Bibles and Bones

John Wycliffe was born about 1328 in the little village of Wycliffe, near Richmond, in Yorkshire. He was educated at Oxford, where his ability soon made him prominent. He spent many years at Oxford, and received in 1366 the highest academic honour of the day—the degree of Doctor of Divinity. At one time he held the Wardenship of Canterbury Hall, a now extinct foundation, and at another time was Master of Balliol. It is doubtful whether he received Holy Orders, but. stirred by the luxury, unedifying life, and relative ignorance of some of the clergy, he commenced writing against such. From this he proceeded to attack the temporal power of the Pope. His field of criticism gradually widened, and soon he was denying one of the fundamental Catholic beliefs, the doctrone of Transubstantiation. In 1377 he was summoned to answer for his heretical opinions before the Primate and the Bishop of London.

Wycliffe's cause had been supported by John of Gaunt, who was opposed to the Papal party for political reasons, and the trial ended in a riot between the rival factions.

1382 saw the condemnation of ten of his doctrines by a synod of divines convened by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

On May the 21st, at the second sitting of this synod, London experienced a severe earthquake shock. Bishop Courtenay—one of Wycliffe's chief critics—declared that it was the effort of the earth to purge itself, "though not without violence," of heresy. Wycliffe found it necessary to issue a counter declaration that "the earthquake was the outcry of the world against the heretical prelates and friars."

Two of Wycliffe's chief followers, Nicholas of Hereford and Repingham, were excommunicated in July. 1382, though Wycliffe's name was not inserted, perhaps owing to his powerful supporter—John of Gaunt. However, the King sent a letter to the Chancellor of Oxford, ordering him to expel Wycliffe and his followers and seize all their books and writings.

Wycliffe thereupon retired to Lutterworth, whose Rectory he had been grunted some time previously, and spent the two remaining years of his life in writing on various religious subjects. His tracts were largely circulated by a band of itinerant preachers, called "Poor Priests," which he organised

Towards the end of his life Wycliffe bitterly assaulted the Papacy. "No words became too strong with which to attack the whole institution." He styled the Pope "Antichrist" and "the most accursed of clippers and purse kervers."

While hearing mass in his parish church at Lutterworth Wycliffe received a fatal paralytic stroke, and died a few days later, in 1384. He was buried in the churchyard.

The Council of Constance in 1415 condemned 260. propositions in Wycliffe's writings and ordered "his bones to be dug up and cast out of consecrated ground, provided they could be distinguished from those of Christians buried near." After some years of delay the decree was carried out by the ex-Lollard, Bishop Fleming of Lincoln, acting on the orders of Pope Martin V. So in March. 1428, "his vile corpse they consigned to Hell, and the River Swift absorbed his ashes."^*

Wycliffe was undoubtedly a learned, able, and sincere man, a vigorous controversialist, and possessed of a vitriolic tongue. He has been called "the Morning Star of the Reformation," but had only a few beliefs in common with the later Reformers. He agreed with them in denying Transubstantiation, the supremacy of the Roman See, the use of Indulgences, and appealed to the Bible as the sole rule in matters of faith. On the other hand, he believed in the efficacy of the Mass, in Purgatory, and admitted seven sacraments, including sacramental confession. John Huss was a disciple and made a national religion of Wycliffe's doctrines in Bohemia. But in England he left no permanent mark, and Lollardy. which carried on Wycliffe's ideas to some extent, had almost completely died out one hundred years later.

It is interesting to note that the Wycliffe family, at the time of the Reformation and after, were noted for their intense loyalty to Rome.^*

It is in connection with the translation of the Bible that Wycliffe's name is best remembered. To properly understand this matter it will be necessary to consider what early translations existed, and to some extent the question of pre-Reformation Bibles generally.

