651 
W I C L I F F. 
corruption in all ranks of society. This conduct, though it 
raised his reputation among the people, excited a host of 
enemies, who selected from his writings nineteen articles, 
which they deemed heretical, and which, as such, they trans¬ 
mitted to Gregory XI. In 1377 this pontiff returned three 
bulls addressed to the archbishop of Canterbury and the 
bishop of London, ordering the seizure and imprisonment of 
Wickliffe; or, if this measure failed, his citation to the court 
of Rome; and also a requisition to the king and govern¬ 
ment to assist in extirpating the errors which he had propa¬ 
gated. Edward died before the bulls arrived; and the duke 
of Lancaster, uncle to the young king, had great influence 
in the administration. When Wickliffe, therefore, was cited 
to appear at St. Paul’s church before the two prelates, possess¬ 
ing plenitude of power, he thought it necessary to secure 
himself by the protection of that powerful patron- Ou the 
appointed day he appeared at St. Paul’s, in the midst of a 
vast concourse of people, and accompanied by the duke of 
Lancaster, and lord Henry Percy, earl-marshal. The bishop 
of London was very indignant, and angry words passed be¬ 
tween him and the two lords; so that the whole assembly 
was tumultuous, and nothing was done. Wickliffe after¬ 
wards appeared before the two prelates in Lambeth palace, 
and delivered an explanation of the articles objected against 
him. The Londoners, who were apprehensive that he might 
be severely treated, flocked in crowds to the palace, and a 
messenger from the queen forbade the delegates to proceed 
to a definitive sentence. Gregory soon after died, and his 
commission expiring with him, Wickliffe escaped, but not 
without a severe illness, which was the consequence of his 
anxiety and fatigue. His spirits, however, were unbroken, 
and he was firm in maintaining opinions which the friars, 
by all the efforts of intimidation, urged him to renounce. 
Upon his recovery, he presented to the parliament, in 
1379, a paper against the tyranny and usurpations of Rome; 
and he also drew up some free remarks on the papal supre¬ 
macy and infallibility. But his most effectual attack on the 
corruption of religion was his translation of the Bible into 
English. This occupied many of the last years of his life, 
and remains a valuable relic of the age in which it was per¬ 
formed, and a permanent memorial of the talents and industry 
of the person by whom it was accomplished. By way of 
preparation for his Bible, he published a treatise “ Of the 
Truth of the Scripture,” in which, as well as in a prologue 
or preface to his translation, he held, long before any of our 
other reformers or advocates for the sufficiency of Scripture, 
that this is the law of Christ, and the faith of the church; 
that all truth is contained in it; and that every disputation 
which has not its origin thence is profane. “ The truth of 
the faith,” says he, “shines the more by how much the more 
it is known—nor are those heretics to be heard who fancy 
that seculars ought not to know the law of God, but that it 
is sufficient for them to know what priests and prelates tell 
them by word of mouth; for the Scripture is the faith of the 
church, and the more it is known in an orthodox sense the 
better; therefore, as secular men ought to know the faith, so 
it is to be taught men in whatsoever language is best known 
to them. Besides, since the truth of the faith is clearer and 
more exact in the Scripture than the priests know how to 
express it—it seems useful that the faithful should themselves 
search out and discover the sense of the faith, by having the 
Scriptures in a language which they understand.—The laws 
which the prelates make are not to be received as matters of 
faith; nor are we to believe their words or discourses any 
farther or otherwise than they are founded on the Scripture;” 
—with much more to the same purpose, and in the same 
admirable strain. In this preface, and several other publi¬ 
cations and treatises still in manuscript, he reflected severely 
on the corruptions of the clergy, condemned the worship of 
saints and images, the doctrine of indulgences, pilgrimages 
to particular shrines, and confession ; and also denied the 
corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament, inveighed 
against the wanton exercise of the papal power, and opposed 
the making of the belief of the pope’s being head of the 
church an article of faith and salvation, censured the celibacy 
of the clergy, forced vows of chastity, exposed various errors 
and irregularities in the hierarchy and discipline of the 
church, and earnestly exhorted all people to the study of the 
Scriptures. 
