 129).Google Scholar

⁸³ Ibid. 15 (ed. cit. I 405).Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Ibid. (ed. cit. I 402, 405).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Ibid. (ed. cit. I 382-3, 396-7): ‘et per istam distinccionem possunt tolli leges, que videntur sonare, quod omnes epistole decretales sunt paris autoritatis cum ewangelio. hoc est verum, si sit scriptura sacra per eos explicata. sed non, quia quicunque cristianus hoc dicit, sed quia deus hoc dicit.’Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Ibid. 7 (ed. cit. I 142).Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Ibid. 15 (ed. cit., I 386) and passim.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Ibid. 21, 24, 32 (ed. cit. II 155, 235, 268; III 308).Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Ibid. 4 (ed. cit. I 77-9); cf. 28 (ed. cit. III 111).Google Scholar

¹ For the date of the De verit. sacr. script. cf. Buddensieg, in the Wyclif Society edition, I. xlviii-liv, and Workman, op. cit. II 4.Google Scholar

² Netter, e.g., lays particular emphasis on Wyclif's practice as seen especially in his treatment of the Eucharist, cf. infra, pp. 329-333.Google Scholar

³ De eucharistia (ed. Loserth, I., WS 1892).Google Scholar

⁴ In the De euch. 5 (ed. cit. 118) we find Wyclif appealing in support to the testimony of the faithful. Cf. Opus evangelicum 3.40 (ed. Loserth, I., WS 1896) II 145).Google Scholar

⁵ De euch. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 (ed. cit. 25-6, 30-2, 38, 49-50, 67, 71-2, 106, 108, 117, 125, 142, 156, 158, 199, 225, 278-9).Google Scholar

⁶ Ibid. 9 (ed. cit. 272-8, 311). We may note how Wyclif's attitude to the friars is hardening into opposition; it is they who introduced (9 [ed. cit. 285]) and now support (ibid. [ed. cit. 312]) the error of transubstantiation.Google Scholar

⁷ Ibid. 9 (ed. cit. 315).Google Scholar

⁸ Ibid. 2, 9 (ed. cit. 48-9, 278-9).Google Scholar

⁹ Ibid. 5, 9 (ed. cit. 141-2, 311).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Ibid. 5, 7 (ed. cit. 141-2, 219): ‘manente transsubstanciati essencia’; cf. infra n. 21, 36.Google Scholar

¹¹ Ibid. 5 (ed. cit. 142).Google Scholar

¹² Ibid. 7 (ed. cit. 223).Google Scholar

¹³ Ibid. 4, 9 (ed. cit. 92, 297, 314).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Ibid. 9 (ed. cit. 311).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Ibid. 5 (ed. cit. 125).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Ibid. 3, 9 (ed. cit. 73, 283, 286-8).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ibid. 9, 5 (ed. cit. 283, 116).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Ibid. 5 (ed. cit. 119).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Ibid. 3, 9 (ed. cit. 76, 287).Google Scholar

²⁰ Ibid. 6 (ed. cit. 173, 175).Google Scholar

²¹ Ibid., 3 (ed. cit. 74-6) taken in conjunction with 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 (ed. cit. 100, 123, 130, 131, 137, 144, 148, 175, 189, 221, 231, 289). Cf. 5 (ed. cit. 123): ‘quodammodo sed non essencialiter conversiva vini in sanguinem’; ibid. (ed. cit. 130): ‘quidditas substancie signantis sopiatur quoad consideracionem hominis, et tota devota intencio colligatur in Christum.’Google Scholar

²² Ibid. 5 (ed. cit. 130-1).Google Scholar

²³ Ibid. (ed. cit. 115-6).Google Scholar

²⁴ Ibid. (ed. cit. 120-1).Google Scholar

²⁵ Ibid. (ed. cit. 137-40, 150); 9 (ed. cit. 288, 292).Google Scholar

²⁶ Ibid. 9, 5, 6, 9 (ed. cit. 311, 154, 172, 288, 292).Google Scholar

²⁷ Ibid. 9 (ed. cit. 274, 277, 282, 286).Google Scholar

²⁸ Ibid. 4 (ed. cit. 99-100).Google Scholar

²⁹ Ibid. 5, 7 (ed. cit. 136-7, 220).Google Scholar

³⁰ Ibid. 6, 7 (ed. cit. 188, 227).Google Scholar

³¹ Ibid. 5 (ed. cit. 152).Google Scholar

³² Ibid. 3 (ed. cit. 72-3).Google Scholar

³³ Ibid. 9 (ed. cit. 296).Google Scholar

³⁴ Ibid. (ed. cit. 295).Google Scholar

³⁵ Ibid. (ed. cit. 277).Google Scholar

³⁶ Ibid. 3, 4, 5, 9 (ed. cit. 33-46, 83-97, 106-16, 122-3, 154, 313). Cf. 9 (ed. cit. 313): ‘non enim est racio quin panis sacratus et vinum simpliciter sint sacramentum corporis dominici, sicut aqua benedicta sit sacramentum baptismi et sic de aliis sacramentis.’Google Scholar

³⁷ Ibid. Against those who disagree with him, Wyclif frequently stresses that Scripture must be interpreted according to the sense of the Holy Spirit, cf. 5, 7, 9 (ed. cit. 127, 217, 295, 297, 298, 310).Google Scholar

³⁸ Ibid. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 (ed. cit. 53-83, 132-6, 145, 150, 189-205, 232-72, 298-309).Google Scholar

³⁹ Ibid. 2, 9 (ed. cit. 48, 288).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ De septem donis Spiritus Sancti 9 (Polemical Works, ed. Buddensieg, R., WS 1883, I 230).Google Scholar

