Select English works of John Wyclif. Vol. 3. Miscellaneous works / edited from original mss. by Thomas Arnold.

PART III. LETTERS AND DOCUMENTS.

XXX. [CONCERNING THE EUCHARIST.]

No. I.

[The following short piece exists nowhere but in Knyghton's [On the question of the genuineness of Knyghton's Fifth Book, see Appendix.] Chronicle, bk. v., col. 2650. His account of it is, that after having been cited by the Pope—Gregory XI—to appear before the Archbishop of Canterbury and sundry learned doctors in the church of the Black Friars, London, Wyclif appeared there on the day appointed, renounced all his errors in order to escape death, and made the confession 'I knowleche,' &c. Now, Knyghton's narrative of these transactions, as will more clearly appear when we come to consider the longer declaration concerning the Eucharist (No. 2), is confused and inaccurate; and as Walden, who is in every way a more trustworthy guide, in his detailed narrative of these very transactions, says nothing about this confession, but does give a much longer confession in Latin, beginning 'Saepe confessus sum et adhuc confiteor' (Fasciculi, p. 115), the first part of which agrees in its general drift with the short piece we have before us, I am forced to adopt the conclusion that the short piece before us is merely an abstract in English of the longer Latin Confessio. It is difficult to imagine for what purpose such an abstract would have been made. It would not have proceeded from the Lollards, for their practice was to give to any documents or manifestos which they might be handling, not a more, but a less, 'uncertain sound;' instead of circulating as Wyclif's an English abstract of his Confessio, which was absolutely inoffensive to the hierarchy, they would have been more likely, in trans∣lating it, to exaggerate the divergence from received tenets which that paper presents. I can only conceive that some zealous and orthodox priest or friar, perhaps, like Knyghton himself, an inhabitant of Leicester, might have made this abstract of the contents of the celebrated Confessio, (for that it was celebrated, the number of answers which it called forth, and which are found in the Fasciculi, demonstrates,) in order that, being shown about to the illiterate laity, it might convince them that Wyclif had been obliged or induced to abandon his novel views on the Eucharist. It would take too much space to quote passages from the Confessio confirmatory of the opinon given above; nor is it necessary, as the Fasciculi is a book

generally accessible; but I think that a careful consideration of the two documents in connection with each other would induce most critics to take the same view.

The Confessio was written in the early summer of 1381 (Fasciculi, p. 115, note 1), William Barton being then Chancellor (Wood's History and Anti∣quities of Oxford University).

The text given here is not taken from the printed edition of Knyghton in the Decem Scriptores, but from the MSS. in the British Museum (Tiberius C. VII. and Claudius E. III.) from which Twysden originally printed the Chronicle.]

I KNOWLECHE þat þe sacrament of þe auter is verrey Goddus body in fourme of brede; but it is in anoþer maner Godus body þan it is in hevene. For in hevene it is sene fote [The use of this singular phrase, which, so far as I know, occurs nowhere else, appears to me to show clearly the connection be∣tween this piece and the Latin Con∣fessio, which I have tried to establish in the prefatory notice. In the latter, the terms 'septipedalis' and 'septipedalitas' occur several times, apparently in the same sense as that which we now give to the words 'extended' and 'extension,' used as philosophical terms. This usage appears to have grown out of the belief mentioned by Dr. Shirley (Fasciculi, p. 558) that the place in the Holy Sepulchre where Christ's body was laid was seven feet long. The substitution of 'extended' for 'sene foot' or 'seven foot' would, I think, convey the precise meaning of the writer.] in fourme and figure of flesshe and blode. But in þe sacrament Goddus body is be myracle of God in fourme of brede, and is he nouþer of seven fote, ne in mannes figure. But as a man leeves for to þenk þe kynde of an ymage, wheþer it be of oke or of asshe, and settys his þouȝt in him of whom is þe ymage, so myche more schuld a man leve to þenk on þe kynde of brede, but þenk upon Crist; for his body is þe same brede þat is þe Sacrament of þe Autere; and wiþ alle clennes, alle devo∣cion, and alle charite þat God wolde gif him, worschippe he Crist, and þan he receyves God gostly more medefully þan þe prist þat syngus the masse in lesse charite. Ffor þe bodely etyng ne profites nouth to soule, but in als mykul as þe soule is fedde with charite. Þis sentence is provyde be Crist þat may nouȝt lye. For, as þe gospel says, Crist, þat nyght þat he was betrayede of Judas Scarioth, he tok brede in hise hondes, and blesside it, brak it, and gaf it to hise disciplis to ete. Ffor he says and may not lye, Þis is my body.

XXXI. [CONCERNING THE EUCHARIST.]

No. II.

[Besides being given by Knyghton, the profession of faith which follows is found in one independent MS., Bodl. 647, with 'Johannes Wycliff' as a heading to it. It is also included in Bale's Catalogue.

The account which Knyghton gives of the circumstances under which this profession was made, seems at first sight to be straightforward enough, but when pressed, turns out to be a mass of inconsistencies. After entering in his Chronicle the short confession 'I knowleche,' &c. (see prefatory notice to No. 1), Knyghton gives, without a break, a copy of the twenty-four conclusions condemned as heretical or erroneous in the Council of May 1382. Archbishop Courtney, he proceeds to say, after examining these conclusions appointed a day on which Wyclif was to appear before himself and six other bishops at Oxford, so that the business might be settled. He adds that on the day named Wyclif appeared, and gave in the state∣ment 'We beleve as Crist,' &c., namely, this tract which follows; after which the archbishop considered the conclusions in Council, and con∣demned them. Now this last statement plainly refers to the proceedings of the Council of London, which took place therefore, according to Knyghton, after Wyclif had given in the statement in question. And yet the statement itself, speaking of 'þis counseil of freres at Londoun wiþ erþe-dyn,' affords decisive evidence that it was written after the Council had sat.

Knyghton's narrative, therefore, cannot be relied upon to establish the sequence of events; and all that we can say as to the date of the piece is, that it must have been written between June 1382 and Wyclif's death in 1384. The difference in tone between it and the short confession 'I know∣leche,' is very marked; in that scarcely a trace of heterodoxy can be detected; in this, consubstantiation is broadly asserted.

The text is based on Bodl. 647, collated with the MSS. of Knyghton's Chronicle before referred to, namely, Tiberius C. VII. and Claudius E. III.]

JOHANNES WYCLIFF.

I BILEVE [We beleve, HH.] , as Crist and his apostels have tauȝt us, þat þo [The Eucha∣ristic bread is at the same time the true body of Christ and true bread.] sacrament of þo auter, whyte and rounde, and like to oþer bred, or oost sacred [and lyke tyl oure brede or ost unsacrede, HH.] , is verrey Gods body in fourme of bred; and þof hit be broken in thre partyes, as þo Kirke uses, or elles in a thousande, evere ilk one of þese parties is þo same Gods body. And right as þo persoun of Crist is verrey God and mon—verrey godhed and verrey monhed—right so holy Kirke, mony hundred winters, haves trowed þo same sacrament is verrey Gods body and verrey bred, as hit is fourme of Gods body and fourme of bred, as teches Crist, and his apostels. And þerfore Seint Poul nemmes hit nevere, bot when he calles hit bred; and he by oure bileve toke in þis his witte of God. And þo argumentis [argument, HH.] of heretikes ageyns þis sentense are light for to assoyle to a Cristen mon [lyth to a Cristene man for to assolve, HH.] . And right as hit is heresye *to trowe þat Crist is a spiryt and no body, so hit is heresye* [HH and II omit the words between asterisks.] to trowe þat þis sacrament is Gods body and no bred; for hit is bothe togedir.