In his lectures of 1381 he attacked the Popish doctrine 
of transubstantiation, concerning which he laid down this 
fundamental proposition; viz. that the substance of bread 
and wine still remained in the sacramental elements after 
their consecration, and that the host is only typically to be 
regarded as the body of Christ; and he deduced from it six¬ 
teen conclusions. This attack alarmed the church, which 
regarded transubstantiation as the most sacred tenet of the 
Romish religion, and the chancellor of Oxford pronounced 
a condemnation of these conclusions. Wickliffe appealed 
from this sentence to the king; but he found himself deserted 
by his protector, the duke of Lancaster, who had no further 
occasion for his services, or who could not avail himself for 
any political purpose of his theological discussions. Thus 
circumstanced, he found himself in danger; his resolution 
failed him, and he humbled himself by making a confession 
at Oxford, before the archbishop and six bishops, with other 
clergy, who had already condemned some of his tenets as 
erroneous and heretical. In this confession, he admitted the 
real presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament, with some 
explanations and reasons which were not satisfactory to his 
persecutors. It has been said that he made a public recanta¬ 
tion of the opinions with which he was charged; but of this 
no sufficient evidence appears. The next step in their pro¬ 
ceedings against him was a royal letter, procured by the 
archbishop, addressed to the chancellor and proctors, and 
directing them to expel from the university and town of Ox¬ 
ford all who should harbour Wickliffe or his followers, or 
hold any communication with them. These proceedings 
obliged him to withdraw, and to retire to his rectory at Lut¬ 
terworth, where he continued to preach reformalion in reli¬ 
gion, and finished his translation of the Scriptures. Some 
have said that king Richard banished him out of England ; 
but if that were the case, it was only a temporary exile, and 
he returned in safety to Lutterworth. In 1383 he had a pa¬ 
ralytic stroke, which furnished him with an apology for not 
appearing to a citation of pope Urban VI.; and this was 
succeeded by a second attack, which terminated his life on 
the last day of December, 1384. His remains, however, did 
not escape the vengeance of his enemies many years after his 
death; for the council of Constance in 1415, not content 
with condemning many propositions in his works, and de¬ 
claring that he died an obstinate heretic, with impotent ma¬ 
lignity ordered his bones to be dug up and thrown upon a 
dunghill. This sentence was executed in 1428, in conse¬ 
quence of a mandate from the pope, by Flemming, bishop 
of Lincoln, who caused his remains to be disinterred and 
burnt, and the ashes to be thrown into a brook. “ Thus,” 
says Fuller, the church historian, in a figurative strain justi¬ 
fied by fact, “this brook hath conveyed his ashes into 
Avon, Avon into Severn, Severn into the narrow seas, they 
into the main ocean ; and thus the ashes of Wickliffe are the 
emblem of his doctrine, which now is dispersed all the world 
over.” His doctrine not only survived these impotent at¬ 
tempts to extinguish it, but was perpetuated and diffused by 
his followers, who were called Lollards; and “ this germ of 
reformation,” as one of his biographers says, “broke forth 
into complete expansion, when the season for that great 
change was fully come.” Of his general character, it will be 
sufficient to say, “ that he was confessedly learned for his 
age, and was an acute reasoner. In short, notwithstanding 
certain errors and imperfections, he may be regarded as a 
person of extraordinary merit and qualifications, who is en¬ 
titled to honourable remembrance from every foe to eccle¬ 
siastical tyranny and imposture;” and we may add that he 
advanced principles which have not yet produced their full 
effect. 
The number of tracts he wrote and published, both in 
Latin and English, is very considerable. From two large 
volumes of his works, entitled “Aletheia, i. e- Truth,” and 
a third under the title of “ Trialogus,” John Huss is said to 
have 
