¶ The Preface.
A well known popular Writer on the History of the Christian Church has given it as his Opinion, that whoever will carefully examine the original Records, will soon be convinced that the Merits of Wyclyffe, as a Reformer, have been considerably exaggerated.[1] How far this is true or not, the Writer of these Pages will not attempt to determine; but certain it is, that to “examine the original Records,” with a View to discover the real Doctrines and Opinions of Wyclyffe, is much more easily said than done; and the Reader who seeks for Satisfaction from the Biographers of the Reformer, or from the Historians of the Period, will soon be convinced that the original Records, and above all, the still remaining Writings of Wyclyffe and his Followers, have never been examined with the Care and Attention necessary for the Purpose of forming a just Estimate of his Opinions, and of the Merit of his Efforts at a Reformation of the Church.
The List of Wyclyffe’s Writings published by Bishop Bale, in his Work, Scriptorum Majoris Brytanniæ Catalogus[2], has been necessarily made the Basis of all that subsequent Writers have collected. It has been reprinted, with many useful additions, by the learned and indefatigable John Lewis[3], of whose Labours every Student must speak with Gratitude. Mr. Baber[4] also has done much towards assisting future Inquirers, by the very valuable List of the Reformer’s Writings that he has compiled. Here, however, we must stop; Mr. Vaughan’s Compilation[5] has not added much to our Knowledge of the Subject, nor can it be commended either for Accuracy or Learning; and Mr. Le Bas[6] does not profess to do more than follow his Predecessors. His humbler Task, however, has been executed with great Elegance and Judgment.
The Truth, therefore, is, that until the Works of Wyclyffe, real and supposititious, be collected and published, it is vain to talk of determining his Opinions, or fixing his real Merits as a Reformer; and it is with the Hope of directing Attention to this Subject that the following Tract is now printed. The learned Henry Wharton[7] was willing to believe that all the Writings of Wyclyffe might in his Time have been recovered: “omnia Wiclefi scripta,” he says, “in Anglia adhuc delitescere, et ex Bibliothecis nostris qua publicis qua privatis in lucem erui posse, lubenter crederem.” Perhaps we have still all the MSS. that existed in Wharton’s Time, and it may be still within our Power to rescue them from the Oblivion in which they have so long been suffered to remain. But the Chances of their Destruction are every Day becoming greater, and Delay in such an Enterprize is highly dangerous. It is true that many of these Documents will be found dry, and to the popular Reader uninteresting; buried in the barbarous Latinity of the Schools, or concealed under the perhaps still more obsolete English of the fourteenth Century. But they who would engage in such a Labour as the Publication of the Works of Wyclyffe, must be above the narrow Influences of modern Utilitarianism. They must keep in View a higher Field of Learning than comes within the Sphere of Mercantile Speculators in Literature, or Useful Knowledge Societies. They must feel that the Value of these Documents as Compositions, is but a secondary Object in their Publication; the great End must be the Discovery of Truth, and the Preservation of the Remains of an illustrious Character in our History. What nobler, what more imperishable Monument could the Gratitude of England raise to her first Reformer, than a complete and uniform Edition of his extant Writings?
The Editor is fully sensible that the Tract which is now for the first Time given to the public, is very far from being a favorable Specimen of the Works of Wyclyffe. But it commended itself for Publication on many Grounds: First, its Shortness. Secondly, its early Date; for it bears internal Evidence of having been composed in the Year 1356[8], and must, therefore, (if really by Wyclyffe,) have been the earliest of his Writings. Another Motive for publishing this Production is furnished by the Consideration, that, if it be genuine, it reveals to us a Fact not dwelt upon, so far as the Editor knows, by any of the Reformer’s Biographers; namely, the Connexion which existed between the earlier Doctrines of Wyclyffe, and the prophetical Speculations of the Beguins, circulated under the Name of the famous Abbot Joachim.