Bot þo moste heresye þat God suffred cum [come, HH.] to his Chirche, [It is the worst heresy to be∣lieve that the sacrament is accident with∣out subject.] is to trowe þat þis sacrament is accydent wiþouten subgett [accident wiþ a substans, HH.] ; and may on no wyse be Gods body [Here HH and II insert the following sentence; For Crist sayde, be witnesse of Johan, þat þis brede is my body. The words For Crist occur also in W, but are scored through.] . And if þou sey, by his [þis, HH; this, II.] skil holy Kirke hafs ben in erroure mony hundred wynters, for Crist seis, by wittenesse of Jerome, þat þis bred is my body, soth hit is, specialy sithen þo fende was loused, þat was, by wittenesse of þo aungel to Jon þo Evangeliste, aftir a þousande wynters þat Crist was styed [stevenyde, HH.] to heven. Bot hit is to suppose þat mony seyntis, þat dyed in þo meene tyme, bifore hor deth were purged of þis errour. Ow! how gret diversyte is bytwene us þat trowen þat þis sacrament is verrey bred in his kynde, and bytwene heretikes þat tellen þat hit is an accydent wiþouten

sugett! For bifore þat þo fende, fadir of leesynges, was loused, was nevere þis gabbynge contreved [contryvede, HH.] . And how gret diversite is bitwene us þat trowen þat þis sacrament in his kynde is verrey bred, and sacramentaly Gods body, and bytwene here∣tikes þat trowen and tellen þat þis sacrament may on no wyse be Gods body! For I dar surely sey, þat if þis were sothe, Crist and his seyntis dyed heretikes, and þo more partye of holy Kirke byleved [belevyth, HH.] nowe heresye. And herfore devoute men supposen þat þis counseil of freris at [and, HH.] Londoun was wiþ erthe dyn [hery dene, HH.] . For þei putt an heresye upon Crist and seyntis in heven; wherfore þo erthe trembled, faylande monnis voice answerande [ansueride, HH.] for God, as hit did in tyme of his passioun, when [Matt. xxvii. 51.] he was dampned to bodily deth [As printed by Lewis and Dr. Vaughan, this passage makes mere nonsense; but if they had consulted the MSS. all difficulty would have vanished. Men think, says Wyclif, that it was for this reason that the late council in London was sig∣nalized by an earthquake, namely, because its members put a heresy upon Crist; the earth itself, in the absence of a protesting human voice, answering for God. Dr. Vaughan, in the attempt to amend Lewis' version, makes matters worse; he boldly writes, 'In truth, landman's voice answered for God.' (Tracts and Treatises of Wyclyffe, p. 302.)] .

Crist and his modir, þat in grounde have destryed alle [Let the king demand of all the clergy what is their belief herein.] heresies, kepe his Kirke in right byleve of þis sacrament. And move we [þe, HH.] kyng and his reume to aske scharply of clerkes [his clerkus, HH.] þis office; þat alle possessioners, on peyne of leesynge of alle hor temporaltees, telle þo kyng and his rewme, wiþ sufficiaunt groundynge, what is þis sacrament; and alle þo ordiris of freris, in peyne of lesynge of alle hor legeaunce, telle þo kynge and his reume wiþ gode groundynge what is þis [þe, HH.] sacrament. Ffor I am certen, for [of, HH.] þo thridde part of clergye þat deffendes þis sentence [þise doutes, HH; thyse dowtes, II.] þat is here seyde, þat þai wil deffende hit on peyne of losyng of hor lyve [on payne of her lyf, HH.] .

Amen [Om. HH, II.]

XXXII. [LETTER TO POPE URBAN.]

[There can be little doubt that the original of this letter was written in Latin, in the form preserved by Walden in the Fasciculi Zizaniorum, p. 341, and to be seen in a number of MSS. now at Vienna. The English version, as preserved in two MSS. (one at the Bodleian, the other at New College), is a heightened and amplified composition; probably it was prepared by Wyclif's followers chiefly with a view to home consumption. The differences between the two versions are indicated in the notes.

Of the authenticity of the letter there can be no doubt. Walden, in the Fasciculi, introduces it with the heading, 'Copia cujusdam literae magistri Johannis Wyclyff missae Papae Urbano VI. ad excusationem de non veniendo sibi ad citationem suam, A.D. MCCCLXXXIV.' It was written there∣fore in 1384, the last year of Wyclif's life, when he was affected by paralysis, and incapable of making the long journey to which the Pope invited him.

The text is founded on the Bodleian (647), collated with the New College MS. (W and Q in this edition). The latter I believe to be a copy of the former, so far at least as this letter is concerned.]

I HAVE joy fully to telle to alle treue men þo bileve þat I holde, and algatis to þo pope; for I suppose þat if my fayth be riȝtful and gyven of God, þo pope wil gladly [om. Q.] conferme hit; and if my fayth be errour, þo pope wil wisely amende hit.

I suppose over þis, þat þo gospel of Crist be hert of þo corps of Gods lawe [be herte of Goddis lawe, Q.] ; ffor I byleve þat Jesus Crist, þat gaf in his owne persoun þis gospel, is verrey God and verrey mon, and be þis hert [om. Q.] passes alle oþer lawes.

I suppose over þis þat þo pope be moste oblischid to þo keping of þo gospel among alle men þat lyven here; for þo

pope is hyeste vicar þat Crist has here in erthe. Ffor more∣nesse of Cristis vicar is not mesurid by worldly morenesse, bot bi þis, þat þis vicar sues more Crist by virtuous lyvyng [in vertuous lif, Q.] ; for þus techis þo gospel, þat þis is þo sentence of Crist.

And of þis gospel I take as byleve, þat Crist, for tyme þat he walkid here, was moste pore mon of alle, boþe in spirit and in havyng; for Crist seis þat he had noȝt for to reste his hed on. [Matt. viii. 20.] And Poule seis þat he was made nedy for our love [In Walden's Latin version only the references to these texts are given. The two sentences which follow are not in Walden; probably they were inserted by the disciple who trans∣lated the letter. They are also omitted both by Lewis and Dr. Vaughan, although they are found in both the extant copies of the English version.] . And [2 Cor. viii. 9.] more pore myȝt no mon be, nouþer bodily ne in spirit. And þus Crist putte fro hym al maner of worldly lordschip. Ffor þo gospel of Jon telliþ þat when þei wold have made Crist kyng, he fled and hid hym fro hem, for he wold non such worldly hynesse.