⁴¹ De blasphemia 4 (ed. H. Dziewicki, M., WS 1893, 54). The reference is to Proverbs 30.15.Google Scholar

⁴² Supplementum Trialogi 5 (ed. Lechler, G., Oxford 1869, 437-8).Google Scholar

⁴³ De quattuor sectis novellis 1 (Pol. Works, ed. cit. I 242-3).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ As late as August 1384 Wyclif could write in the De quattuor sectis novellis, 5 (Pol. Works, ed. cit. I 260; the eclipse mentioned in this tract as near at hand took place on 17 August 1384 — cf. Workman, op. cit. II 93 n. 2): ‘admittatur ergo reverenter papa, de quanto sequitur vestigia sancti Petri, et de quanto exorbitat, fugiatur.’ Whether this can be taken as a genuine sentiment or just a cloak of his heretical malice, as Netter would say, is of course open to question. Wyclif at any rate is always adamant (cf. e.g., De blasphemia 3 [ed. cit. 41]; De ordine christiano 4 [Op. Min. ed. cit. 136]; Supplem. Trial. 4 [ed. cit. 424]) on the point that Christ's vicar must be preeminent in virtue, especially in poverty, humility and readiness to serve; in this will consist his primacy and not in the power at present exercised by Antichrist which is Caesarean in origin. (Cf. De Christo et suo adversario Antichristo 7 [Pol. Works, ed. cit. II 669]). Wyclif also insists, obviously as a result of the Schism, that the cardinals’ choice is not necessarily or at all Christ's vicar. They cannot even know if he is predestined and a member of the Church. Let them await, he writes in the De blasphemia 3 (ed. cit. 43), a special revelation or altogether renounce the onus of choosing as the Apostles did in the election of Matthew. But Wyclif continues always to repeat (cf. De quattuor sectis novellis 5 [Pol. Works ed. cit. I 258]) that the one efficacious sign of the divine election (without which everything is null and void) to any office is a good life and good works according to the Gospel.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ De blasphemia 5 (ed. cit. 66); Suppl. Trial. 5 (ed. cit. 437-8); De septem donis Spiritus Sancti 9 (Pol. Works, ed. cit. I 229-30); De quattuor sectis novellis 7 (Pol. Works, ed. cit. I 265-6). The passage from the Suppl. Trial. reads as follows: ‘Videntur enim innuere, quod Christus in tali mensura tradidit legem suam, quod non potest in quantitate aut qualitate deficere, sic quod si unum jota foret fidei scripturae additum vel ablatum, foret notabiliter pejorata; et per idem si aliquis sensus scripturae foret ablatus et alius positus in loco ejus; sic quod fides hujus legis non potest corrigi, sed quod in ultimo gradu bonitatis possibili erat data, quia defectus in quocunque hujusmodi blaspheme in Christi ignorantiam vel negligentiam redundaret.’ The sentences which precede and follow this passage are difficult to interpret but do not, I think, affect the meaning. Wyclif here is stating his own views in the impersonal and tentative style (videntur enim innuere) he commonly affects.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ De septem donis Spiritus Sancti 9 (Pol. Works I 229-30).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Trialogus 4.15 (ed. Lechler, G., Oxford 1869, 297); Opus evangelicum 3.51 (ed. cit. II 188).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Dialogus sive speculum Ecclesie militantis 24 (ed. W. Pollard, A., WS 1886, 49); Opus evang. 3.51 (ed. cit. II 187).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Opus evang. 3.11, 16, 51 (ed. cit. II 42, 57, 187).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Trialogus 4.23 (ed. cit. 326-30).Google Scholar

⁵¹ Ibid. 25 (ed. cit. 333).Google Scholar

⁵² Opus evang. 3.42 (ed. cit. II 155).Google Scholar

⁵³ De fratribus ad scholares (Op. min. 18).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Exposicio textus Matthei XXIII 4 (Op. min. 324, 325).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Ibid. 5 (Op. min. 326-7): ‘Et sic breviter omnis secta, status vel operacio quam Christus non approbat in suo evangelio est racionabiliter dimittenda.’ The following paragraph is based on De blasphemia 16 (ed.cit. 242-4); Dialogus 26 (ed. cit. 53-4); Opus evang. 2.3 (ed. cit. I 246); De quattuor sectis novellis 8 (Pol. Works 1271-2); Exposicio textus Matthei XXIII 4-6 (Op. min. 324-31).Google Scholar

¹ Select English Works ed. A. Arnold III, T. (Oxford 1871) 454–96. For date, see Workman, , op. cit. II 388 n. 4.Google Scholar

² Sel. Engl. Works III 483, 488. When quoting here and later from the English tracts of Wyclif and the Lollards as printed by Arnold and Matthew I have modified the spelling slightly, chiefly in order to avoid the Old and Middle English letters, thorn and yogh.Google Scholar

³ Ibid. 484, 483, 487, 488, 490, 493.Google Scholar

⁴ Ibid. 482.Google Scholar

⁵ Ibid. 485.Google Scholar

⁶ Ibid. 467.Google Scholar

⁷ Ibid. 460, 474, 464.Google Scholar

⁸ Ibid. 459.Google Scholar

⁹ Ibid. 479.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Ibid. 482.Google Scholar

¹¹ Cf. below, p. 320. Quotations here are from the English text given in Roger Dymmok's Liber contra XII errores et hereses Lollardorum edited for the Wyclif Society (n.d.; 1922?) by the Rev. Cronin, H. S. Google Scholar

¹² Ed. cit., xxix.Google Scholar

¹³ Ibid. 292.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Ibid. 237.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Ibid. 71, 272.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Ibid. 160.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ibid. 113.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Ibid. 53.Google Scholar

