LECHLER'S LIFE OF WICLIF.* THERE is a sort of writers

who are never tired of speaking ill of the English Reformation. They tell us that it was not a genuine popular movement, and that its leaders were a poor set of men, most of them weak and many bad, among whom not one is to be found who really merits our regard or admiration. These gentlemen blame the partiality of " Protestant " writers so much, that we can- not doubt their own impartiality ; but the Englishman who wishes to be grateful to some one for the blessings he enjoys, may console himself with the thought that he is at liberty to go back earlier than the reign of Henry VIII. The religious strife of the sixteenth century had not with us the freshness and force of novelty. The questions which were convulsing Europe had already been dis- cussed and sifted here, for high on the roll of our country's worthies stands the first champion of the Reformation, John Wyclif. Unfortunately, no good English biography of him exists. Lewis's life, published in 1720, is undigested and badly written. Dr. Robert Vaughan tried to supply the want, but he was deficient in scholarship and historical knowledge, and a pretentious style makes his "John de Wycliffe : a Monograph" one of the most tiresome of books. Both these writers had the disadvantage of knowing little of Wyclif's Latin works ; and even now, though a few have been printed, the bulk is to be found only among the MSS. of the Vienna Library. Dr. Lechler has had free use of these treasures for a quarter of a century, and apart from its other great merits, his book is of immense value for the extracts from unprinted works with which it abounds. The original German workt contained, besides the life of Wyclif, a sketch of the growth of the reforming spirit before Wyclif's time, and thence to the outbreak of the Reformation. It had, in con- sequence, the unpleasant effect of being written on two scales, passing from history to biography and back again, each part good in itself, but the whole wanting in unity. Dr. Lorimer has wisely confined his translation to the life, with a sketch, recast by Dr. Lechler, of Wyclif's English precursors, and has given us a book which has nothing to terrify the general reader. We hope it may do something to win for Wyclif the fame he deserves, both for his lofty character and the extent of his influence. In him met for the first time the various tendencies which were undermining the power of the Church, when it seemed to have reached its highest point. The abuses of the Papal Court and

• John Wielif, and his English Presursors. By Professor Lechler, D.D.. of the University of Leipzig. Translated from the German, with Additional Notes, by Peter Lorimer, D.D. London : C. Began Paul and Co. 1878.

f Reviewed in the Spectator of Hsieh 15, 1873. the worldliness and avarice of the clergy ; the encroachments of the Papacy on the rights of the National Churches, and of the clergy on the domain of the secular power,—these things had long been inveighed against, deplored, and satirised. But the opposition had been occasional in its nature ; pious men who really desired reform shrank from tracking abuses home to their source, in the authorised practice of the Church ; statesmen had been moved by ambition and the love of power, rather than by desire for the amendment of religion. Wyclif's keen moral sense was shocked at the prevalent evils, while his intellect would not rest in the contemplation of isolated facts, but sought fearlessly the principles by which conduct was to be governed. His con- victions were slowly formed, and he did not arrive at some of his most important doctrines till late in life ; but when once he had made up his mind he spoke out boldly, and carried with him a multitude who found that he had given a reasonable form to doubts and discontents that had long been brooding.

It does not appear that in his early life Wyclif showed any signs of contumacy or revolt. The first we hear of him is as a scholar at Oxford, where (so even his enemies allow) he held the first place as a theologian and a philosopher. Indeed, but for his later fame, it is probable that his name would still be known to the historians of philosophy as the last original mind among the Scholastics. His studies took a wide range, and included mathe- matics and such physics as were then to be learned. Our first notice of him is as Master of Balliol, in 1361. It must have been in this part of his career that be wrote his purely philosophical treatises,—works which it would be bard for any one to read now, but which contain some, perhaps many, germs from which his later doctrines were developed.

An University life was not necessarily one removed from public affairs, and Wyclif, who was attached to the Court in some capacity, came forward as a pamphleteer in defence of the Govern- ment, which had rejected a demand made by the Pope for arrears of tribute promised by John at his submission. The pamphlet took the form of a Parliamentory Report, in which seven lords in succession deliver reasons against the tribute. We wish we could believe, with Dr. Lechler, that this is a genuine report ; but each lord in turn confines himself so neatly to one ground of objec- tion, and the grounds are mostly so Wyclifite, that we cannot put faith in it as a fair specimen of fourteenth-century debate. However this may be, it is clear that Wyclif was already a marked man on the national or anti-Papal side, and this distinction be- comes more evident when we find him, in 1374, one of the Com- missioners appointed to treat with the Pope's Ambassador at Bruges on reservations and provisions. Statesmen had no doubt already learnt the device of quieting an over-zealous advocate of popular opinions by putting him on a commission, in company with obstructives. The Commission came to an agreement which did little to restrain the Pope, and its head, the Bishop of Bangor, was soon after translated by Papal provision to the richer bishopric of Hereford.