And over þis I take as byleve, þat no mon schuld sue þo pope, ne no [any, Q.] seynt þat now is in heven, bot in als myche as he sues Crist. For Jon and James errid when þei coveytid worldly hynesse; and Petir and Poule synned also when þei denyed and blasphemed in Crist; bot men schuld not sue hom in þis, for þen þei wente fro Jesus Crist [Lewis, who is followed by Dr. Vaughan, cuts down this long sen∣tence to—'for James and John errid, and Peter and Powl sinned.'] . Off [And, Q.] þis I take as hool∣some counseil, þat þo pope leeve his worldly lordschip to worldly lordis, as Crist gaf hom,—and move spedely alle his clerkis to do so. For þus did Crist, and tauȝt þus his disciplis, til þo fende had blyndid þis world. And hit semes to sum men, þat clerkis þat dwellen lastandly in þis error ageyns Gods lawe, and flees to sue Crist in þis, ben open heretikes, and hor fautours ben partyneris [This sentence is not in the Latin; it is also omitted by Lewis and Dr. Vaughan.] .

And if I erre in þis sentense, I will mekely be amendid, ȝhe, by þo deth, if hit be skilful, for þat I hope were gude to me. And if I myȝt travel in myn owne persoun, I wold wiþ gode

wille go to þo pope. Bot God [supplied from Q; om. W.] has nedid me to þo contrarye, and tauȝt me more obeche to God þen to mon [From this point to the end the English version bears only a distant resemblance to the Latin.] . And I sup∣pose of oure pope þat he wil not be Anticrist, and reversen Crist in þis wirkynge, to þo contrarie of Cristis wille; for if he summone ageyns resoun, by him or by any of his, and pursue þis unskilful summonyng, he is an open Anticrist. And merciful entent excusid not Peter, þat ne Crist cleped hym Sathanas; so blynde entent and wicked counseil excuses not þo pope here; bot if he aske of trew prestis þat þei travel more þan þei may, he is not excusid by resoun of God þat ne he is Anticrist. For oure byleve techis us, þat oure blessid God suffris us not to be temptid more þan we may; how schulde a mon aske such servyce? And þerfore preye we to God for oure pope Urban þo sex [sixte, Q.] , þat his olde holy entent be not quenchid by his enemyes. And Crist þat may not lye seis, þat þo enemyes of a mon ben specialy his homely meyneȝ; and þis is soth of men and fendis.

XXXIII. [A PETITION TO THE KING AND PARLIAMENT.]

[Although Lewis in his Life of Wyclif, and Dr. Milman, following Lewis, have unhesitatingly assigned the following petition to Wyclif, and assumed as a fact that it was addressed to the Parliament which met at Westminster on the 6th of May, 1382, and although I am far from disputing either con∣clusion, yet it is necessary to show that the evidence on which they relied is extremely slight. For the authorship we have no other authority than that of Bale, who includes the piece in his Catalogue. Dr. Milman writes as if the articles of this petition were mentioned by Walsingham among the opinions which he states Wyclif to have laid before this Parliament, in which case we should have had the authority of Walsingham for ascribing them to Wyclif; but this is not the case,—although, by mixing up these articles with the opinions which Walsingham does ascribe to Wyclif, Dr. Milman (Latin Christ. viii. 192) makes it appear so. Only one of the opinions, the sixth, named in Walsingham's schedule (Rolls edition, II. 51) bears any resemblance to any of the four articles of the petition. However, among the 'Conclusiones Johannis Wycliffe,' which William Swinderby, one of Wyclif's followers preached, according to Walsingham, at Leicester on the Palm Sunday and Good Friday of 1382, all the four articles, ex∣pressed in somewhat different language, may be found. It seems highly probable therefore that Wyclif did address such a petition to this Parlia∣ment; for, (1) he did not broach his sacramental doctrine, which is the subject of the fourth article, before 1381; (2) it is not likely that he would have presented his petition at the short session of the Parliament which met in November, 1381, and which was completely engrossed with the recently quelled rebellion; (3) after the Council of London (begun May 19, 1382) had sat, he would hardly have thought it worth while or prudent to urge upon Parliament the adoption of tenets which that Council had formally condemned.

Owing to an extraordinary blunder of the scribe who wrote the Corpus MS. (X), this petition, though twice before printed, has never yet appeared

in its genuine shape. How it occurred, it is now impossible to say; but the fact is certain, and may be verified by any one who carefully examines the MS., that the scribe has tacked on the conclusion of the tract Of feyned contemplatif lyf, &c. (Shirley, No. 26) to this petition, and transferred the genuine ending of the petition to the end of the tract. The MS. itself affords not the faintest trace of any consciousness on the part of the scribe that by this odd transposition he was making utter nonsense. The two passages where the breaks occur run as follows; I have indicated the place of each error by an obelus:—

'Lord! where þes worldly prestis wisere þan † distried. Þe false feiþ tauȝte of Anticrist and of his false cursede disciplis is þis, þat þe sacrament þat men seen wiþ bodely eiȝe,' &c.

Of feyned contemplatif lif, p. 170 of MS.

'Þe fourþe article is þis; þat Cristis techinge and bileve of þe sacrament of his owne body . . . . . . may be tauȝt openly in chirchis to Cristen puple, and þe contrarie techinge and fals bileve, brouȝt up by cursed ypocritis and heretikis and worldly prestis, unkunnynge in Goddis lawe † ben alle þe apostlis of Crist: it semeþ þat þei ben, or ellis fooles. Also Crist wolde not take þe kyngdom,' &c.

Complainte to King and Parliament, p. 297 of MS.

Dr. James, however, in his edition of the Complainte published in 1608, 'skimmed o'er the ulcerous place' by taking liberties with the text; he makes it run thus: 'the contrarie teaching and false beleve is brought up by cursed hypocrits . . . . . . unkunning in Gods law, which seeme that they are apostles of Crist, but are fools.' In Dr. James, writing in 1608, this might be pardonable; but it is difficult to understand how Dr. Vaughan, though he must have felt the utter incongruity of the last part of the fourth article with the commencement, could reprint Dr. James' text without thinking it necessary to consult the original MS. The error is so plain, that I have here restored the text to what there can be no doubt was its original state, by transferring the concluding portion of the tract Of Feyned contemplatif lyf to its pro∣per place in the fourth article of the petition.

The text is founded on the copy contained in the Corpus volume so often referred to. There is another MS. at Dublin (C. III. 12), but it breaks off imperfect just at the place where the erroneous transposition occurs.]

PLESE it to oure most noble and most worþi King Richard, [A petition to the King and Parliament to accept and maintain cer∣tain articles:] kyng boþe of Englond and of Fraunce, and to þe noble Duk of Lancastre, and to oþere grete men of þe rewme, boþe to seculers and men of holi Chirche, þat ben gaderid in þe Parle∣ment, to here, assent, and meyntene þe fewe articlis or poyntis þat ben seet wiþinne þis writing, and proved boþe by auctorite and resoun; þat Cristen feiþ and Cristene religioun ben en∣creessed, meyntened, and made stable, siþ oure Lord Jesus

Crist, verrey God and verray man, is heed and prelat of þis religioun, and shedde his precious herte blood and water out of his side on þe cros, to make þis religioun perfit and stable and clene, wiþoute errour.

Þe ffirste article is þis; þat alle persones of what kynne privat [1. That all members of religious orders may be allowed freely to leave them] sectis, or singuler religioun, maad of sinful men, may freely, wiþouten eny lettinge or bodili peyne, leve þat privat reule or neue religioun founden of sinful men, and stably holde þe reule of Jesus Crist, taken and ȝoven by Crist to his apostelis, as far more perfit þan any sich newe religioun founden of sinful men.