¹⁹ The English Works of Wyclif Hitherto Unprinted, ed. D. Matthew, F. (EETS, original series 74; 1880) 1–27. Workman (op. cit. I 331) attributes it to Purvey.Google Scholar

²⁰ Ed. cit. 8.Google Scholar

²¹ Ibid. 2-3. These remarks are made apropos the institution of friars.Google Scholar

²² Printed by Matthew, F. D., op. cit. 52-107; because of its style it is considered not to be a work of Wyclif himself, cf. Workman, op. cit. I 330.Google Scholar

²³ Ed. cit. 98.Google Scholar

²⁴ Ibid. 93.Google Scholar

²⁵ Printed by Matthew, F. D., op. cit. 254-62.Google Scholar

²⁶ Ed. cit. 259.Google Scholar

²⁷ Ibid. 257. The reference to the Trinity here as elsewhere in Lollard litterature (e.g. Twenty-five Points, Sel. Engl. Works III 495) recalls Wyclif's own writings in which similar passing references are a frequent occurrence. Analogies from the Trinity are a marked feature of Wyclif's theology: cf. De simonia 1 (ed. Herzberg-Frankel, and Dziewicki, H. M., WS 1898, 1) where simony is said to be against the Father, apostasy against the Son, and blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; Trialcgus 2.4, 7; 3.3, 27 (ed. cit. 87, 99, 136-7, 223-4).Google Scholar

²⁸ ‘De causis dampnacionis XVIII articulorum,’ Fasciculus rerum expetendarum ac fugiendarum, ed. Brown, (London 1690) 264.Google Scholar

²⁹ Doctrinale antiquitatum III 6 Doctrina 2 (ed. cit. III 11b).Google Scholar

³⁰ Repressor of over much Blaming of the Clergy, ed. Babington, (Rolls Series 1860) I 5-7. On Peacock see F. Jacob, E., ‘Reynold Pecock Bishop of Chichester’ Proc. Brit. Acad. 37 (1952) 121–53.Google Scholar

¹ Fasciculi zizaniorum (Rolls Series 5, 1858) 3.Google Scholar

² Ibid. 4-103, 453-80; for date see Workman, op. cit. II 121.Google Scholar

³ Cf. supra, p. 284 f.Google Scholar

⁴ Fasc. ziz. 43, 55.Google Scholar

⁵ Ibid. 55, 73.Google Scholar

⁶ Ibid. 20, 26.Google Scholar

⁷ Ibid. 55.Google Scholar

⁸ Ibid. Google Scholar

⁹ For political background see Gwynn, , The Austin Friars 211-24; for Wyclif's relations with the friars at this stage, ibid. 225-39.Google Scholar

¹⁰ De civ. dom. 2.1 (ed. cit. II 3); cf. above p.291.Google Scholar

¹¹ Sermones XXXI, XXXIX super Epistolas (Sermones ed. Loserth, III, I. [WS 1889] 248-57, 257-67).Google Scholar

¹² Sermones, ed. cit. III 244, 246. Fasc. Ziz. ed. cit. 239. Workman, op. cit. II 123-4.Google Scholar

¹³ Sermones, ed. cit. III 263. For the friendly interchange of lecture notes between Wyclif and Woodford when the two were lecturing on the Sentences, cf. Little, A. G., The Grey Friars in Oxford (Oxford Hist. Soc. 20; 1892) 81; for Woodford's opposition to Wyclif's policy of ecclesiastical disendowment, cf. Opera minora, ed. cit. 415, De civ. dom. 3.18 (ed. cit. III 351).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Wellys is referred to as ‘dompnus niger,’ ‘canis niger,’ ‘canis edentulus,’ ‘simia’; his observations are called ‘latraciones canine.’ Cf. Sermones, ed. cit. III 252-4.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Sermones, ed. cit. III 263: ‘Sed quod magis molestat me, amici mei karissimi cum quibus sepe communicaveram sensum Dei, vel sinistre vel imperfecte reportant sentenciam promulgatam.’Google Scholar

¹⁶ Ibid. 252-7, 262-7.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ibid. 265.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Cf. supra, n. 15.Google Scholar

¹⁹ De civ. dom. 1.18, 44 (ed. cit. I 125, 390, 427); cf. De verit. sacr. script. 15 (ed. cit. I 396-7).Google Scholar

²⁰ Workman, op. cit. I 293-9; McFarlane, K. B., John Wycliffe and the Beginnings of English Non-conformity (London 1952) 79–81; Gwynn, op. cit. 232-3; Knowles, op. cit. II 69; Fasc. ziz. 245-57.Google Scholar

²¹ Fasc. ziz. 253: ‘Credere debemus quod tunc solum ligat vel solvit simpliciter Christi vicarius, quando agit conformiter legi Christi.’Google Scholar

²² De civ. dom. 1.38 (ed. cit. I 281-4).Google Scholar

²³ Fasc. ziz. 243 (from bull sent to Oxford): ‘… nonnullas propositiones ac conclusiones erroneas et falsas ac pravitatem haereseos sapientes; quae statum totius ecclesiae ac etiam secularem politiam subvertere et enervare nituntur …’Google Scholar

²⁴ In a letter to Abbot Litlington of Westminster, at that time one of the Benedictine presidents. Cf. Knowles, , op. cit. II 69 n. 2.Google Scholar

²⁵ Sermo XXIV super epistolas (Sermones, ed. cit. III 184-90).Google Scholar

²⁶ Ibid. (ed. cit. III 188-90).Google Scholar

²⁷ Cf. supra, n. 14.Google Scholar

²⁸ McFarlane, op. cit. 79 (cf. n. 20, supra); Knowles, op. cit. II 69 n. 2. Workman (op. cit. I 296) considers the reference is to someone at Oxford, but his suggestion that it was Uthred of Boldon founders on the hard fact that Uthred had now left Oxford and at this time held the post of Prior at Finchale. Cf. Knowles, , op. cit. II 51.Google Scholar

²⁹ For these events see Workman, op. cit. I 286-8, 308-9; McFarlane, op. cit. 74-6, 81-2.Google Scholar

³⁰ De verit. sacr. script. 14 (ed. cit. I 346).Google Scholar

³¹ Ibid. (ed. cit. I 345).Google Scholar

³² Ibid. (ed. cit. 345-7, 350-1, 361-2; the intervening pages contain Wyclif's refutation.Google Scholar

³³ Responsiones ad argumenta Radulfi Strode (Op. min. 194).Google Scholar

³⁴ Ibid. (Op. min. 195-6).Google Scholar

³⁵ Cf. supra, pp. 298 ff.Google Scholar

³⁶ Fasc. ziz. 134, 187.Google Scholar

³⁷ On the Blackfriars Synod see Workman, op. cit. II 246-93; McFarlane, op. cit. 105-8.Google Scholar

³⁸ Workman, op. cit. II 296-7; McFarlane, op. cit. 116.Google Scholar

³⁹ The Lollards maintained it argued Wyclif's orthodoxy. Cf. Netter, Doctrinale II 5 Doctr. 8 (ed. cit. II 22c-5b); Workman, op. cit. II 348. Dom De Vooght (op. cit. 201) seems to draw the same conclusion.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ed. Deanesly, M., The Lollard Bible (Cambridge 1920) 445–56. Re authorship and date (between 1378 and 1384) cf. ibid. 241 n. 4, 268-70, 445.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Sermo VIII super evangelia de sanctis (Sermones, ed. cit. II 56). Wyclif himself had previously accepted an appeal to this text of St. John. Cf. supra p. 298.Google Scholar

⁴² De quattuor sectis novellis 7 (Pol. Works ed. cit. I 264-9); for date see Workman, op. cit. II 93 n. 2.Google Scholar

⁴³ Ibid. (Pol. Works I 264): ‘hoc non est exemplatum a Christo, nec dictum in suo ewangelio, ergo non est catholice observandum.’Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Workman, op. cit. II 307. On Kingsbury, cf. Little, A. G., ‘List of Provincial Ministers’ Franciscan Papers, Lists and Documents (Manchester 1943) 197–8.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ De quattuor sectis novellis 7 (Pol. Works I 264).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Dom De Vooght, op. cit. 201-2.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Cronin, H.S., ‘A Criticism of the Received Account of What Happened in January 1395’ in his edition of Dymok's Liber contra XII errores et hereses Lollardorum xxvi-xlii.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Calendar of Close Rolls, Richard II, 5 (1392-6) 437-8; Rymer, Foedera 7 (London 1728) 806.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Calendar 434; Rymer, Foedera 7.85.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Ibid. Google Scholar

⁵¹ Workman, op. cit. II 400-1.Google Scholar

⁵² Wilkins, Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae (London 1737) III 227-30.Google Scholar

⁵³ This seems to be implied in Dom De Vooght's account, op. cit. 201-2.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Rymer, Foedera 7.806: ‘omnes et singulos Doctores Theologiae, regentes et non regentes.’Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Workman, op. cit. II 291.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Little, A. G., The Grey Friars , 247, 313.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Merton Coll. MS lat. 198 fol. 38^r: ‘opus compilatum contra quasdam conclusiones ab eodem extractas …’ The commentary carries the same heading in the Oxford Corpus Christi Coll. MS 183 and in the British Museum Harley MS 42; Coxe points out that the former is clearly a copy from another codex; this may well be the original also of the Merton and Harley texts.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Wilkins, Concilia III 230: ‘in sustentationem fidei catholicae certam declarationem fieri petiverunt et supplicarunt humiliter, de optimo christianae fidei defensionis praesidio subveniri.’Google Scholar

⁵⁹ In this more comprehensive list, the eighteen articles become twenty, three now instead of one dealing with the sacrament of Confirmation; cf. Fasc. ziz. in the unprinted part: Oxford, Bodleian Library MS e Mus. 86 fol. 104^vb-105^rb, articles 118-37.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Loci e libro veritatum, ed. Rogers, (Oxford 1881) 141.Google Scholar

⁶¹ London, British Museum Harl. MS 31 fol. 138^v; Harl. MS 42 fol. 164^v; Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Bodl. 703 fol. 38^v; Merton Coll. MS lat. 198 fol. 101^r; ed. Brown, (Cf. below n. 73) I 257.Google Scholar

⁶² Supplem. Trialogi 8 (ed. cit. 446).Google Scholar

⁶³ Ibid. This same reading is also found in Woodford's text as contained in the British Museum Royal MS 8 F. XI fol. 88^r.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Doctrinale I 2.24 (ed. cit. I 366d.).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ ‘Collatio articulorum XVIII damnatorum ab Ar. Arundel 1396 cum Trialogo Wiclefi,’ The History of the Life and Sufferings of … John Wiclif with a collection of papers and records relating to the said History (new ed. Oxford 1820) 372–81. ⁶⁶ Trialogus, ed. cit. 2-4; Workman, op. cit. II 309 n. 3.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Ibid. 3.31 (ed. cit. 238-43).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Ibid. (ed. cit. 239-40).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Trial. 4.15; Suppl. trial. 6 (ed. cit. 296-8, 437-9).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Trial. 4.2-10; Suppl. trial. 27 (ed. cit. 247-81, 338-41).Google Scholar

