John Wyclif

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

(WYCLIFFE, or WICLIF, etc.).

Writer and"reformer", b. probably at Hipswell nearRichmond, in Yorkshire, 1324; d. at Lutterworth, Leicestershire, 31 Dec., 1384. Hisfamily is said to have come from Wycliffe, on the Tees, in the same county. The traditional date of his birth is given as 1324, but some authorities put it earlier. Hardly anything is known of his early life, and his career at Oxford is obscured by the presence of at least one man of the same name and probably of more. It iscertain, however, that he waseducated at Balliol College and that in 1361 he must have resigned the mastership on receiving the living of Fillingham. This he exchanged a few years later for that of Ludgershall. It must not be supposed, however, that he gave up hisuniversity career, for livings were often given to learned men to enable them to continue their studies or their teaching. Wyclif himself, for instance, received a two years' license for non- residence, in 1368, on account of his studies. Meanwhile, in 1365, a man of his name, and usually identified with the future "reformer", had been appointed warden of the new Canterbury Hall bySimon Islip,Archbishop ofCanterbury, only to be turned out two years later in favor of amonk by the newarchbishop. The dispossessed warden with the fellows, appealed toRome, but failed in their appeal. A number of Wyclif's recent biographers have sought to identify this warden with another ecclesiastic, a friend ofIslip's and probably a fellow of Merton; but it seems dangerous, in spite of much plausibility in this new identification, to reject the direct statements of contemporary writers, controversialists though they be, and possibly of a reference in one of Wyclif's own writings. Soon after these events, probably in 1372, Wyclif received the Degree of Doctor of Theology. He was by this time a man of repute in theuniversity, and it is strange that his doctorate should have been so long delayed. The explanation may possibly be found in the fact that Balliol was an "Arts" college and that most of its fellows were not allowed to graduate intheology. Ecclesiastical promotion did not fail the new doctor; in 1373 he received the rich living of Lutterworth in Leicestershire, and about the same time he was granted bypapal provision aprebend in a collegiate church, while he was allowed, also bypapal license, to keep it as well as another at Lincoln; this latter, however, he did not eventually receive.

Though his opinions on church endowments must by this time have been well known in and out of Oxford, Wyclif cannot withcertainty be connected with public affairs till 1374. In that year his name appears second, after abishop, on a commission which the English Government sent toBruges to discuss with the representatives ofGregory XI, and, if possible settle, a number of points in dispute between the king and thepope. The conference came to no very satisfactory conclusion, but it appears to mark the beginning of the alliance between Wyclif and the anti-clerical oligarchic party headed by John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, the king's brother. [Note: John of Gaunt was the king's son, not his brother.] This party profited byEdward III's premature senility to misgovern in their own interests, and found in the Oxford doctor, with his theories of the subjection ofchurch property to the civil prince, a useful ally in their attacks on theChurch. Wyclif must frequently have preached inLondon at this time, "barking against the Church", and he refers to himself as "peculiaris regis clericus". The Good Parliament, however, with the help of the Black Prince, was able, in 1376, to drive John of Gaunt and his friends from power. A year later the death of the prince gave Lancaster his opportunity, and the anti-clericals had once more the control of the Government. Under these circumstances the attempt of theArchbishop ofCanterbury and theBishop ofLondon to bring Wyclif to book was not likely to succeed. He appeared at St. Paul's escorted by his powerful friends, and the proceedings soon degenerated into a quarrel between Lancaster and theBishop ofLondon. The Londoners took theirbishop's side, but the council broke up in confusion. Thepapal authority was next invoked against Wyclif, and a series ofBulls were issued fromRome. Nothing much came of them, however; Oxford, on the whole, took Wyclif's part, and a council ofdoctors declared that the propositions attributed to him, though ill-sounding, were noterroneous. When Wyclif appeared, early in 1378, at Lambeth, both the Princess ofWales and theLondon crowd interposed in his favor. The summons, however, led to the formulation of eighteen articles which give a fair account of Wyclif's teaching at this period. But before his next summons in 1381 hisheresies, orheretical tendencies, had developed rapidly. The Great Schism may partially account for this and also the fact that Wyclif was now becoming the leader of a party. It was about this time that he began to send out his "poor priests", men who, except quite at the beginning, were usuallylaymen, and to lay much more stress on theBible and on preaching. In 1380 Wyclif took the momentous step of beginning to attackTransubstantiation. It was at Oxford that he did so, calling the Host merely "an effectual sign". This open denial of adoctrine which came home to everyChristian, and the reaction which followed the Peasant Revolt, lost Wyclif much of his popularity. In 1381 an Oxford council ofdoctors condemned his teaching on the Blessed Eucharist and a year later anecclesiastical court at Blackfriars gave sentence against a series of twenty-four Wyclifite propositions. The Government was now against him. Westminster and Canterbury combined to put pressure on the still reluctantuniversity authorities. A number of prominent Wyclifites were forced to make retractations (cf.LOLLARDS), but nothing seems to have been demanded from the leader of the movement except a promise not to preach. He retired to Lutterworth and, though he continued to write voluminously both in Latin and English, remained there undisturbed till his death. He was probably cited toRome but he was too infirm to obey. Indeed he was probably paralyzed during the last two years of his life. A second stroke came in 1384 while he was hearingMass in his church, and three days later he died. He wasburied at Lutterworth, but theCouncil of Constance in 1415 ordered his remains to be taken up and cast out. This was done in 1428.