Þe resoun of þis axinge is shewyd þus [þis þus, X.] . Þe reule of Jesus Crist ȝoven to apostlis, and kept of hem aftir Cristis ascencioun, is most perfit to be kept for staat of lyvinge in þis world; and eche reule of what kynne privat secte, or singuler religioun maad of sinneful men, is lesse perfit þan þe reule ȝoven of Crist of his endeles wisdom, and his endeles charitee to mankinde. Þerfore it is leveful to eche man or persone of þis singuler religioun and professioun to leve it, cleve faste to þe reule of [and adhere to the rule and order of Christ,] Jesus Crist as more perfit. Þis resoun is pleyn to eche man of wit and discrecioun, and nameli to clerkes; siþ men of þe popes lawe witnesseþ pleynly, þat a man may lawfully, ȝee, aȝenst his soverains wille, go fro þe lasse perfit religioun to þe more perfit. Whi þanne may not a man of privat religioun forsake þat, and take Cristis clene religioun, wiþouten error of any sinful fool, as most perfit? And þat Cristis reule, in his owne clennesse and fredom, is most perfit, is shewid by þis skile. Ffor in as muche as a patron or a foundour is more perfit, more myȝty, and more witty, and more holy, and in more charite, þan is annoþer patroun or foundour, in so muche is þe firste patrouns reule betere and more perfit, þan is þe secounde patrones reule. But Jesus Crist, patroun of Cristene religioun ȝoven to apostelis, passeþ wiþouten mesure, in myȝtt, witt, and good wille, or charitee, þe perfeccioun of everi patroun of eny privat secte or singuler; þerfore his reule is most perfit.

Also, þat Cristis clene religioun, wiþoute cloutynge of sinfulle [which are perfect, and exclude all others;] mennis errours, is mot perfit of alle, is schewyd by þis skille.

Ffor oþere Crist myȝte ȝeve sich a reule most perfit for þis lif to be kept, and wolde not, and þanne he was envyous (as St. Aus∣tyn proveþ in oþere materes); or ellis Crist wolde ordeyne sich a reule and miȝte not, and þanne Crist was unmyȝty,—but it is heresie to afferme þat on Crist;—or ellis Crist miȝte and couþe, and wolde not [evidently it should be, 'miȝte and wolde, and couþe not.'] , and þanne he was unwitty,—but þat is heresie no man shulde suffre to here. Þerfore [þat þerfore, X.] Crist boþe miȝte, and coude, and wolde ordeyne sich a reule most perfit, þat owt to be kept for staat of þis lif. And so Crist of his endeles wysdome and charite ordeynede siche a reule. And so on eche side men ben needid, up peyne of heresie and blasphemye, and of dampn∣ynge in helle, to beleve and knowlech, þat here religioun of Jesus Crist [ȝoven] [supplied conjecturally.] to apostilis, and kept of hem, in his owne fredom, wiþoute cloutinge of sinneful mennis errour, is most per∣fit of alle; and so to lette no man to forsake privat religioun, and kepe Cristis clene religioun, wiþoute newe wronge tradi∣ciouns of synneful men, þat ofte erreden in her owne lif and techinge.

Also Crist, in makynge þe reule and ordre of apostils, was in þis tyme, and hevere bifore and evere aftir, al myȝty, al witty, and al ful of good wille and charite, to make perfit reule; þer∣fore he made not oonly a perfyt reule, but most perfit of alle. But eche patroun of privat reule was unmyȝtie and lettid, boþe in ȝiftis of kynde and grace, and not al wytty, but in comparisoun of Crist an [corrected; and in MS.] ydiot or fool, and not so well willinge to make so good and perfit as Crist. Þerfore he made a reule lesse good and lesse perfit; and herof it sueþ pleynly þat Cristis clene religioun is most perfit o alle.

Also apostiles and here folewers, kepinge þe reule ȝoven to [and having been followed by the apostles ought to have been followed in the Church ever since;] hem of Crist, wonne most merit and þank of God in þis kepinge bifore alle oþere tymes. Þerfore ȝif alle Cristene men, boþe in old tyme and newe, hadden kept þe same reule of Crist in his owne clennesse and fredom, [þei] [supplied conjecturally.] shulde have discerved most þank of God in degre possible to hem. Þerfore no newe secte

of religioun, straunge fro Cristis secte, shulde have begunne, but þat þat was first shulde have be kept in his clennesse, of siche newe finders up of novelries and patrouns. Also hit were now as good, and of as muche merit, to kepe þe reule of Jesus Crist, as it was at þe begynnynge; siþ Cristis reule is ynowȝ, and able for alle men on lyve, of whatevere complexioun or age þei ben of. But þis reule was kept of Jesus Crist and his apostilis, and here beste seweres, by fyve hundred ȝeer aftir his ascen∣cioun, wiþouten eny finding of any siche newe plauntynge or religioun; in whiche time holi Chirch encressede and profitede most, ffor þanne almost alle men disposeden hem to martirdom at ensaumple of Crist. Þerfore it were now nott oonli meritorie or medful, butt moost medeful to þe Chirche, to lyve so, in alle þinggis and by alle þinggis.

Also, boþe monks and chanouns forsaken þe reules of Benet [nor is the Pope at liberty to dispense with them.] and Austyn, and taken wiþouten eny dispensacioun þe reule of freres, as most perfit. But þe reule of apostelis is utterly and algatis most perfit. Þerfore men may forsake privat reules in religioun, maad of sinful men, and take þe clene religioun of apostelis, þat ys preched wiþ fredom of þe gospel, wiþoute dis∣pensacioun of worldly clerkes, þat in caas [are] [supplied conjecturally.] queke develes, as Crist Judas Scariot [text corrupt; omit Crist.] . Also, þe pope may dispence wiþ þe reule of ech privat secte or religioun, and haþ dispensed and ȝitt doþ, but he may not dispense wiþ Cristis reule ȝoven to apostlis; þerfore þe reule of Crist ordeyned to apostlis is more perfit þan any reule of privat religioun, and most perfit of alle. And herof it sueþ openly þat men may lawefully forsake privat religioun, and kepe Cristis religioun in his clennesse, siþ it is most perfit, moost esy, and liȝt for to kepe, and most siker to bringe men to hevene, and to heiest degre of blisse.