It remains, however, to be proved, that the Tract now printed is really Wyclyffe’s; and this, the Editor admits, seemed to him an additional Reason for selecting it for Publication; inasmuch as it served at once to raise the Question, How far we have certain Grounds for attributing to Wyclyffe the Writings that exist under his Name; nor is it perhaps too much to say, that this is a Subject which the learned World has never been in a Condition to consider fully. Yet there is no preliminary Question more deserving of Attention, if we would form a just Estimate of our Reformer’s Merits; for it must be evident to every reflecting Reader, that if we are in any Degree uncertain of the Genuineness of such Writings as are quoted under the Name of Wyclyffe, the Conclusions drawn from them, as to the Nature and Character of his Doctrines, must be in the same Degree uncertain, and destitute of Authority.
In the present Case, the Grounds upon which the following Treatise has been assigned to Wyclyffe, are no more than these:—First, that it is found in a MS. Volume of the fourteenth Century, which contains several other Tracts, that are believed to be Wyclyffe’s. Secondly, that it has been ascribed to Wyclyffe, by Bishop Bale, Mr. Lewis, and, after them, by his more modern Biographers.
These Remarks are not made with a Design to cast any Doubt on the Genuineness of the following Treatise. It is very probably by Wyclyffe, although we have no better Reason than the Authority of Bale for thinking so. But if any Reader should entertain a Doubt on this Subject, deeming the Tract unworthy of our Reformer, (as many will doubtless feel it to be very different from what they would have expected from the Pen of Wyclyffe,) the Editor must confess himself unable to satisfy such Scruples; nor is he aware of any Argument by which the Authority of Bale and Lewis can be supported. The Conclusion, however, to which he desires to bring the Reader, and for the Sake of which he has hazarded these Remarks, is simply this, that until the various Treatises attributed to Wyclyffe are collected, and rendered accessible to the Learned, it is vain to think of deciding the Question how far any given Tract is worthy or unworthy of his Pen. One other Particular, concerning the following Work, remains to be considered. Mr. Vaughan[9] tells us that “this is one of the Reformer’s Pieces that is to be found only in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin;” and this may, for aught we know, be true, although perhaps it only means that no other Copy of the Tract was elsewhere found by Mr. Vaughan. Certain, however, it is, that Bishop Bale has entered the Treatise in two different Places of his Catalogue, and under two different Titles; from which we may infer, that in his Time, or in the Times of those from whom he copied, the Tract was found in two different Collections. In one place he enters it thus[10]:—(See No. 84 of Lewis’s Catalogue.[11])
“De simonia sacerdotum, lib. 1. Heu magni sacerdotes in tenebris.”
In another place[12] he gives it the Title under which it is now published, and describes it thus[13]:—
“De ultimâ ætate Ecclesiæ, lib. 1, Sacerdotes, proh dolor! versantes in vitiis.”
It is by no means improbable, therefore, that a second Copy of the Tract may still exist, under some Disguise, in our public or private Libraries.
The Volume from which the Treatise is now printed, is preserved among the MSS. of Archbishop Ussher, in the Library of the University of Dublin. It appears to have been once the Property of Sir Robert Cotton, whose Autograph is found on the lower Margin of the first Page, in his usual Form of Signature[14]:
“Robert Cotton Bruceus.”
On the upper Margin of the same Page, in a Hand of the early Part of the sixteenth Century, now nearly obliterated, may be traced the Words,
“Wiclefe roas a thousand thre hūderyd thre schorr and uiij.”
Over which Sir Robert Cotton has written,
“Anno 1368. Wicklif workes to the Duk of Lancaster.”
Nothing appears in the Volume to indicate the exact Year in which it was transcribed, but the Hand-writing would lead us to assign it to the latter End of the fourteenth or Beginning of the fifteenth Century. It is imperfect in some places, but contains a very valuable Collection of the Tracts of Wyclyffe, for a complete List of which the Reader is referred to some Papers that were published in the Year 1835, in the British Magazine[15]; where he will also find an Account of the Treatise, now for the first time printed, “On the last Age of the Chirche,” with an Exposure of certain Mistakes that have been committed respecting it. Several of the Remarks contained in those Papers have been transferred to the Notes, which will be found at the End of the present Volume.