Thus far, Wyclif's action had been aggressive, but at his next appearance we find him put on his defence. His appearance at St. Paul's in answer to the summons of Convocation, the quarrel which ensued between the Duke of Lancaster and the Bishop of London, and the riotous break-up of the assembly, form one of the best known scenes in the life of the Reformer. The charges against him are nowhere clearly stated, but we cannot doubt that they were nearly the same as were urged soon afterwards by the Pope. For now the Papal power was to be used against him. We know not whether the attack was due to the instigation of the English prelates, or to the spontaneous action of the Papal Court, which had cause enough to dislike him. Bulls were issued ordering the Bishops to seize and imprison him till further orders, if it should be found that he had taught the erroneous doctrines enumerated in an accompanying schedule. The list of errors shows that Wyclif had not advanced far in im- pugning the doctrines of the Church. One group of the con- demned propositions asserts that all dominion or property is held conditionally. These propositions are obscurely ex- pressed, as if the compiler had not mastered the subject of his condemnations, but they refer to Wyclif's cele- brated doctrine of dominion as founded in grace. Another group asserts the right and duty of secular rulers to punish de- linquent clerks by forfeiture or otherwise, and in case of need to correct even the Pope. Here, although still on semi-political ground, Wyclif had attacked the customary teaching of the Church, if not its authoritative dogma. In a third group he enters fully upon religious territory, when he declares that all priests have ex officio an equal right to declare absolution (so that

the Pope had no right to reserve special cases to himself) ; and that no excommunication has any effect, except by the fault of the excommunicated person. It is curious to find Wyclif treading the path in which Luther was to fol- low, in attacking the claim of the Church to dispense pardon ; and it is still more curious to find that this deadly stroke at sacerdotalism was less severely condemned than his assault on the civil immunities of the clergy. The prosecution did little to lessen his favour with Government or people. He appeared at Lambeth before the Bishops, but they were already intimidated by an order from the Court not to con- demn him, and a mob, forcing its way into the chapel where they sat, gave an opportunity for breaking up the sitting. Three months later the Pope died, and the proceedings had no further issue. Thus far Wyclif had found powerful supporters. He had indeed only maintained on behalf of the English Crown the claims which had been advanced by Marsilus of Padua and by William of Ockham in defence of the Empire. He was now to venture on a more dangerous enterprise, a thorough assault upon the evils of the Church, in its practice, constitution, and dogma.

The new Pope was Urban VI., who began with a promise of vigorous reform that excited for a moment Wyclif's hopes and sympathy, but met with less favour from the Papal Court. An anti-Pope was elected, and Urban's attention was diverted from purifying the Church to quarrelling with his rival. Could the Popes have had their way, all Europe would have been in arms to support their respective claims. This, the Great Schism, forms an epoch in Wyclif's development. What little respect he had hitherto paid to the earthly head of the Church vanished ; the Pope and the Papal system became to him officially Antichrist. "Christ," said he, " hath begun to help us graciously, in that he hath cloven the head of Antichrist, and made the one part fight against the other."

With this revolt against the Pope came in a free handling of the whole Church system. The formal and ceremonial practices which had grown so rankly that they threatened to choke all spiritual religion were examined and denounced. The worship of images, the invocation of the saints, pilgrimages, pardons, masses for the dead, monastic Orders,—all these were assailed, as hurtful to true Christian life and to the freedom of the Gospel. Tue attack was the harder to meet, that it was not the blind assault of a fanatic, but the reasoned judgment of a logical mind. Wyclif never speaks of the saints without respect, but urges that Christ is as ready to hear as any saint can be, and more powerful to help. He admits that images may sometimes be useful to devotion, but this advantage is too dearly purchased, since they lead the ignorant to idolatry. The whole sys- tem of purchased pardons, indulgences, letters of fraternity, private masses is unsparingly denounced ; but on the sub- ject of confession he speaks the language of a moderate Anglican, allowing its usefulness in some cases, but condemning its enforcement as a general practice. A similar moderation is visible in his treatment of the celibacy of the clergy and other usages which were afterwards to be rejected by the Reformed Churches. In every case, his first question is whether the practice is enjoined by Scripture, and if not, he asks, next, how far it tends to promote a true Christian life. It is remarkable that in almost all instances Wyclif has anticipated the judgment embodied in our Book of Common Prayer. There is one striking exception to this rule. Wyclif insisted that poverty was binding on the clergy,—that every priest ought to follow the example of the Apostles, to content himself with food and raiment, and administer as in trust for the poor whatever he might receive beyond his need from the tithes or offerings of his parishioners. He would have had the lay ruler enforce this duty by withdrawing from the clergy all landed property and endowments except tithe. This view is extravagant, but an apologist might plead that it was a natural reaction against the gross worldliness and avarice then prevailing among the clergy. There is another excuse for Wyclif, which is that he was trying to apply honestly the stand- ard held officially by every Churchman. The medimval ideal placed poverty among the Christian virtues. Each fresh Order, in its new fervour, tried to be poor, and each in turn was corrupted by the gifts that its self-denial had attracted. When the monks had shown that the renunciation of individual ownership was no guard against the temptations of collective riches, St. Francis for- bade his followers to own anything, either singly or as an Order. The rule, too austere to be kept, was evaded with the connivance of the Pope, but it remained to illustrate the ideal of saintliness. Wyclif held that there could not be two ideals ; if Christ coun-

:Jelled poverty, it was not only to the special Orders, but to all his priests.