And ȝif oure adversaries of þis privat religioun stryve algatis, [If the friars' life be more perfect, why do they take offices which oblige them to mix with the world?] þat here reules ben more perfit þan þe reule of aposteles, whi þanne so manie persones, as who so saiþ, wiþoute noumbre? Of ech sich privat secte, by licence of þe pope, ben maad, some chapeleyns of houshold, summe chapeleyns of honour, summe bisshopis dowid wiþ seculer lordshipes, summe bisshopis among

heþene men, and dore not come to her children. But [what] [supplied to complete the sense.] professioun a frere be of, anon, ȝif he be chosen þerto, he acceptiþ þe office of þe pope or cardinal, of patriark, of erche∣bisshop, of bisshop, and forsakiþ his owne staat. Siþ Crist saiþ in þe gospel, þat no man puttinge his hond to þe plouȝ, and lokynge bacward, is worþy to have þe kyngdom of God,—þat is, no man takyng perfit staat of poverte and mekenesse and pen∣aunce, is able to be saved ȝif he turne aȝen to wordly lif, pompe and pride and covetise, and ese of body, and slouþe, and riot, and gay cloþinge and costy,—þerfore þei chaungen not þe more perfit for þe lesse perfit, for þan þei were apostatas, but þei pur∣chasen þe more perfit for þe lasse perfit. Þerfore þe clene re∣ligioun and reule of presthod, by forme of þe gospel, is more perfyt þan any reule or religioun maad of sinful men. Also, noþing þat is abhominable and reproved of seyntis shulde not [dele not.] be brouȝt in of oþere, by ony colour or cauteel. But þes newe sectes ben siche, þat ben of flessh, as Saint Poul saiþ in his [1 Cor. iii. 3.] pistel. Þerfore siche sectis shulde not be brouȝt in, to charginge of þe Chirche, but alle Cristen men shulde caste awey, and holde faste þe unite, fredom, and clennesse of þe reule of Jesus Crist.

Paraventure þes ypocrites sayen, to exclude alle þes resouns and manie mo, þat þe reule to which þei make professioun is not straunge, ne diverse fro þe reule of apostilis þat Crist or∣deynede, but it is utterly þe same, and non oþer. But þe con∣trarie of þis excusing is opinly shewyd bi foure þe laste resouns bifore said. Ffor ȝif þes newe reules weren alle on wiþ Cristis reule ȝoven to apostilis, [he] [supplied conjecturally.] shulde have taught hem [boþe] [dele boþe.] and ensaumpled, boþe in his lif and spekinge and writing, wiþ sermons and ritis and customes þerof; but dide not þis, neiþer in his lif, in his deþ, ne aftir his resurreccioun, ne to his ascen∣cioun. And ȝif þis excusinge were soþ, þe sectis of ffreres shulde not have begonnen aboute a þousand and tweyn hundrid ȝeer of Crist, siþ þei were bifore þe tyme, ȝe, as sone as þe reule of apostles. But þe contrarie is opin in croniclis. Hit sueþ also of þe same þat Cristis apostlis hadden boþe monkes, chanouns, and freris, ȝif men taken monkes chanouns and freris

for men þat professen sich privat sectes; but þis is opinli fals. Also, Cristis reule ȝoven to apostilis is lich and of o forme, to alle men þat maken professioun þerto, to speke of substaunce of þe reule. But reules of þes privat sectes beþ ful dyverse and contrarie, as to substaunce of þes reules; siþ summe of hem receyven dymes and dotaciouns, as don þes possessioners, but some forsaken alle siche tyþes and possessiouns, as freres mendinauntis.

But, to discende doun in specialte, fful mane articlis of reulis [If the rules of Orders are con∣sistent with Christ's rule, they are super∣fluous; if inconsistent, pernicious.] of siche sectes ben openly contrarie to þe apostlis reule; siþ it is leveful to eche trewe man of Cristene religioun to converte a man of wrong feiþ to Cristene, but þis is forboden in þe reule of frere menours; siþ oonly feiþ [dele feiþ.] to ministres, and non oþere, is licence grauntid to resceyve freris to here privat sectis, notwiþ∣stondinge þat everemore freris don þe contrarie. And Crist receyvede penyes, but þei shulden not by here owene reule resceyve penyes, neiþer by hemself ne by mene persone. Also Crist, prechinge þe gospel, entrid into places boþe of wommen and men, as þe gospel of Luk telleþ. But [it] [supplied.] is forboden to freris to entren into abbeyes of wommen; but freris glosen þes reules to þe contrarie; but Fraunceis here foundour comaundid hem in article of his deþ þat þei shulde not resceyve gloses upon his reule. Also, ȝif Cristis reule, ȝoven to apostelis, and þe reule of privat sectis weren al on, wiþouten resoun men leven þe ffirste and professeden þe toþer, but ȝif it were to shewe here ypocrisie. Also, ȝif þis feynynge be soþ, it semeþ þat it is as perfit and medeful to kepen Cristis reule [as þe reule] [The scribe must have omitted these words, which are necessary to complete the sense.] of Ffraunceis or Dominik, or eny sich oþere man. Also, ȝif þes reules ben alle on, and in noþing diverse, þanne siche a reule shulde not be clepid reule of Fraunceis ne Dominik, ne ony sich oþere, but reule of Crist; for so it shulde be of more auctorite and more comendid [The reasoning here reminds one of the famous dilemma of the Caliph Omar, when consulted as to the pre∣servation of the Alexandrian library. 'If these writings of the Greeks agree with the book of God, they are useless and need not be pre∣served; if they disagree, they are pernicious and ought to be des∣troyed.'—Gibbon, ch. li.] . And so þe gospel oweþ to be kept,

wiþouten ony foulinge, of alle Cristene men, wiþouten sich novelries, and putte no þing þerto and drawe no þing þerfro; and if þis þing were don, sich privat sectes shulde be superflue and waste, as flies lyvinge in þe eyr. And it was non nede þat Ffraunceis, Dominik, or eny sich oþer newe man bysiede him aboute makyng of þis reule of apostelis, þat freris feynen to be hern; ffor þat reule was maad of Crist, God and man, and kept of apostlis, and confermed by þe Holy Gost, and atte þe fulle declared by a þousand ȝeer and two hundrid bifore Ffraunceis, Dominik, or anye frere of such privat sect, were in to þis world.

Þe secounde poynt or article ys þis; þat þo men þat un∣resonably [2. That those are in error who dispute the king's right to deal with Church tem∣poralities.] and wrongfully han dampned [þe kyng] [supplied conjecturally.] and al his counsail, be amendid of so gret errour, and þat here errour may be publisshid to men dwellinge in þe reume.

Þe resoun of þis axinge ys shewyd þus. Noþing oweþ to be dampned as errour and fals, but ȝif it savour errour or unriȝtwisnesse aȝens Goddis lawe. But neiþer þe kyng ne his counsayl deede unriȝtfully, for as muche as he took awey þe posses∣siouns of summe prelatis þat trespaceden, whoos contrarie freres han determined opinly. Þerfore resonably men shulden assente to þis axing. Ffor summe freris writen þus in Coventre [As Coventry was the native place of John Ball, one of the ring∣leaders in the insurrection of 1381, the friars there would be likely to take the lead in repudiating his tenets, and those of his friends, particularly after the insurrection was quelled.] , among articlis þat þei dampneden as heresye and error, þat it is errour to saye þat seculer lordis may levefully and medefully taken awey temporal goodis, ȝoven to men of þe Chirche [This is the seventeenth of the twenty-four conclusions condemned by the Council of London. See Fasciculi Ziz., p. 280.] . But siþ oure kyng haþ don so, and oþere kynges his prede∣cessoures han don so manie tymes, by laweful cause, as per∣teynynge to here regalie, and of comun lawe, by counsail of pieres of þe rewme, it sueþ þat not oonly oure kyng now pre∣sent haþ errid, but also his predecessours, and generally al his counseillores, as lords and prelatis, and alle men of þe Parle∣ment counceilinge þerto.