¶ The last Age of
the Chirche. By
John Wyclyffe,
S. Th. P.
M.ccc.luj.
The last age
of the
Chirche.
Alas forsorwe grete prestis sittinge in derkenessis[16] & in schadewe of deeþ/ noȝt hauynge him þat openly crieþ/ al þis I wille ȝeue ȝif þou auaunce me. Þei make reseruaciouns/ þe whiche ben clepid dymes/ ffirst fruytis/ oþer penciouns/ aftir þe opynioun of hem þat trete þis matir. For no more schulde fatte beneficis be reserued þāne smale/ ȝif no pryuy cause of symonye were tretide/ þe whiche I seie noȝt at þis tyme. But Joachur[17]/ in his book of þe seedis of profetis & of þe seyingis of popes & of þe chargis of profetis/ tretynge þis matir/ & spekynge of þe rente of dymes/ seiþ þus[18]/ foure tribulaciouns Dauiþ þe profete haþ bifore seid/ þe seuynty & nyne chapitre/ to entre into þe Chirche of God/ & Bernard[19] acordiþ þere wiþ/ vpon cantica/ þe þre & pritty sermon/ þat ben/ a nyȝtly drede/ an arwe fleynge in day/ chaffare walkynge in derkenessis/ & myddais deuylrie/ þat is to seye/ antecrist. Nyȝtly drede was whanne alle þat slowen seyntis demyd hem silf do seruyse to God/ & þis was þe firste tribulacioun þat ontrede þe Chirche of God. Þe arwe fleynge in day was desceyt of heretikis/ & þat was þe secunde tribulacioun þat entred þe Chirche of Crist. Þat is put of bi wisdom of seyntis/ as þe firste was cast out bi stedfastenesse of martiris. Chaffare walkynge in derkenessis is þe pryui heresie of symonyans/ bi resoun of whiche þe þridde tribulacioun schal entre into Cristis Chirche/ þe whiche tribulacioun or angusch schal entre þe Chirche of Crist in þe tyme of þe hundrid ȝeer of .x. lettre/ whos ende we ben/ as I wele preue/ & þis myscheif schal be so heuy þat wel schal be to þat man of holy Chirche þat þāne schal noȝt be on lyue. And þat I preue þus bi Joachrin[20] in his book of þe deedis of profetis. Men of ebreu tunge haueþ xxii lettris/ and byngȳn̄ge fro þe first of ebrew lettris/ & ȝeuynge to euery lettre an hundrid ȝeer/ þe oolde Testament was endid whāne þe noumbre ȝeuen to þe lettris was fulfillid. So fro þe bygynnynge of ebrew lettris in to Crist/ in þe whiche þe oolde Testament was endid/ weren two and twenty hundriddis of ȝeeris. Þis also schewiþ openly bi discripcioun of tyme/ of Eusebi[21]/ Bede[22]/ & Haymound[23]/ most preued of acounteris/ or talkeris. So Cristen men hauen xxi lettris/ & bygynnynge fro þe first of Latyn lettris/ & ȝeuynge to eche .c./ þe newe Testament was endid whanne þe noumbre of þes assingned lettris was fulfillid. And þis is as soþ as in þe bigynnynge God made heuene & erþe/ for þe oolde Testament is figur of þe newe. But aftir Joachim[24] & Bede[25]/ fro þe bygynnynge of Latyn lettris to þe comynge of Crist weren seuene hundrid ȝeere/ so þat Crist cam in þe hondrid of .h’. lettre/ Crist steye to heuene/ and aftir þat/ undir .k’. lettre/ Crist delyuered his Chirche fro nyȝtly drede/ þe whiche was þe firste drede þat Goddis Chirche was inne. Aftir þat/ vndir .m. lettir/ Crist delyuered his Chirche fro þe arwe fleynge in day/ þat was þe secunde tribulacioun of þe Chirche/ & þat was demynge by Joachim[26] & oþere þat vndir .m. lettre schewede þe multitude of heretikis contraryinge þe birþe of Crist his pascioun & his assencioun/ in þat þat .m. lettre most figured Crist. Euery lettre in þe abece may be sounded wiþ opyn mouþ saue .m. lettre one/ þe whiche may noȝt be souned but wiþ clos mouþ. So Crist myȝte noȝt come out of þe maydenes wombe/ but sche hadde be clos. And þes ben uerse of .m. lettre/
College claustris exire solent patefactis/
Una sed ex istis nō egreditur nisi clausis.
Aftir þat/ vnder .x. lettre/ was þe þridde tribulacioun in Goddis Chirche/ þe whiche .x. lettre is last of Latyn lettris/ & þe þridde tribulacioun schal be schewid in þe hondrid ȝeere of .x. lettre. I preue it bi two resouns/ þe firste is þis. Petir þe Apostle þe whiche was in þe tyme of .I. lettre/ myȝte not vttirly distrie Symoun Magus/ but bi helpe of Poul[27]/ þe whiche was þe þritteneþ Apostil. So/ ȝif .x. lettre be þe þritteneþe fro .I. lettre/ in þe tyme of .x. lettre Crist schal clanse his Chirche fro marchaundise walkygnge in derkenessis. Þe secunde resoun is suche. Ȝit cam noȝt þat tribulacioun þat schal be in Goddis Chirche bi cause of chaffare walkynge in derkenesses/ & þat þat is prophesied schal come. Siþþe þanne þat we ben in .x. lettre/ as it is schewid/ þis tribulacioun schal come in .x. lettre oþere aftir/ but aftir .x. lettre/ þat is þe last of Latyn lettris/ schal be no tribulacioun in Goddis Chirche bote þe fourþe & þe laste/ þe whiche schal be bi þe deuel of mydday/ þat is Antecrist[28]/ þe whiche tribulacioun bi no Latyn lettre may be certefied/ as þes þre bifore. Ffor his comynge oonly to God is knowen/ & knowleche of him to God oonly reserued. Whefore it folwiþ þat vndir .x. lettre schal be schewid þilke tribulacioun þat schal be in Goddis Chirche/ by resoun of chaffare walkynge in derkenessis.
Þat we ben vndir þe hundrid ȝeere of .x. lettre/ I schewe schortly by Bede[29] vpon þe profetis of Sibille/ and by Joachim[30] in þe book of þe seedis of profetis/ & oþere writeris of stories. Ffro þe bygynnynge of Latyn lettris to Crist Ihū/ were seuene hundrid ȝeer/ and fro Crist til now/ þrittene hundrid ȝeer and sixe & fyfty[31]/ so þat þere ben to come of our abece but foure & fourty ȝeer/ & bi þis of þe hundrid ȝeere of .x. beþ passid sixe & fifty ȝeere. Þe synnes bi cause of whiche suche persecucioun schal be in Goddis Chirche our tyme ben þes/ for Goddis Chirche is foundid in kynrade of prelatis. Þis same rekened Joachim[32] in þe bookis bifore. Also for goodis of holy Chirche þat prelatis wiþ holdeþ to hem/ as pensiouns/ firste frutis/ fermes/ prouendris/ þe whiche may wel be clepid collibiste/ þes synnes and oþere suche ben marchaundise walkynge in derkenessis. Þe manere of tribulacioun schal be such as Joachim[33] seiþ in þe book of þe charge of profetis. Men of holy Chirche schal be seyd in a manere of careyne/ þei schal be cast out as dogge in myddis placis. Her wiþ acordiþ Carnosencis/ in a book þat he clepiþ pollicraticon[34]/ þe seuenþe book/ þe tenþe chapitre/ & he aleyeþ Gregor seiynge þus/ pestilencis/ smyttingis to gidere of folkis/ & hurtlynge to gidere of rewmes/ & oþir harmes schal come to þe erþe/ for þat worschipis of holy Chirche beþ ȝeue to vnworþi men. And in þe eiȝteþe book[35]/ defaute of prestis among Goddis folk bryngiþ in tirnauntis. Þat þis tribulacioun is nyȝe/ and whanne it schal come/ bi hem þat tretiþ þis matir is/ whanne men schulle wante teeþ/ and comynly alle children/ boren siþþen þe first pestylence/ ben such þat wanten eiȝte grete teeþ. Herwiþ acordiþ Merlyn Ambrose[36]/ þat such angusche is nyȝe/ for as by hem/ in þe tyme of þe myscheif of þe kok/ þat we clepe fraunce/ þat schal be distroyed by þe sixte of irlond/ þe witt is our kyng wiþ his children. Sibille[37] acordiþ herto/ þat suche tribulacioun is nyȝe/ in þes verse:
Gallus succuutus aquile victricia signa/
Mundus adorabit/ est vrbs vix presule digna/
Papa cito moritur/ Sesar regnabit vbique/
Sub quo tunc vana cessabit gloria cleri.
Þei þat treten þes verse of Sibille/ alle þat I haue seen/ acorden in þis/ þat seculer power of þe Hooly Goost elispirid/ & þat deþ/ veniaunce of swerd/ myscheifs vnknowe bifore/ bi whiche men þes daies schule be ponyschid/ schulen falle for synne of prestis. Men schal falle on hem/ & caste hem out of her fatte beneficis/ and þei schule seye/ he cam in to his benefice by his kynrede/ þes bi couenant maad bifore/ he for his seruyse/ & þes for moneye/ cam into Goddis Chirche. Þanne schal eche suche prest crye/ Alas/ Alas/ þat no good spiryt dwellid wiþ me at my comynge into Goddis Chirche. Þe wordis of Josue 2. cᵒ. þe þridde. I seide þat Crist entrede into hooly þingis/ þat is holy Chirche/ by holy lyuynge & holy techinge/ preynge þe Fadir for vs. Þe Mayster of Scholys[38] rehersiþ/ þe þridde book of Kyngis/ þe v. cᵒ./ aftir þe talis of iewis of Salamon/ þere was a stork hadde a berd/ & his berd was sperid vndir a vessel of glas/ and whanne þis stork sau his brid/ &. þat he myȝte noȝt come to hym/ he brouȝt a litil reed worme out of wildirnesse/ & wiþ his blood he anoyntide þe glas. Þe glass to barst/ & þe brid fleye his wey. So oure Lord þe Fadir of heuene hadde mankynde in helle/ þat was glasyne/ þat is to seye britil as glas. To breke it be brouȝt suche a litil reed worme/ þat was our Lord Ihū Crist/ as Dauiþ seiþ/ þe on & twenty Salme. 2i.[39] Ego sum vermis/ & non homo/ I am a worme & no man/ & wiþ his blood he delyuered mannes kynde. Zacarie[40] writiþ/ þe nynþe chapitre/ þou forsoþe wiþ blood of witnesse/ or þi testament/ hast ledde out hem þat were bounde in þe pyt. So whanne we weren synful/ & children of wraþþe/ Goddis sone cam out of heuene/ & preyying his fadir for his enemyes/ & he deyed for vs þanne/ myche raþere now we ben maad riȝtful bi his blood schule be saued. Poul writiþ to þe romayns. v. cᵒ.[41] He schal preye for vs. Ihūs wente into heuene to apere to þe semlant of God for vs. Poul to þe hebrees.[42] Þe whiche semlant he graunte vs to see/ þat lyueþ & regneþ wiþout eende/ Amen.