Among the many strange fallacies connected with the Middle Ages is the idea, still held by perhaps the majority of people, that there were no translations of the Bible from the Latin or from the Greek into more modern tongues, or that the Bible was little read by the clergy and not at all by the laity, or that the Church deliberately withheld the Bible from the people. Such notions are born of an ignorance of history, being absolutely contrary to fact, and are disproved by various authorities.

The Protestant historian, Dean Maitland, says:—"I know

^* The burning of Wycliffe's hones was no part of the Pope's orders, but was an added expression of hale by one who had previously supported his doctrines—Bishop Fleming.

^* Readers who wish for further details and authoritative references may refer to "The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics" and Lechler's "John Wycliffe." both available in the City Library.

page 44 of nothing which would lead me to suppose that any human craft or power was exercised to prevent the reading, the multiplication the diffusion, of the word of God."—"The Dark Ages." p. 252.

"The notion that the people of the Middle Ages did not read their Bibles ... is not simply a mistake; it is one of the most ludicrous and grotesque blunders."—"Church Quarterly Review" (Protestant), October, 1879.

"There is good deal of popular misapprehension," writes Dr. Cutts (Protestant) in his "Turning Points in English History," p. 200, about the way in which the Bible was regarded in the Middle Ages. Some people think it was very little read even by the clergy, whereas the fact is that the sermons of the Mediaeval preachers are more full of Scriptural quotations and allusions than any sermons of these days; and writers on other subjects were so full of Scriptural references that it is evident their minds were saturated with Scriptural diction."

As regards translations into the vernacular, Gigot ("Biblical Lectures") says:—"Six hundred and twenty-six editions of the Bible and portions of the Bible, of which 198 were in the language of the laity, had issued from the press, with the sanction of and at the instance of the Church in countries in which she reigned supreme, before Luther's German version appeared in 1534" (p. 311).

Cranmer writes: "When the Saxon language waxed old and out of common usage, because folk should not lack the fruit of reading, the Scripture was again translated into the newer language, whereof yet also many copies remain and be daily found."

That "stout champion of Protestantism," John Foxe, records his view thus, "If histories be well examined, we shall find, both before the Conquest and after, as well before John Wycliffe was born as since, the whole body of the Scriptures translated into this our country tongue."

"The whole Bible," says Sir Thomas More in his "Dialogues," iii, 14, "was long before Wycliffe's days by virtuous and well learned men translated into the English tongue, and by good and goodly people with devotion and soberness well and reverently read."

Lechler, in "John Wycliffe," when referring to Anglo-Saxon and Norman versions, even before 1200, says:—"It is indeed a remarkable fact, attested by men of special learning in this field that the French literature of the Mediaeval Ages was extremely rich in translations of the Bible, that it surpassed, indeed, in this respect the literature of all the other European peoples." (P. 206).

Hoare (Protestant) states, in "Our English Bible," when referring to Anglo-Saxon versions of the Gospels, two of which are now in the British Museum, "They bear witness to us of the high esteem in which the Scriptures were held by the native clergy of the Anglo-Saxon Church, and by their lay friends too with whom they shared them." (P. 38-39.)

Finally Wycliffe himself writes, in his "De Officio Pastous": "As Lords in England have the Bible in French, so it were not against reason that they hadden the same in English."

For further information regarding the various metrical translations of the Psalms, Gospels, and Acts, for particulars about the Ormulum, and several prose translations, the reader may consult Gasquet, "The Old English Bible." which probably gives the most complete and authoritative account of the matter in English.

However, due to the changes in the language and the gradual establishment of English as the national tongue, it does not seem that any of the translations of the whole Bible referred to above were sufficiently modern in Wycliffe's day to be easily read by the mass of the people. Also, since Wycliffe appealed to the Bible as the sole guide in matters of faith, it was only natural that he should conceive the idea of making a fresh translation.

The weight of evidence is that he commenced the translation during the last years of his life, and completed only part of the Gospels when death ended his labours.