Such teaching of course made the prelates wish to suppress him there is no idealist so irritating as he who insists on realising an ideal to which we have been accustomed to pay a becoming but distant homage. And when Wyclif found himself at issue with all the official leaders of the Church, what wonder if his tone grew more bitter, his denunciation fiercer? It is from this time that he begins to abound in invective against the Friars, who were then (like the Jesuits at a later time) the champions of the Papacy, foremost in defending every claim of the Church,— and we may add, most audacious in practising all its abuses. There was yet one farther step for Wyclif to make. Hitherto he had confined himself to matters in which there was an appeal to the common moral instincts of mankind. Whatever theories might be held as to poverty, or the power of the Keys, the world- liness of the clergy and the abuse of indulgences were evils visible to all. But he now invaded the province of pure dogma, and in his denial of Transubstantiation took up a position where he was sure to be deserted by many who had so far backed him. How he was led to this doctrine is one of the puzzles in his mental history. In his previous attacks upon established opinions, we can trace in each inslance the moral indignation which stirred him to revolt ; here we have a purely intellectual conclusion, which, so far as we can see, is independent of his earlier heresies. We regret that Dr. Lechler seems to be unable to throw any light on this point ; indeed, if we are not mistaken, he has over- looked one curious bond which unites this, Wyclif's latest develop- ment, with the philosophical views of his younger days. In one of his early works, the De Ente, he devotes three chapters to prove that matter cannot be annihilated, and it is one of his favourite arguments against Transubstantiation that it supposes the annihilation of the substance of bread.

We need not follow in detail the few last years of Wyclif's life. The highly placed friends who shrank from upholding him in dogmatic heresy were probably still more estranged by the Wat Tyler riots. Though he could not be justly charged with in- citing to civil discontent, he must have suffered the discredit which attaches to all teachers of novelties at a time of reaction. Yet he must still have had powerful protectors, for while his followers were prosecuted, and most of them forced to recant, he remained undisturbed in his Leicestershire parish till death took him out of the reach of his opponents.

We have left ourselves but little space to discuss the merits of Dr. Lechler's book. We have already spoken of his thorough knowledge of his subject, in which he is doubtless unapproached by any one in Europe. But we cannot help regretting the method which he. has adopted in setting forth Wyclif's opinions. His eighth chapter is devoted to an account of Wyclif's philosophical and theological system. It starts with his metaphysic, and con- tinues through theology proper to the constitution, government, and practices of the Church. This way of treatment, thorough as it is, does not bring out clearly the dominant notes. We are shown Wyclif's conclusions and the course of their development on each subject in turn, but their relative importance is not clearly marked, and the organic unity of the whole is missing. We can- not now discuss how this method has affected the treatment of details, but we may say that Dr. Lechler seems to lay too much stress on Wyclif's Eucharistic doctrine, and too little on his attack on priestly absolution.

Dr. Lechler, in his preface, bears witness to his translator's perfect acquaintance with German and rich knowledge of his sub- ject, and the work is, on the whole, well done, yet it is marred by unfortunate inaccuracies and affectations. Dr. Lechler tells us that Wyclif used scientific illustrations, "even in sermons, at least such as seem to have been preached before the University."

Dr. Lorimer's version (I., 138) is "not only in sermons preached before the University, but even in his English sermons he makes unhesitating use of such illustrations." Again, to speak of opinions as " unecclesiastical" (II., 238) is utterly without meaning. " Unkirchlich," here, is, "against the teaching of the Church." The " Viscount " of Oxfordshire (II., 259) was the Sheriff ; the division between clergy and laity is one of orders, not of "ranks," as Dr. Lorimer has it (II., 123). If we have no right to an index, we may complain that the notes are arranged in a strangely inconvenient way, and that the reference numbers are frequently, we might almost say usually, wrong. Most annoying of all is the use of odd and affected language, such as "the Saga of the donation of Constantine." " Impartation " and " posits " are new to us, and when we are told that John Aston was " reponed," we begin to wonder what language we are reading.

Let us hope the book will reach a second edition, and that Dr. Lorimer will then complete his translation by turning these words into English.