Also, ȝif þis be errour touching þe helþe of mannis soule, [Monstrous and absurd con∣sequences which flow from this doctrine.] þanne it is aȝens holy writ; and þanne, ȝif a man susteyne or maynteyne þis error, he is an heretik. But ful manie kingis, lordis, prelatis, and oþere wise men han susteyned þis and meynteyned, and ȝut don, as perteynynge to þe kynggis regalie, and of comune lawe; þanne ben þes freris, alle kyngis, lordis, and prelatis, and alle wise men of oure reaume, ben [dele ben, or else the preceding words ben þes freris.] heretikes. Also, siþ þis is an old custome, þe whiche oure kyng, lordis, and prelatis ben sworen to susteyne and meynteyne, ȝif þis be error, as freris seyen opinly, it sueþ by freris þat alle þes ben forsworen and heretikes. Also, ȝif þis be errour as freris feynen, þat þouȝ an abbot and al his covent ben open traitours, conspiringe into deþ of þe king and quene and of oþere lordis, and enforce hem to distroie al þe reaume, þe kyng may not take fro hem an halfpeny ne ferþing worþ, siþ alle þes ben temporal goodis. Also, þouȝ oþere clerkes senden unto oure enemys alle þe rentis þat þei han in oure lond, and what evere þei may robbe or stele of þe kinggis legemen, ȝit may not oure kyng ponishe by oo ferþing ne ferþing worþ.

Also by þis ground of freris, þouȝ monkes or freris or oþere clerkis, whatevere þei ben, slen lordis tenauntis, þe kynggis liegemen, and defoulen lordis wyves, ȝe, þe quene, þat God for∣bid, or þe empiresse, ȝit þe kyng may not ponische hem by oo ferþing [See ante, p. 314.] . Also hit sueþ pleynly þat men clepid men of holi Chirche may dwelle in þis lond at here likynge, and do what kynne sinne, what kynne tresoun, likeþ hem; and naþeles þe kyng may not ponische, neiþer in temporal goodis ne in here body; siþ, ȝif he may not ponisshe hem in þis lesse, he may not in þe more; and also, þouȝ þei maken on of hemself kyng. And so no seculer lord may lette hem to conquere alle seculer lord∣ship in þis eorþe; and so þei may sle alle lordis and ladies, and here blod and affinite, wiþoute [corrected; wiþ X.] any peyne in þis lif, or in body, or in catel. Ȝee, lordis, seeþ and undirstondiþ, wiþ what ponissh∣inge þei deserve to be chastised, þat þus unwarly and wrongfully han dampnyd ȝou for heretikes, ffor as muche as ȝe don exe∣cucioun

of riȝtwisnesses, by Goddis lawe and mannys, and namely of þe kyngis regalie. For þe chief lordshipe in þis lond of alle [The king is the chief lord over all tem∣poralities, whether they belong to the laity or to the clergy.] temporalties, boþe of seculer men and religious, perteyneþ to þe kyng of his general governynge. Ffor ellis he were not kyng of alle Englond, but of a litel part þerof. Þerfore þe men þat bysyen hem to take awey þys lordshipe fro þe kyng, as don freris and here fautours, in þis poynt ben sharper enemys and traitours þan Ffrensshe men and alle oþere naciouns.

Also it perteyneþ to þe kyng, þe while a bishop or an abbotis see is voyde, to have in his hond al here temporaltees, and at his owne wille to ȝeve hem to prelatis. Þerfore þe kyng may take awey þes temporaltees from prelatis, whan laweful cause exitiþ. Also þe kyng owiþ graunte no man fredom to do synne or trespas, but to take away þe fredom. But men of þe Chirche had fre licence to trespace, ȝif þe king miȝte not bireve here temporaltees whanne þei synneden grevously. And so Seynt Poul techiþ þat eche man be sugett to here potestatis, for þer nis no power but of God, and þo þing þat ben of God ben ordeyned. And so þei þat wiþstondeþ power, wiþstondeþ Goddis ordy∣naunce; for whi? Princes ben not a dred of goode werkes, but of evele. But wiltouȝ not drede a power? do good, and þou shalt have preisinge þerof,—þat is, of him þat is ordeyned in þe hiȝe astat,—for he is Goddis ministre, or servaunt, to þe in goode. But ȝif þou have don evele, þanne drede; for he bereþ þe swerd not wiþoute cause; ffor he is Goddis servaunt, vengere in wraþþe to him þat doþ evele. And þerfore by nede, or of nede, be ȝe suget, or undurlout,—not oonly for wraþþe, but also of conscience. Al þis seiþ Seynte Poul, of whiche auctorite it is to knowen to alle men, þat clerkes owen to be suget of nede to þe kynggus power; ffor Seynte Poul, þat putteþ alle men in subjeccioun to kyngis, outtakeþ nevere on. And so seculer power oweþ and is bounden to ponisshe by just peyne of his swerd, þat is, worldly power, trynauntis rebellinge aȝens God and trespassing aȝens man by what kyn trespas; and, þat is more, to chastise his sugetis by peyne or turment of here body. And no drede muche more he may ponisshe hem by takynge awey of here temporaltees, þat is lasse þan bodily peyne. Þer∣fore seculer lordis don þis riȝtfully, siþ þis is don by comaunde∣ment

of þe apostoile and by ordinaunce of God. Þerfore it is pleyn of þes resouns and auctoritees; and seculer lordis may levefully and medefully, in mony causes, taken awey temporal godis ȝoven to men of þe Chirche.

Þe þridde article is þis;—þat boþe tyþes and offringis ben [3. That tithes and offerings ought to be given to or withheld from the clergy, according as they are or are not worthy recipients.] ȝoven and paied and receyved by þat entente, to whiche entente or ende boþe Goddis lawe and þe popis lawe ordeyned hem to be paied and resceyved; and þat þei be take awey by þe same entente and resoun, þat boþe Goddis lawe and þe popis lawe ordeynen þat þei shulden be wiþdrawen.

Þis axinge is resonable for manie skilles; for þe entente of þe makere in everi lawe shulde be kept, and most þe entente of God, þat may not erre. Soþly þus saiþ Goddis lawe, in þe Firste Book of Kyngis, þat þe synne of Levyes children was full gret [1 Sam. ii. 17.] bifore God, for þei wiþdrowen men fro sacrifise of God, taking by strengþe or violence þat part of þe sacrifise þat perteyned to þer post. And God seiþ aftirward, Y spekynge have spoken, [1 Sam ii. 30.] þat þin hous and þi fadris hous shulde ministre and serve in my siȝte evermore; but now God saiþ, by þat þing fer fro me; but whoevere shal worshipe me I shal glorifie him, but þei þat dis∣pisen me, saiþ God, shul ben unnoble, or wiþoute honour. Of which auctorite it is pleyn and opin, þat þe þinggus þat ben duwe to prest shulde not be axed by strengþe or violence or cursinge, but be ȝoven frely, wiþouten exaccioun or constreynynge. And ȝif þe prest be reproved of God for his synnis, he shulde be put out of his office, and þere sacrifises shulden not be ȝoven to him, but taken fro him, as God comaundeþ from þe heyȝe prest Hely; and anoþer trewe man, walkinge in Goddis weyes as dide Samuel, schulde be ordeyned to resceyve siche sacrifices. Also in begynnynge of Tobie men finden þus:—Whan prestis [Tobit i. 5.] of þe temple wenten to calveren of gold to honour hem for goddis, of Jeroboam kyng of Israel made, Tobie offride trewely alle his firste fruytes and tiþis, so þat in þe þridde ȝeer Tobie ministred alle his tyþis to proselitis [corrected; persolitis, X.] and commelingis, or gestis, and wiþdrouȝ hem holilich fro þe wickede preestis. And þe [Tobit 1. 8.] book saieþ þat þe litul child kepte þes þingis, and oþere siche,