⁷¹ Suppl. trial. 9 (ed. cit. 452); cf. De fundatione sectarum 16 (Pol. Works I 76).Google Scholar

⁷² That conformity to Scripture is sole cause and not just a condition of the validity and authority of ecclesiastical rulings and teachings does not emerge clearly from the Trialogus and its Supplementum taken by themselves; hence we have abstracted here from this aspect.Google Scholar

⁷³ De causis condempnacionis 18 articulorum. There are three printed editions in each of which the commentary bears the title: ‘Wilhelmus Wodfordus adversus Johannem Wiclefum Anglum.’ 1) Commentariorum Aeneae Sylvii Piccolominei Senensis, De Concilio Basileae celebrato libri duo, olim quidem scripti, nunc vero primum impressi … cum multis aliis … [Basel, Andreas Cratander c. 1524] 162-260; 2) Fasciculus rerum expetendarum ac fugiendarum, ed. Gratius, Orthuinus (Coloniae 1535) XCVI^r-CXXXIII^r; 3) Fasciculus rerum expetendarum ac fugiendarum (ed. Brown, , London 1690) I 191-265. Each of these three works is a collection of tracts; the second has incorporated and expanded the first; the third has incorporated and expanded the second. The first bears no bibliographical indications. It is referred to by Gratius, op. cit. Aiiii^r (unsigned) and by Brown, op. cit. I iii. Panzer in his Annales Typographici (Norimbergae 1801) IX 163 quotes an opinion to the effect that it was printed at Cologne about 1521, but Dr. Vischer of the University Library, Basel has very kindly informed me that it is now taken to have been run off from the presses of Andreas Cratander at Basel about 1524. On the German humanist Orthuinus Gratius (Ortwin van Graes), cf. Reichling, D., Ortwin Gratius, Sein Leben und Wirken (Heiligenstadt 1884). Gratius’ Fasciculus was printed by Peter Quentell at Cologne (Reichling, op. cit. 102) and put on the Index of Prohibited Books in 1564 (ibid. 77). Luther referred to Gratius as a ‘Hund oder vielmehr ein reissender Wolf, wenn nicht ein Krokodil … (ibid. 2). Lechler (Johann von Wiclif und die Vorgeschichte der Reformation [Leipzig 1873] II 48 n. 1) makes him the inevitable Jesuit. Brown's expanded edition of the Fasciculus is available in most libraries and needs no comment here. Woodford's commentary on the eighteen articles is contained in the following MSS: Cambridge, Trinity Coll. MS 347; London, Brit. Mus. Harl. MSS 31, 42, Royal MS 8 F. XI; Oxford, Corpus Christi Coll. MS 183; Merton Coll. MS lat. 198; New Coll. MS 123; Worcester Coll. MS LRA 6 (formerly Merton MS lat. 318); Bodleian Library MS Bodl. 703, Bodley MS e Mus. 86 (incomplete; contains commentary on first two articles only); Paris Bibl. Nat. MS lat. 3381; Prague University Library MS 746 (IV. G. 14).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ London, Brit. Mus. Harl. MS 31 fol. 143^v, Harl. MS 42 fol. 169^v; Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Bodl. 703 fol. 40v-41^r; Merton Coll. MS lat 198 fol 109^r; Worcester Coll. MS LRA 6 fol. 118^r.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ In the argument in which he adduces the testimony of the Fathers, Woodford, according to Dom De Vooght (op. cit. 205) makes ‘a prodigious leap’ from Gregory the Great to Nicholas of Lyra. One answer perhaps to this criticism is that it is precisely the patristic period with which Woodford is here dealing and that Nicholas of Lyra is an aftert hought and an intrusion. The intervening centuries are covered elsewhere. The results gleaned are, it is true, sparse (inevitably so, as Dom De Vooght remarks) and also reflect the uncritical historical methods of the day. But at any rate in the argument from canon 1 aw (ed.Brown, I 259), documents of Popes Agatho, Gregory IV, Nicholas I (Decretum Gratiani, D. 19 cc. 2, 5, 1 [Corpus Juris Canonici, ed. Friedberg, , I 60, 61, 58-60]) and Innocent III (Decretales Gregorii IX 3.41.6 [Friedberg, ed. cit. II 636-9]) are referred to, if not cited in full. And in the fourth and fifth arguments (ed. Brown, I 260, 263) mention is made of the Iconoclast controversy and the attitude adopted by Popes Sisinnius and Gregory II. The influence of the scholastics may be noted in the sixth argument (ed. Brown, I 260-4) where Woodford exploits for his own purposes and incorporates into his own scheme of things the scriptural insufficiencies they had pointed out.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ ed. Brown, I 257-65.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Ibid. 264; cf. supra p. 310.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ There is only one lapse: ed. I, Brown 246 where Wyclif is referred to as ‘maledictus.’ Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Doctrinale II 5.56 (ed. cit. II 344d): ‘librum valde scintillantem.’Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Fasciculus, ed. I, Brown 253.Google Scholar

⁸¹ In any case the lively comments with which he has adorned the margins of his edition provide the modern reader with welcome comic relief. Particularly delightful are the sideline remarks in which he address the contestants, reproving Woodford or warning Wyclif of a wily move on the part of his adversary. The elegant latinity of some of these comments is not by any means their least delightful feature.Google Scholar

⁸² Fasciculus, ed. I, Brown 257, 262, 263, 264, 265.Google Scholar

⁸³ Ibid. I 257.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Ibid. I 259.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ De Vooght, Dom, op. cit. 206-9.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Fasciculus, ed. I, Brown 260.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ De Vooght, Dom, op. cit . 208.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Fasciculus, ed. I, Brown 260-4.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ De Vooght, Dom, op. cit. 209.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Lang, Albert, ‘Der Bedeutungswandel der Begriffe “fides” und “haeresis” und die dogmatische Wertung der Konzilsentscheidungen von Vienne und Trient,’ Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift 4 (1953) 133–46; Piet Fr. Fransen, S.J. ‘Réflexions sur l’Anathème au Concile de Trente’ Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 29 (1953) 657-72.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Fasciculus, ed. I, Brown 264.Google Scholar

⁹² Ibid. Google Scholar

⁹³ Doctrinale I 2.23 (ed. cit. I 365c).Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Ibid. I Prol. (ed. cit. I 5c).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Humbert, A., Les origines de la théologie moderne , I: La renaissance de l'antiquité chrétienne 1450-1520 (Paris 1911) 74–6. This work was placed on the Index of Prohibited Books.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Doctrinale I 2.21 (ed. cit. I 348d-52c).Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Ibid. I 2.19 (ed. cit. I 333d-43c).Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Sermo XLV [not XIV, as given by Blanciotti] super Epistolas (Sermones, ed. cit. III 384-393).Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Ibid. (ed. cit. III 390, 392); this passage refers to the Blackfriars Synod; it is quoted by Netter I 2.19 (ed. cit. I 334e-5a).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Doctrinale I 2.19 (ed. cit. I 335b). ¹⁰¹ Ibid. (ed. cit. I 335b-8a).Google Scholar

¹⁰² Ibid. III 6 Doctr. 3; I 2.25 (ed. cit. III 16a, I 370d).Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Ibid. III 6 Doctr. 2 (ed. cit. III 11b).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Ibid. e.g. II 5 Doctr. 2 (erf. cit. II 8a-11a).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Ibid. II 5.81 (erf. cit. II 489c-d); the reference is to Apoc. 12.4.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Ibid. III 6 Doctr. 2; I 1. Prol. (ed. cit. III 12d, I 31c).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ e.g. II 5.162 (ed. cit. II 936a).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Ibid. III 6. Doctr. 2 (ed. cit. III 11e-12a), with reference to Apoc. 13.11.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Ibid. passim, e.g. II.5. Doctr. 2; III.6. Doctr. 2 (ed. cit. II 8c. III 12d-13c).Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Ibid. III 6.92 (ed. cit. III 586d): ‘Ipse [Wyclif] quod vult in Evangelio Christi fundat, et quod vult excludit. Auctoritate proprio statuit sibi …’; ibid. 587a: ‘Sed iste usurpata jactantia sua, quae vult, ostendit, quae non vult occultat. Ut videt juvari posse haeresim suam, his claudit, his aperit beneficia Scripturarum.’Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Ibid. II 5.30 (ed. cit. II 200b): ‘Et tu, quasi portares authoritatem orbis, omnes provocas contra omnes.’Google Scholar

¹¹² Ibid. I 1.40 (ed. cit. I. 214b): ‘Haec est praesumptio tuae vesaniae, praeferre te Sacris Doctoribus, Patribus approbatis.’Google Scholar

¹¹³ Ibid. I Prol. (ed. cit. I 5a-10c).Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Ibid. III 6.115 (ed. cit. III 720d): ‘Sed ab hac dictione cerebrosa, Scripturarum pelagum adeamus’; I 1.38 (ed. cit. I 209c): ‘trinitatem istam quam Wicleffus sibi proprio fabricavit ingenio, non a Deo vero diximus exortem, sed ab Wicleffo sculptam, imaginarium idolum, et phantasticam trinitatem’ (of Wyclif's anthropology); Wyclif is frequently reproached for being more a philosopher than a theologian, e.g. I Prol. (ed. cit. I 6c); and his philosophy is rejected as ‘fantastic,’ e.g. I 1.13 (ed. cit. I 86a): ‘phantasticus philosophus’; III 6.102 (ed. cit. III 653a): ‘phantastica ratione sua arguit.’Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Ibid. III 6.92 (ed. cit. III 586d): ‘Ipse non sequitur authoritatem Scripturae, vel Ecclesiae. Quid igitur sequitur? Fictitia sui cordis.’Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Ibid. III 6.101 (ed. cit. III 639a): ‘nihil ex his probat, quasi tantum dixisse sufficiat.’Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Ibid. I 1.34 (ed. cit. I 187e) with reference to John 8.13.Google Scholar

¹ McFarlane, K. B., John Wycliffe and the Beginnings of English Non-Conformity (London 1952) 10.Google Scholar

² The English Church in the Fourteenth Century (Cambridge 1955) 2.Google Scholar

³ John Wyclif (supra, Sect. I n. 1.) II 324.Google Scholar

⁴ Ibid. II 5.Google Scholar

⁵ De verit. sacr. script. ed. cit. viii.Google Scholar

⁶ Ibid. xxi.Google Scholar

⁷ Ibid. xxxvii.Google Scholar

⁸ Leipzig edition p. xl; the whole passage is omitted in the English edition. Knowing of these findings, Buddensieg is careful not to say what his English translator makes him say on p. xxv: ‘This new unheard-of assertion: « Scriptura sacra est precipua autoritas cuilibet cristiano et regula fidei et tocius perfeccionis humanae, » is, as far as I can see, the gist of his [Wyclif's] investigations’; which is a rather strange ‘translation’ of the German: ‘in diesem reformatorischen Satze finde ich das Ergebnis seiner Untersuchungen’ (Leipzig ed. xxvii).Google Scholar

⁹ WS edition xliii n. 1.Google Scholar

¹⁰ McFarlane, E.g., op. cit . 186-8.Google Scholar

¹¹ Kropatscheck, F., Das Schriftprinzip der lutherischen Kirche , I: Die Vorgeschichte. Das Erbe des Mittelalters (Leipzig 1904).Google Scholar