It is impossible to understand Wyclif's popularity, the weakness of theecclesiastical authorities, or even the character of his teaching, without taking into account the extraordinary condition of the country at the end of the fourteenth century. The discredit which had been brought on the principle of authority inChurch and State and the popularity of revolutionaryideas have been touched upon in the articleLOLLARDS, and the causes which explain the spread of Lollardy are responsible, to some extent at least, for Wyclif's ownmental development. His earliest writings are mainlylogical and metaphysical. He belonged to the Realist School, and claimed to be a disciple ofSt. Augustine, but it was his attitude in the practical and political questions of Evangelical poverty and Church government which gave him influence. The question of Evangelical poverty was a burning one throughout the fourteenth century. Originally a subject of bitter controversy within the ranks of theFriars Minor, it had received a wider extension, and the chieftheological writers of the time had taken sides. When thepapacy declared for the moderates, the extremists, with their literary supporters, Marsiglio of Padua,William of Ockham, and others, assumed an attitude of hostility toRome, and soon found themselves advocating a church organization withoutproperty and practically under the control of the State. From themendicants, then, Wyclif inherited hishatred ofclerical and monastic endowments, and in this he showed no great originality. Throughout theMiddle Ages the wealth of theclergy was liable to attack, and that sometimes from the mostorthodox. What is, however, characteristic of Wyclif is the argument, half-feudal and half-theological, with which he supports his attack on theclergy and themonks; yet though connected with his name it was in part borrowed from Richard Fitz-Ralph, an Oxford teacher and vice-chancellor, who had since becomeArchbishop ofArmagh. Fitz-Ralph had been himself an opponent of the "mendicants", but Wyclif found in his theory of "lordship" a convenient and a novel way of formulating the ancient butanarchical principle that no respect is due to the commands or theproperty of the wicked. "Dominion is founded in grace" is the phrase which sums up the argument, anddominium it must be remembered is a word which might be said to contain the wholefeudal theory, for it means both sovereignty andproperty. "Dominion", then, or "lordship", belongs toGod alone. Any lordship held by the creature is held ofGod and is forfeited bysin, for mortalsin is a kind of high treason towardsGod, the Overlord. Fitz-Ralph had used this argument meaning to justify the distinction between "property" and "use" which the moderateFranciscans had adopted and the extremists had rejected. Wyclif, however, brought it down into the market-place by applying it toclerical possessions. He even went further than the argument authorized him, for he came to hold that nomonks orclergy, not even the righteous, could hold temporal possessions withoutsin, and further that it was lawful for kings and princes to deprive them of what they held unlawfully.Logically, Wyclif'sdoctrine of lordship should apply to temporal lords as well as to spiritual; but thislogical step he never took, and he did not, therefore, contribute intentionally to the Peasant Revolt of 1381. Yet the assaults of so well known a man onchurch property must have encouraged the movement (of this there is a good deal of evidence), and the "poor priests", who were less closely connected withlaymen of position andproperty, are sure to have gone further than their master in thecommunistic direction. Wyclif's attack on theproperty of the monastic orders and of theChurch would necessarily bring him before long into conflict with theecclesiastical authorities, and he was led to guard himself against the results ofexcommunication by maintaining that, as he put it, "no man can beexcommunicated unless he first beexcommunicated by himself" (viz. bysin), a statement which may betrue of the effect ofexcommunication on thesoul, but which cannot be applied to the external government of theChurch.