"The popular idea." says Blunt ("Plain Account of the English Bible," p. 17), "of Wycliffe sitting alone in his study at Lutterworth and making a complete new translation of the whole Bible with his own hands, is one of those many popular ideals which will not stand the test of historical inquiry."

In the introduction to the edition of the Wycliffe Scriptures by Forshall and Madden, which Gasquet considers "may be taken as gathering together every particle of evidence on the matter," it is stated that "only the Gospels can with any probability be assigned to Wycliffe himself." Gasquet further points out that none of the chief adversaries of Wycliffe, such as Woodford. Walden, Whethamslede, and others, make any reference in their numerous writings to Wycliffe's translation, nor do Wycliffe's own writings lay much stress on having the Bible in the vernacular, except as noted above, where he declares that it were not unreasonable to have it in English, seemingly unaware of the already existing English translations.

But Gasquet goes further, and shows with much evidence, of which lack of space will not permit the statement here, that what are now generally supposed to be Wycliffite Scriptures are more probably approved Catholic translations. One or two reasons only may be mentioned.

Speaking of the two versions which are known as Wycliffite texts, Gasquet says:—"There is nothing inconsistent with their having been the work of perfectly orthodox sons of the Church," and later he states, "I cannot but think that an unbiased mind which will reflect upon the matter must see how impossible it was for a poor, persecuted sect like the Lollards, for the writings of which frequent and rigid searches were made, to produce Bibles now ascribed to them. Many of these copies, as we may see for ourselves, are written with great care and exactness and illuminated with coloured borders executed by skilled artists. These must surely have been the work of freer hands than the followers of Wycliffe ever were allowed to have in England." (P. 189.)

It is held by some authorities that after Wycliffe's death the page 46 work of translation was carried on by Nicholas of Hereford and John Purvey. The former was a Doctor of Divinity at Oxford and sided with Wycliffe. As is stated above, he was excommunicated, but appealed to the Pope, and appears to have given proof of his orthodoxy, so that later he received the Chancellorship of the Diocese of Hereford. After some years he resigned the Chancellorship and became a Carthusian in Coventry Charterhouse, where he died. There is evidence that he translated the majority of the Old Testament.

John Purvey was a disciple and friend of Wycliffe's latter days, but there does not appear to be any evidence that he had anything to do with the translation, except the appearance of his name in a single copy of the Wycliffite Scriptures as a former owner.

Finally, there remains to consider how the legend arose that the Church was opposed to the laity having access to the Bible in the vernacular. The origin of this were undoubtedly the various prohibitions made from time to time against unauthorised versions.

The Council of Oxford in 1408 decreed:"That henceforth no one translate any text of Holy Scripture into English or any other language in a book, booklet, or tract, and that no one read any book, booklet, or tract of this kind lately made, in the time of the said John Wycliffe or since, or that hereafter may be made, either in part or wholly, either publicly or privately, under pain of excommunication, until such translation shall have been approved by the diocesan of the place, or (if need be) by the Provincial Council."

Two things are to be noted here. Firstly, the prohibition is plainly and simply against unauthorised translations, and secondly, no mention is made of any translation of the whole Bible by Wycliffe.

In connection with this decree Sir John More writes: "For I trow that in this law ye see nothing unreasonable. For it neither forbiddeth the translations to be read that were already well done of old before Wycliffe's day, nor damneth his because it was new, but because it was nought: nor prohibiteth new to be made, but provideth that they shall not be read if they be amiss, till they be by good examination amended." Gasquet quotes several non-Catholic authorities in support of this obvious interpretation of the intention of the decree of the Oxford Council. The same author quotes another bit of interesting evidence. Among the Harleian Mss. at the British Museum is a copy of interrogations addressed to suspected Lollards. The subject of the vernacular Scriptures is not mentioned. Among other recorded examinations of persons charged with holding Lollard opinions. Gasquet can find only one reference to the Scriptures in England: "In 1469 one John Turner, of Sydney, abjured, amongst other errors of which he had been convicted, the following:—'That religious people from mere envy prevent lay persons having the Holy Scripture translated into the English language.' As John Turner retracted this opinion, we may take it that in some sense or other the assertion was untrue." (P. 127.)

In 1530 a Royal proclamation was issued by Henry VIII against translating the Bible into English, French, or Dutch. It page 47 stated:—"Having respect to the malignity of this the present time with the inclination of the people to erroneous opinions, it is thought that the translation of the New Testament and the Old into the vulgar tongue of England would rather be the occasion of an increase of errors among the said people than any benefit towards the weal of their souls and that it shall be now more convenient that the said people have the Holy Scriptures expounded to them by preachers in their sermons as it hath been of old time accustomed."The people were also ordered to deliver up all copies of the printed Testament "corruptly translated into the English tongue," and the King promised "to provide that the Holy Scripture shall be, by great, learned. and Catholique persons translated into the English tongue, if it shall then seem to His Grace convenient to be." Henry VII had just broken with Rome, and there was being published Tyndale's Bible. Of the latter, Canon Dixon, in his "History of the Church of England," writes:—"Every one of the little volumes containing portions of the Sacred Text that were issued by Tyndale contained also a prologue and notes written with such a hot fury of vituperation against prelates and clergy, the monks and the friars, the rites and ceremonies of the Church as . . . was hardly likely to recommend it to the favour of those who were attacked. Moreover, the persons themselves were held to be hostile to the Catholic faith as it was then understood and to convey the sense unskilfully or maliciously." (P.451-2.)

Tyndale printed some 3.000 copies of his Bible at Worms and sent them to England in 1526.

Various other English Bibles, such as Coverdale's Bible, 1535; Matthew's Bible, 1537; the Great Bible, 1539; the Geneva Bible, 1560; the Bishop's Bible, 1568; and the Rheims Bible, 1582 (New Testament only), were published before the Authorised Version in 1611.

—M. McW.

[A word of explanation may be necessary in publishing the above article. It is by way of reply to the statement regarding Wycliffe, which appears at its head, attributed to "a student at a meeting of the Free Discussions Club."The author of the article considers that statements were there made which were totally false, and has been at the pains to justify his contention. He also claims that the report of that meeting in the last " Spike" was deliberately misleading and incorrect. Where charges of misrepresentation have been made (whether substantiated or not), we have thought it better to publish the accuser's statement in full, although we doubt whether its subject matter will be of general interest to students. It may be permissible, . in a very meek spirit, to endeavour to hoist the engineer with his own petard. We are very well acquainted with the student whose alleged misstatement our author attacks. He did not say that the ashes of Wycliffe's body were scattered to the four winds, although he has been persistently credited with saying it. What he did say was that the body was burned and the ashes thrown into the River Severn: they were actually thrown into the Swift, a tributary of the Severn. But the main content of page 48 the article that we have published seems to be addressed towards disproving the statement that this ghoulish performance was in any way connected with the victim's work of translating the Bible. The article seems to us to establish very clearly four points: (1.) That Wycliffe translated at least the major portion of the New Testament. (2) That "due to the changes in the language and the gradual establishment of English as the national tongue,"there was need for such a translation, and "it was only natural" that Wycliffe should undertake it. (3.) That the Roman Catholic Church, by the Council of Oxford in 1408, prohibited the publication or use of any translation not approved by itself, making special mention of Wycliffe's translation— twenty-four years after his death—and (in the words of good Sir John More), "damning his not because it was new, but because it was nought." (4.) That only seven years after this decree the same Church, by a different Council, ordered Wycliffe's body to be dug up and cast out of consecrated ground. We may perhaps be allowed to observe that whatever reasons the Council of Constance had for its command, they were not in any measure offset or counterbalanced by the fact that the victim of its displeasure had performed the task of translating the gospels at a time when none of the existing translations was in the language of the common people. But for the rest of the verdict, we put ourselves upon our readers.—Ed. "Spike."]