¹² Ibid. 438-41.Google Scholar

¹³ Ibid. 439-40.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Ibid. 459.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Ibid. 7-13.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Werenfels, S., Opuscula theologica (Basel 1718) 859, quoted by Kropatscheck, op. cit. 8.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Kropatscheck, op. cit. 12.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Ibid. 7-13.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Ibid. 348-59.Google Scholar

²⁰ Ibid. 359.Google Scholar

²¹ Ibid. 357.Google Scholar

²² Workman, op. cit. I 324, who refers to Loserth's Johann von Wiclif und Guilelmus Peraldus (Vienna 1916).Google Scholar

²³ Cf. above pp. 280-298.Google Scholar

²⁴ The Church and her Members 9 (Sel. Engl. Works ed. Arnold, III 358). Workman (op. cit. I 14, 431) considers this tract to be ‘undoubtedly by Wyclif.’ It is also printed by Winn in his Select English Writings (Oxford 1929) 118–39. Winn provides a useful appendix (pp. 141-4) on Wyclif's English.Google Scholar

²⁵ Cf. supra, pp. 308-310.Google Scholar

²⁶ Loserth, I. in the Introduction to his edition of the Opus evangelicum, I iii.Google Scholar

²⁷ Cited by A. Knox, R., Enthusiasm: A Chapter in the History of Religion (Oxford 1950) 395.Google Scholar

²⁸ Ibid. 405.Google Scholar

²⁹ Les sources de la doctrine chrétienne … (supra, Introd. n. 4)Google Scholar

³⁰ Ibid. 255.Google Scholar

³¹ Ibid. 168-200. While most reviewers drew attention to these pages, Dom Knowles seems to have been alone in challenging them, cf. Journal of Theological Studies, N.S. 6 (1955) 318.Google Scholar

³² Les sources … 13.Google Scholar

³³ Ibid. 200-10. Reviving Wadding's error long since corrected by historians, Dom De Vooght refers throughout to Woodford as William Waterford. Cf. Little, A. G., The Grey Friars, 246-9; Pollard, A. F., ‘William of Woodford’ DNB 21. 867b-8b.Google Scholar

³⁴ Dom De Vooght, op. cit. 168-9.Google Scholar

³⁵ Ibid. 169-70.Google Scholar

³⁶ Ibid. 178-81.Google Scholar

³⁷ Ibid. 181-4.Google Scholar

³⁸ Ibid. 184.Google Scholar

³⁹ Ibid. 185.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ibid. 185.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Ibid. 194, 259.Google Scholar

⁴² Ibid. 194.Google Scholar

⁴³ Ibid. 196-7.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Ibid. 201.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Ibid. 201. Dom De Vooght takes his quotations from the first printed edition of Woodford's tract, supplying it (p. 201 n. 3) with bibliographical indications from thet hird.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ibid. 209.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Ibid. 260. On p. 208 Woodford is said to be ‘utterly in error’ (‘l'erreur de Waterford est totale’); on p. 209 his whole tract is pronounced ‘absolutely worthless as a refutation of Wyclif’ (‘comme réfutation de Wiclif, le libelle de Waterford est absolument égal à zéro’); on p. 210 n. 1 his final conclusion is referred to as ‘pitiable’; on p. 242 reference is made to his ‘clumsy errors’ (‘les lourdes erreurs de Waterford’); and on p. 262 n. 1 he is passed off as ‘pas sérieux.’ The temptation is strong to return some of these compliments.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Ibid. 259-60.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Compare, e.g., our author's rosy appreciation (189-90) of Wyclif's political career with the sober judgement of McFarlane, op. cit. 86.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Vooght, De, op. cit. 200 n. 5.Google Scholar

⁵¹ On p. 182, after a quotation from the De dominio divino, our author affirms that the text expresses not an opinion once held and later corrected, but Wyclif's constant conviction; to bolster up this contention, he quotes from the — De ventate sacrae scripturae. Google Scholar

⁵² Cf. H. Stein, I., ‘An unpublished fragment of Wyclif's Confessio,’ Speculum 8 (1933) 503–10. Stein discovered that the continental MSS of the Confessio (two at Vienna and two at Prague) give a rather longer text than that hitherto known (Fasc. ziz. ed. cit. 115-32). He argues (op. cit. 503-4) for the authenticity of this longer version and printed the additional matter from Codex Vindob. 1387, fol. 43^r-6^v.Google Scholar

⁵³ Gwynn, A., op. cit. (supra, Introd. n. 8) 238-9. For a different interpretation cf. H. Stein, I., ‘Two Notes on Wyclif,’ Speculum 6 (1931) 468.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Les sources … 201, 209.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ e.g. ibid. 208.Google Scholar

¹ Cf. De dominio divino 1.12 (ed. cit. 100); De mandatis divinis 1-9 (ed. cit. 1-81).Google Scholar

² De civili dominio 1.1-8 (ed. cit. I 1-46).Google Scholar

³ Ibid. 1.7-14 (ed. cit. I 47-103).Google Scholar

⁴ Cf. above pp. 313-316.Google Scholar

⁵ Dominion is lost only by sin, is otherwise inalienable, cf. De civili dominio 1.7, 8, 9, 18 (ed. cit. I 47, 49, 58, 62, 126).Google Scholar

⁶ Ibid. 1.18 (ed. cit. I 125): ‘Ius divinum est ius a solo Deo institutum, per Christum verbo et opere explanatum, ut lex ewangelica. Ius canonicum vocatur ius a prelatis ecclesie institutum et promulgatum ad rebelles sacris regulis cohercendum. et potest intelligi ut incommunicans iuri ewangelico, ut sunt tradiciones humanitus invente; vel ut communicans iuri ewangelico, ut sunt articuli fidei in sanctis synodis sive consiliis explanati. Sicut enim idem est homo in vestibus aut actibus noticiam inducentibus variatus, sic eadem est lex vel veritas ewangelica in ewangelio implicata vel detecta, et per ecclesiam postmodum aliter sed non contrarie explanata.’ And he goes on to say that canon law is partly evangelical law, and partly merely human traditions. Ibid. 1.44 (ed. cit. I 399): ‘Unde iura civilia et canonica, secundum id quod continent de pura iusticia, sunt lex Christi.’ Ibid. (ed. cit. I 427): ‘Item vel sunt dicte tradiciones inpertinentes legi Christi, contrarie, vel inplicate: primo non possunt esse; si secundo, sunt abolende; si tercio modo, tunc sunt lex ewangelica fundabilis in Scriptura, et sic sunt veritates divinitus adinvente et in Scriptura sacra reperte.’ Cf. also De veritate sacrae scripturae 15 (ed. cit. I 396-7).Google Scholar

⁷ Cf. Opas evangelicum 3.13, 29, 38 (ed. cit. II 49, 109, 139) and Netter's comments, Doctrinale I 2.51 (ed. cit. I 509d-15c).Google Scholar

⁸ Doctrinale, passim, e.g., II Doctr. 2 (ed. cit. II 9e).Google Scholar

⁹ Probably by extension of the exemplarist principle that whatever does not correspond to the eternal idea, fails in (ontological) truth and is a lie; cf. De dom. div. 1.12 (ed. cit. 100).Google Scholar

¹⁰ De doctrina Christiana 2.42 (PL 34.65): ‘quidquid homo extra [scripturas] didicerit, si noxium est, ibi damnatur; si utile est ibi invenitur’ quoted by Wyclif, e.g., De civ. dom. 1.44 (ed. cit. I 397): De verit. sacr. script. 2, 3 (ed. cit. I 22, 48, 49); De Ecclesia 8, 14 (ed. Loserth, I. [WS 1886] 173, 316); De blasphemia 3 (ed. cit. 44).Google Scholar

¹¹ De verit. sacr. script. 15 (ed. cit. I 405): ‘impossibile est, fidelem vel infidelem dicere veritatem, nisi illa sit in scriptura sacra.’ Cf. Sermo XXVIII super Epistolas (Sermones, ed. cit. III 218) where he maintains the mathematical truth that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles to be implied in the Prologue of St. John: ‘Omnia per ipsum facta sunt.’ The Catholic theologian, it may be noted, will set out with the settled a priori conviction that some particular truth must be contained in the sources of revelation only when there is question of a point proposed by the Church's magisterium as of faith. Wyclif sets out with this conviction even when his point of departure is a mere opinion or personal insight.Google Scholar

¹² For Wyclif's favorite idea that Scripture is Christ cf. supra p. 295; for his doctrine of illumination cf. supra p. 284.Google Scholar

¹³ De verit. sacr. script. 7 (ed. cit. I 158): ‘quidquid ergo scriptura videtur sonare, quod non sit caritas vel ad illam, hoc non est sensus scripture, sed sibi contrarium,’ quoted as from Augustine's Confessions 7.19; but I have been unable to trace the quotation. De verit. socr. script. 22 (ed. cit. III 141): ‘ideo tradunt sancti pro regula, quod, quandocunque videtur ex scriptura sequi inconveniens secundum sensum elicitum, sciunt indubie, quod ille non est sensus scripture sacre, sed illo dimisso alius est rimandus.’Google Scholar

¹⁴ The English Church in the Fourteenth Century 189.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Ibid. 189-262.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Ibid. 250.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ibid. 200-1.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Ed. Deanesly, M., op. cit. 447-8.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Ibid. 456. Our Lady, it may be remarked here, was always linked very closely to Christ in Wyclif's piety. Notable examples of this are his sermon on the Assumption (Sermones IV 387-98) and the little piece on the Ave Maria (Sel. Engl. Works, ed. III, Arnold 111-3; Select Engl. Writings, ed. Winn 88-90) which was interpolated into the so-called Lay-Folk's Catechism of Archbishop Thoresby (cf. Workman, op. cit. II 158-9; Pantin, op. cit. 211-2). E.g. ‘As Adam and Eve were cause of mankind's damnation, so Jesus and Mary are cause of man's salvation … Worship we Jesus and Mary with all our might.’ (Sel. Engl. Works III 112-3; the Lay Folk's Catechism version printed by Winn [op. cit. 90] reads simply ‘worship we Mary with all our might’); ‘Hic videtur mihi quod impossibile est nos premiari sine Marie suffragio … Ipsa enim fuit quodammodo causa incarnacionis et passionis Christi et per consequens salvacionis tocius mundi’ (Sermones IV 391). It is in this same sermon that with great reverence Wyclif concludes with regard to the assumplion of Our Lady's body (as distinct from that of her soul): ‘Pium est dubitare’ (ibid. IV 389). His Mariology is at once rich and sober; but its sobriety is already evident in the De civ. dom. (cf. supra Sect. I) and cannot therefore be due to his later views on the sufficiency of Scripture. His sermons were edited after he left Oxford (cf. Workman, op. cit. II 208) and show his Mariology quite unaffected by the nisi de quanto rule as he then understood and applied it.Google Scholar

²⁰ Opus evangelicum 3.48, 69 (ed. cit. II 173, 200-1).Google Scholar

²¹ Enthusiasm 71-89, 92-116.Google Scholar

²² Ibid. 590.Google Scholar

²³ The English Works ed. D. Matthew, F. 254-62.Google Scholar