Thus by 1380 Wyclif had set himself in open opposition to theproperty and government of theChurch, he had attacked thepope in most unmeasured terms, he had begun to treat theBible as the chief and almost the only test oforthodoxy, and to lay more and more stress on preaching. Yet he would have protested against an accusation ofheresy. Great freedom was allowed to speculation in theschools, and there was much uncertainty aboutclericalproperty. Even the exclusive use of Scripture as a standard offaith was comprehensible at a time when the allegiance ofChristendom was being claimed by twopopes. It must be added that Wyclif frequently inserted qualifying or explanatory clauses in his propositions, and that, in form at least, he would declare his readiness to submit his opinions to the judgment of theChurch. It seems to have been a time of much uncertainty in matters offaith, and the Lollard movement in its earlier stages is remarkable for a readiness of recantation. Wyclif'sheretical position became, however, much more pronounced when he denied thedoctrine ofTransubstantiation. His own position is not quite clear or consistent, but it seems to approach theLutheran "consubstantiation", for he applied to the Blessed Eucharist his metaphysical principle that annihilation is impossible. To attack so fundamental adoctrine tended to define the position of Wyclif and his followers. Henceforth they tend to become a people apart. Thefriars, with whom the "reformer" had once been on friendly terms, became their chief enemies, and the State turned against them.

Old-fashionedProtestant writers, who used to treatmedievalheresy as a continuous witness to thetruth, found in Wyclif a convenient link between theAlbigenses and the sixteenth-century reformers, and the comparison is, perhaps, of interest. Like theheretics of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, Wyclif started with an attack onclerical wealth; he then went on to dispute the authority of theChurch and, finally, its sacramental system, but unlike them he avoided thoseManichæan tendencies which threatened the most elementary morallaws. That madness had been exorcised by the greatScholastics. On the other hand, Wyclif resembled theProtestant Reformers in his insistence on theBible as therule of faith, in the importance attributed to preaching, and in his sacramentaldoctrine. Like them, too, he looked for support to thelaity and the civil state, and his conception of the kingly dignity would have satisfied evenHenry VIII. Thedoctrine ofjustification byfaith does not, however, occur in Wyclif's system. The EnglishLollards carried on but very imperfectly the tradition of Wyclif's teaching. His real spiritual inheritor wasJohn Hus, and it was throughBohemia, if at all, that he is directly connected with theReformation.

A large number of Wyclif's Latin works have been edited and printed by the Wyclif Society. His English works have been edited by T. Arnold (Oxford, 1869-71) and by F.D. Matthew (London, 1880) for the Early English Texts Society. Many of the English tracts, however, are certainly by his followers. Besides these works Wyclif was reputed, even by contemporaries, to have translated the whole of theBible, and two "Wyclifite" versions are in existence. Abbot Gasquet has disputed the genuineness of this authorship ("The Old English Bible", London, 1897), and F.D. Matthew has defended the traditional view (Eng. Hist. Rev., 1895). This much, at any rate, is certain: that theBible was familiar even tolaymen in the fourteenth century and that the whole of theNew Testament at least could be read in translations. It is also clear that portions of the Scriptures were called Wyclifite in the fifteenth century, and sometimes condemned as such, because a Wyclifite preface had been added to a perfectlyorthodox translation.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT