1. His Life and Witness
Rev K M Watkins
We might have expected John Knox to begin his History of the Reformation in Scotland with an account of Patrick Hamilton, burned at the stake at St Andrews in 1527. After all, the sixteenth century was the century of the Reformation proper. However, Knox actually begins a century earlier, tracing rays of gospel light that shone in Scotland back in the 1400s.2
He had gleaned from the Scrolls of Glasgow3 that an unnamed individual had been “burned for heresy” in 1422. He then moves on to 1431, to Paul Craw, who was burned at the stake at St Andrews. His “accusation consisted principally, that he followed John Hus and Wycliffe”, writes Knox.4 Before completing ten lines, Knox traces back the roots of the Scottish Reformation to Wycliffe. He then writes at length of the Lollards of Kyle: 30 persons summoned before King James IV in 1494 to answer 34 articles – which Knox lists in full. They escaped with their lives. Lollard was the term used to denote a follower of Wycliffe,5 and the articles had their source in the teaching of Wycliffe.
Before we can pursue further the connection between Wycliffe and Scotland, an overview of his life and achievements is necessary. John
1The first section of a paper delivered at this year’s Theological Conference.
2The version of The Reformation in Scotland, abridged by C J Guthrie, first published in 1898 and reprinted by the Banner of Truth in 1982, does indeed begin in the sixteenth century. But the full version begins in the fifteenth century, and may be found in the first two volumes of Knox’s Works, edited by D Laing, Wodrow Society, 1846.
3These have not been preserved.
4John Knox, Works, vol 1, p 6, with spelling updated.
5Lollard could well have been a derogatory term to begin with, meaning to mumble or mutter.
Wycliffe was born about 1330, near Richmond, Yorkshire, in northern England. By his early teenage years he was attending Oxford University, the most important centre of learning in all of Europe at the time, where Thomas Bradwardine was coming to the end of his labours. Bradwardine directed his students to Scripture and emphasised the sovereignty of God’s grace. Before him, Robert Grosseteste had taught at Oxford and attacked the abuses of the papal Church. Wycliffe was also influenced by his reading of Augustine. Wycliffe’s scholarly abilities were extraordinary, and saw him attain both Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees and then his Doctorate of Divinity. He rose quickly to high position in the university and gave himself to the scholastic cut and thrust of late medieval academia, writing vast quantities of material as well as teaching.
The Black Death, one of the worst plagues in history, reached England in 1348. It took away half the population and was the means of awakening Wycliffe to see his unpreparedness for death and judgement. Now he studied the Bible “more earnestly than ever, not as the theologian, but as a seeking soul”, and “the Word of God pointed [him] to Christ”.6 Ever after, his view of Christianity was vitally connected to the Bible. “To be ignorant of the Scriptures”, he said, “is to be ignorant of Christ.”7
It was only in the last decade of his life that Wycliffe rose to prominence beyond academic circles. Those who wanted to see less money drained from England to the papacy were attracted by his teaching that England was under no obligation to lose its revenues and wealth to Rome. His anti-papal patriotism is clear from the following quotation: “There cannot be two temporal sovereigns in one country; either Edward is king or Urban [the Pope at the time] is king. We make our choice. We accept Edward of England and refuse Urban of Rome” (quoted, p 23).
In 1374 he was sent, with others, on royal authority to Bruges, to negotiate with papal representatives over England’s payments to the Pope. Two things resulted: he had such a close-up view of the workings of Rome that he never trusted it again; and an alliance was formed with John of Gaunt (Duke of Lancaster and uncle of Richard II) who was to do much to protect him in later years. The Duke was a politician, and saw Wycliffe’s teaching as a means of maintaining and increasing his own power base.
Wycliffe attacked the whole Romish system as corrupt from top to bottom. He labelled the Pope as “Antichrist, the proud, worldly priest of Rome and
6David Fountain, John Wycliffe, the Dawn of the Reformation, Mayflower Christian Books, 1984, p 9. Other quotations from this source are given in brackets in the text.
7Quoted in Herbert B Workman, John Wyclif, a Study of the English Medieval Church, vol 2, Clarendon Press, 1926, p 151.
the most cursed of clippers and purse-kervers”.8 He also criticised the Pope’s followers closer to home, the friars and others in England who milked the system for their own personal benefit. He was soon in trouble. In February 1377, Courtenay, the Archbishop of Canterbury, summoned him to stand trial at St Paul’s in London. The meeting was a fiasco, beginning with an argument between the Archbishop and John of Gaunt, along with Percy, who was the King’s Marshall, over whether Wycliffe should stand or sit. The meeting ended in disorderly confusion, with John of Gaunt’s men on one side and the Archbishop’s men on the other.
In April 1378, Wycliffe was summoned again, to face trial at Lambeth Palace before the bishops. A large crowd of supporters, who regarded Wycliffe as a national hero, surrounded the Palace. His written defence had denied the power of the priests to absolve from sin, and the bishops were determined to end the life of one whom they regarded as a heretic. However, a message came from Joan, King Richard II’s mother, that they were to do nothing against Wycliffe. Confusion and fear ensued, and Wycliffe went away a free man once again. Joan, mother-in-law to Anne of Bohemia, had great admiration for Wycliffe and his teachings. Anne herself would be instrumental in the spread of Wycliffe’s teachings to Bohemia, and on to John Hus, from whose writings Luther gained so much.
Until this time, Wycliffe’s main endeavours had been against the corruptions of the Romish Church, something others had done before him. But from 1378 his focus was more foundational, examining Rome’s doctrines in the light of Scripture. As for the Pope, he said, he is “potissimus Antichristis – most especially Antichrist” – because he “vilified, nullified, utterly defaced and debased” God’s decrees by his decrees, Christ’s commandments by his commandments, Paul’s Epistles by his decretals, and the canonical Scriptures by his canon law (pp 35,37).
By 1381 he was attacking the root of Rome’s power, the heresy of transubstantiation: “The consecrated host which we see on the altar is neither Christ nor any part of Him but the efficacious sign of Him”; and transubstantiation “cannot be shown to have any foundation in the Word of God” (p 37). John of Gaunt, a Romanist to the end, tried to dissuade him from going in this direction. Wycliffe’s focus on doctrine weakened the enthusiasm of supporters who were drawn to him more for political than religious reasons. But Wycliffe persisted, and though he lost the support of men, God preserved His servant.
When Wycliffe fell dangerously ill, his arch-enemies gathered around his
8Quoted in Fountain, John Wycliffe, p 26. Clipper was Middle English for barber or sheepshearer. Purse-kerver was Middle English for a pickpocket.
sick-bed, certain at last that they would be rid of their adversary. They urged him to recant. Wycliffe rose up on his bed and said defiantly: “I shall not die but live, and again declare the evil deeds of the friars” (quoted, p 37). And so he did.
In May 1382 another council of bishops was held, at Blackfriars in London, at the Pope’s behest, to condemn Wycliffe once and for all. As the meeting began, there was a most unusual earthquake, causing walls to shake and stones to fall from buildings. Wycliffe said it was God showing His displeasure against the council. The Archbishop had a different interpretation: Wycliffe’s teachings had penetrated the very ground, and now the earth was belching out his poisonous teaching. This Earthquake Council, as it was called, proceeded to condemn all 26 of Wycliffe’s doctrines that it examined, labelling 10 heretical and 16 erroneous. Through fear of man, more of Wycliffe’s former supporters left him at this point.
Finally, bishops, doctors of divinity and other clergy were called to a meeting of the Convocation9 at Oxford, which concentrated on Wycliffe’s teaching against transubstantiation. Wycliffe refused to back down. “With whom, think you, are you contending? With an old man on the brink of the grave? No, with truth. Truth which is stronger than you and will overcome you (quoted, p 42).” And with that he left, and no man dared to stop him. He withdrew to Lutterworth, in the East Midlands, where he spent the rest of his days as rector, preaching, pastoring, studying and writing, until 31 December 1384, when he died a natural death, not long after being summoned to Rome to answer before the Pope.
From these years in Lutterworth came the best of Wycliffe’s work. He completed what he had begun earlier in Oxford, initiating and supervising the first translation into English of the entire Bible. Part he did himself; Nicholas of Hereford and John Purvey did the rest. It was far from a perfect translation. It was made from the Latin Vulgate, itself a translation by Jerome in the fourth century, neither Wycliffe nor his men having Greek or Hebrew. It included the Apocrypha. Though in English, it was overly-literal, following the Latin word order. Purvey revised it thoroughly after Wycliffe’s death, to make a much more idiomatic and understandable version. What is today called Wycliffe’s Bible is that revision.
Here is an example from Matthew 7: “Therfor ech man that herith these my wordis, and doith hem, schal be maad lijk to a wise man, that hath bildid his hous on a stoon. And reyn felde dou, and flogis camen, and wyndis blewen, and russelschen in to that hous; and it felde not dou, for it was
9The Convocation was the “parliament” of the medieval Church in England. Made up of bishops and other clergy, it had governing powers within the Church.
foundun on a stoon. And euey man that herith these my wordis, and doith hem not, is lijck to a fool, that hath bildid his hous on grauel. And reyn cam doun, and floodis camen, and wyndis blewen, and thei hurliden ayen that hous; and it felde doun, and the falllyng doun thereof was greet.”
Wycliffe not only had the Word of God translated, he also had it preached, by himself and others. He sent out his “poor preachers” throughout England, who, armed with handwritten portions of the newly-translated Scriptures (this was before the invention of printing) went into the villages, towns and cities of the nation, with the gospel of Christ. Wycliffe and his followers could not keep quiet about the teachings of Scripture.
Nothing was more important to Wycliffe than the Bible. Scripture as the sole final authority was his real rallying call and the power of the movement that flowed from him, together with the right of each individual to read the Bible for himself in his own language. He wrote: “The New Testament is of full authority, and open to the understanding of simple men, as to the points that be most needful to salvation”.10 It has rightly been said: “What was characteristic of the man, more than anything else, was his submission to the Bible as the Word of God. . . . All his usefulness derived from his respect for the Word of God. To him the Word of God was the voice of God and the power of God. It transformed him, and through him transformed others” (p 14).
While it was generally accepted that Scripture had authority, Wycliffe was insisting on its exclusive authority. Others added the Church alongside Scripture, but Wycliff insisted on Scripture alone – Sola Scriptura. H B Workman, one of Wycliffe’s main biographers, wrote, “Wycliffe advanced to the position so characteristic of the later Reformation of distinguishing between the Bible and the teaching of the Church . . . Wycliffe’s insistence on the supreme authority of Scripture was not less than that of Luther.”11
As a result Wycliffe held many other Reformation doctrines as well. It has been said that he “had reached and stated almost all the conclusions subsequently held by the Protestant Reformers. . . . The case for Protestantism had been stated”.12 It is true that he did not formulate the doctrine of justification through faith alone as articulately as the Reformation proper, but the essence of it was there. He wrote: “If a man believe in Christ, and make a point of this belief, then the promise that God hath made to come into the land of light shall be given by virtue of Christ, to all men that make this the chief matter” (quoted, p 79).
10Quoted by Workman, John Wyclif, vol 2, p 151.
11Workman, vol 2, pp 149,150.
12McKisack, The Fourteenth Century, p 311, quoted in J E Healey, John of Gaunt and John Wyclif, CCHA, Report, 29 (1962), p 41n.