aftir þe lawe of God. Þerfore ȝif oure prelatis or oþere prestis, whatevere þei ben, ben opinly blecked by sacrifise of maumetrie, as wiþ covetise, þat is opinly sacrifise of fals goddys, and oþere grete sinnes, as pride, symonye, and man-quellinge, glotonye, dronkenesse, and lecherie, by þe same skil tyþis or offringis shulde be wiþdrawyn from hem by Goddis lawe, and be ȝoven to poeure nedy men, at ensaumple of riȝtful Tobie.

Also Seint Poul, spekinge to Tymothe, bisshop, saiþ þus;— [Testimonies from Scripture and the Fathers.] Be we paied wiþ þes þingis, ȝif we han liflode and to be hiled wiþ. And Seint Bernard spekiþ þus in þis matere;—Whatevere þou takist to þe of þin outrage [Probably written by mistake for autrage, altaragium, the offerings made by the people to the altar; see Ducange sub voce. The word 'autrage' does not appear to occur elsewhere; but that it was in use can hardly be doubted. Peter Langtoft in his Chronicle speaks of 'alterage,' changing the word but little, as was natural in a churchman and a man of letters, from the original Latin. But in the time of Chaucer and Wyclif the popular mode of pro∣nouncing and writing 'altar' was awter or auter; alterage would therfore become auterage or autrage. The words of St. Bernard are 'Quicquid . . . ex altario retines.'] þat is, dymes and offringis, beside simple liflode and streit cloþinge, it is not þyn, it is þefte, raveyne, and sacrilege [See ante, p. 473. note.] . Wherof hit sueþ pleynly, þat not oonly simple prestis and curatis, but also sovereyne curatis, as bisshopis, shulde not axe here sugetis by constreynyng more þan liflode and hilynge, whan þei don awey alle manere waast, boþe of money and worldly array. Also Crist wiþ his apostlis lyvede most povere lif, as it is knowen by alle þe processe of þe gospel, noþing chalenginge by exaccioun ne constreynynge, but lyvede simplely and scarly ynowȝ of almes, frely and wilfully ȝoven. Þerfore þo þat pretenden hem to ben principal folewers of Cristis steppis, shulde lyve and walke as Crist dide, and so lede ful povere lif, takinge of þingis frely ȝoven as miche as neede is for here gostly office and no more, and þerwiþ be apaied.

Also þe popis lawe comaundiþ, in þe beste part þerof, þat prestis, opyn lechours, taken no part of porcioun of goodis of þe Chirche; þerfore it is lefful to parisshenys to wiþholden here tiþes for opin fornicacioun of here curat, and turne hem into bettre use. And muche more þei may and owen to wiþdrawe here tyþis for grete synnis and opin,—as for symonie, þat is heresie,

as þe popes lawe saiþ, and for covetise, þat is wurshipinge of false goddis, as holy writ seiþ; and for pride, envye, glotonie, and dronkenesse, siþ boþe by Goddis lawe and mannes lawe God curseþ siche mennis blissinge and preyingis. And Seint Austyn and Seynt Gregory techen þis in manie bokes, by holy writ and resoun.

Also comunly, whanne parische chirchis ben approprid to [Evils which arise from the appropriation of livings by convents.] men of singuler religioun, such appropriacioun is mad by fals suggestioun, þat siche religious men han not ynowȝ for liflode and heling; but in treuþe þei han over muche. Also comunly siche chirchis ben approprid by symonie, as þei witen betere hemself, payinge a gret summe of moneye for sich apropria∣cioun, ȝif þe benefice be faat. But what man led by resoun and good conscience shulde paie to siche religious men tiþes and offringis, goten by falsnesse, lesyngis, and symonye? But suppose þat siche parische chirchis weren leeffully goten, ȝit, siþ þei ben superflu to siche men, þe tiþes and offringis shulden ben ȝove to povere needy men, as Seynt Jerom and þe popis lawe techen. And þerfore þe trewe grete clerk, Robert Grosted, Bisshop of Lincolne, writeþ to þe pope, þat whan appropriacioun of parische chirchis is maad to men of religioun, of fourtene grete sinnes, or defautis, þat comen of evel curatis, is mad a perpetuacioun, þat is, endeles confirmacioun.

Also, by God and his lawe curatis ben muchel more bounden [The duty of serving a parish well, and that of paying tithes, are reciprocal.] to techen here sugetis charitably þe gospel and Goddis hestis, boþe by opin prechinge and ensaumple of good lif, for to save here soulis, þanne here sugetis ben holden to paien hem tyþis and offringis. And of þis suen tweye þingis. Þe firste, ȝif curatis don not here office in word and in ensaumple þat God comaundiþ, þanne here sugetis ben not bounden to paie hem tiþis and offringis. Siþ þe principal cause for whiche tiþes and offringis shulde be paied is awey, þe payinge of tiþes shulde cesse. Also, curatis ben more cursed in wiþdrawyng þis techinge in word and ensaumple, þan ben parischenys wiþdrawinge tiþes and offringis, þouȝ curatis dudon wel here office.

A, Lord God, where þis be resoun, to constreyne þe pore puple to fynde a worldly preest, sumtyme unable boþe of lif and konnynge, in pompe and pride, coveitise and envye, glotonye

and dronkenesse and lecherie, in symonye and heresie, wiþ fatte hors, and jolye and gaye sadeles, and bridelis ryngynge be þe weye [So Chaucer on the Monk:—

'Ful many a deynte hors hadde he in stable: And whan he rood, men might his bridel heere Gyngle in a whistlyng wynd so cleere, And eek as lowde as doth the chapel belle.' Prologue to the Canterbury Tales

] , and himself in costy cloþes and pelure, and to suffre here wyves and children and here pore neyȝboures perische for hunger þrist and cold, and oþere mischieves of þe world! A, Lord Jesus Crist! siþ wiþinne fewe ȝeeris men paiede here tiþis and offringis at here owen wille free, to goode men and able, to grete worschipe of God, to profit and fairnes of holi Chirche fiȝtinge in eorþe, where it were leveful and needful þat a worldly prest shulde distroie þis holy and approvid custome, constreyn∣ynge men to leve þis fredom, turnynge tiþes and offringes into wickede uses, or not so goode as þei weren don bifore tymes!

Þe fourþe article is þis,—þat Cristis techinge and bileve of þe [4. That Christ's teaching re∣specting the Eucharist may have free scope, and the contrary teach∣ing be de∣stroyed.] sacrament of his owne body, þat is pleynly tauȝt by Crist and his apostelis in gospellis and pistillis, may be tauȝt opinly in chirchis to Cristen puple, and þe contrarie techinge and fals bileve, brouȝt up by cursed ypocritis and heretikis and worldly [The Dublin MS. breaks off in the middle of this word.] prestis, unkunnynge in Goddis lawe [From this point the matter in the Corpus MS belongs to a differ∣ent tract; see Prefatory notice.] , distried.

Þe false feiþ tauȝte of Anticrist and of his false cursede dis∣ciplis [The teaching of the friars contrary to the ancient doc∣trine.] is þis, þat þe sacrament þat men seen wiþ bodely eiȝe bitwene þe prestis hondis is neþer bred ne Cristis body, but accidentis wiþoute suget, and þis is neiþer groundid in holy writt ne reson ne wit, ne tauȝte bi þe moste wiseste olde seyntis, but only by newe ypocritis and cursed heretikis, þat magnyfyen here owen fantasies and dremes, and feyned power and myra∣clis, more þan Cristis techynge and his apostlis, and Seynt Austyn and Seynt Jerom and Seynt Ambrose, and many moo, wiþ þe determinacion of þe trewe court of Rome, þat is sett in þe beste part of þe popis lawe. Þerfore be þis heresie exilid fer fro Cristene men.

Þe riȝtte feiþ of Cristene men is þis; þat þis worschipful [The true belief.] sacrament is bred and Cristis body; as Jesus Crist is verrey God and verrey man. And þis feiþ is groundid in Cristis owen word, in þe gospel of Seynt Mattheu, Mark, Luk, and bi Seynt

Poul, and pleynly in holy writt, and bi Austyn, Jerom, Ambrose, and most holy seyntis, and most kunnynge in holy writt. And herto accordeþ reson and witt at þe fulle. In þes gospellis is þe forme tauȝt of Crist, þat oure Lord Jesus Crist at þe soper toke bred in his hondis, and blissid it, and brak it, and ȝaf it to his disciplis, and seide, Ete ȝe alle of þis; þis is my body. And so of þe chalis; and comaundid hem to don þis sacrament in mynde of hym. And Seynt Poul, þat hadde his gospel not bi man but bi revelacion of Jesus Crist, seiþ þus in his firste pistel to þe Coryntheis, Ne is not þe bred þat we breken þe comunynge of oure Lordis body? And certis he undirstondiþ þat it is so, aftir þe speche of holi writt. Þerforu in þe same pistel to þe Coryntheis, aftir þe forme of consecracion he clepiþ þre tymes þis sacrament bred. And þe gospel of Seynt Luk seiþ, þat Cristis disciplis knewen him in brekynge of þe breed; and þis breed was þe sacrament of þe auter, as Seynt Austyn writiþ. And in Actibus Apostolorum is seid þus: And Cristene men weren dwellynge in techynge of apostlis, and in comu∣nynge of brekynge of brede. Siþ Seynt Poul seiþ, Þe breed þat we breke is comunynge of Cristis body, axe þes heretikis where þis were sacrid breed or unsacrid; and þei moten seie þat it was sacrid, for ellis it were not comunynge of Cristis body. Þanne moten þes heretikes nedis seie þat þis sacra∣ment is bred þat we breken. And siþ Crist may not lie, þis breed is his body, as he seiþ in þe gospel. Also in canon of þe masse, after þe consecracion, we clepen þis sacrament holy breed of everlastynge lif, and chalis of ever∣lastynge helpe ['Panem sanctum vitae aeternae, et calicem salutis perpetuae.']

Also [in] [supplied.] þe storie of þe feste of þis sacrament we clepen it [The sub∣stances of the bread and wine are not changed in consecration.] þries breed, and seyn, bred of angelis is maade bred of man, and, hevenly bred ȝeveþ ende to figuris of þe olde lawe; and, in þe same, þis is verrey bred of children [

'Ecce panis Angelorum Factus cibus viatorum, Vere panis filiorum, Non mittendus canibus. In figuris praesignatur, Cum Isaac immolatur, &c.

From the sequence 'Lauda Sion,' sung on the festival of Corpus Christi.] And in þis ympne of þe

feste we reden þus, Goddis sone man made verrey bred of his flech by vertue of his word, and wyn his blood [

'Verbum caro panem verum Verbo carnem efficit; Fitque sanguis Christi merum.'

'The Word made flesh makes by his word real bread his flesh.' But Wyclif seems to have understood it, 'makes his flesh real bread.'] . And in þe secret of þe medil masse, on Cristismasse day, we preie þus, þat þis substaunce of herþe brynge to us þat þing þat is gostliche, þat is Cristis body [Ut sicut homo genitus idem refulsit Deus, sic nobis haec terrena substantia conferat quod divinum est.' But as the secret is said before consecration, it is difficult to see how Wyclif could derive from these words any support for his views.] . Þanne þis substance schal not be turned to nouȝt, but be sacrid, and so dwelle after þe consecracion. And Seynt Austyn seiþ in a sermon þat is writen in þe popis lawe, þat þing þat is seyn is bred, and þat þing þat eiȝen schewen or tellen is þe chalis, but it is, as moche as þe feiþ axeþ to be lernyd, þe bred is Cristis body, and þe chalis, þat is, wyn in þe chalis, is Cristis blood [For this reference, see ante, p. 484, note.] .

Also Austyn seiþ in a sermon, and is writen in þe popis lawe, [Authorities for this view.] ȝe schullen not ete þat body, ne [corrected; þat, X.] drynke þat blood, þe whiche blood þe men þat schullen do me on crois schulle schede out; forsoþe þe same and not þe same; þat same body and blood invisibily, and not þe same visibely. And ȝif it be nede þat þis sacrament be halwid visibely, nevereþeles it is nedeful þat it be understonden unvesibily. Also Jerom in a pistil þat he made to Elvidiam, seiþ þus, Here we þat þat brede þat Crist brak, and blissed, and ȝaf to his disciplis to ete, is þe body of oure Saveour. And in þe popis lawe, wiþ grete congregacion of bischopis and clerkis, and grete avisement, is writen þus; I bileve wiþ herte, and knowlech bi mouþ, þat þe bred and wyn þat ben putt in þe auter ben after þe consecracion, not only þe sacrament, but þe flesch and blood of Jesus Crist in treuþe.

Þanne, siþ þes auctorites of Crist and his apostlis ben algatis [which lay lords ought to sup∣port, and con∣demn the heretical view of the friars.] soþe, and also auctorites of þes seyntis and clerkis, siþ þei accorden wiþ holy writt and reson, seie we þat þis sacrament is verrey bred, and also verrey Cristis body, and teche we þis treue bileve to Cristen men opynly; and late lordis meyntenen

þis treuþe, as þei arn bounden up peyne of dampnacion, siþ it is opynly y-tauȝt in holy writt and bi reson and witt; and dampne we þis cursed heresie of Anticrist and his ypocritis and worldly prestis, seiynge þat þis sacrament is neiþer bred ne Cristis body, but accidentis wiþouten suget, and þerunder is Cristis body. For þis is not tauȝt in holy writt, but is fully aȝenst Seynt Austyn, and holy seyntis, and reson and witt. For Austyn seiþ in many bokis þat þer may non accident be wiþouten suget [See p. 409, note.]