dominion of Rome, he never felt justified in leaving her communion, but remained to the last in union with that Church of which through baptism he had been made a member. Secondly, when you read of the cruel persecution of the Lollards, and the bigotry of their enemies, remember that their leader was permitted not only to end his days in peace, but to retain his benefice to the very last. It is true that Wiclif appears before his death to have modified his views, and to have recalled some of his statements; but still he held a great deal that the Church in those days was not prepared to sanction. We have, therefore, no right to accuse Archbishop Courtenay of taking delight in persecuting and ill-using the reformer and his followers.

A few words more before we finally take leave of John Wiclif. There can be no doubt that, at one period of his life, Wiclif "was carried by his zeal beyond the bounds of truth and soberness."* The opposition he met with from his own countrymen disappointed and grieved him; and, suspected of disloyalty to his Church, he became desperate, and put forth opinions which at one time, I believe, he would have joined with the Bishops in condemning. At this distance of time, it is no easy matter to separate the opinions of the reformer from those of his fanatical followers, more particularly as the writers of the time, who are for the most part bitterly opposed to him, have not taken the trouble to distinguish between them. I think, however, there can be no doubt that in the following respects Wiclif fell away from the true and primitive faith, and so was guilty of error. He appears to have thought that the two offices of Bishop and priest were identical. Such an opinion, I have shown you, was opposed to Scripture and the doctrine of the early Church. Wiclif also thought it contrary to God's law for the Bishops and clergy to possess lands, declaring that they ought to be supported solely by the voluntary offerings of the people. Yet, at the same time, he differed from the Lollards in one important respect. Over and over again he affirms that "Prelates and priests ordained of God are instead of the apostles and disciples ;" and that it would be treasonable presumption in the rulers of the land to withhold their alms from the Church. Again: Wiclif certainly allowed his zeal for the truth to carry him too far, when he condemned stated times for Divine worship, and set forms of prayer. He affirmed that good men have no need of forms of devotion, which, he says, can only abridge the liberty which God has given them." He also objected to church music, and would fain have debarred Christian men from joining with heart and voice in the praises of God in his sanctuary. * Massingberd's History of the Reformation.

"The angels," he says, "it is true, praise God in heaven; but they have had full victory over their enemies; but we are in the midst of perilous battle, and in the valley of weeping and mourning. Our song keepeth us then from better occupation, and stirreth us to many great sins, and to forget ourselves. Our fleshly people now hath truly more liking in their bodily ears, in such knacking' and 'tattering,' than in hearing of God's law, or speaking of bliss in heaven." Very different is the feeling of the inspired Psalmist, when with sublime eloquence he exclaims, "Praise ye the Lord. Praise God in his sanctuary. Praise Him with the sound of the trumpet. Praise Him with the psaltery and harp. Praise Him with the timbrel and dance. Praise Him with stringed instruments and organs. Praise Him upon the loud cymbals. Praise Him upon the high-sounding cymbals. Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord."* A few words in conclusion with regard to Wiclif. They shall be of praise, and not of censure. John Wiclif conferred a lasting benefit on the Church by his translation of Holy Scripture. It is true that a portion of it had already been put forth in the Anglo-Saxon tongue; but the copies were very scarce, and therefore altogether out of the reach of the people. God's Holy Word had in consequence become almost unknown until Wiclif translated it, and further preached the necessity of studying it and making it the rule of faith. Although the cost of transcribing the sacred volume was very great, it was soon in such request that copies of it were rapidly multiplied, and became widely spread throughout the land. But though Wiclif encouraged the study of Holy Scripture, he set his face against the presumptuous arrogance which would give to every private man, however ignorant, the right to choose out of the Bible a creed for himself. In exalting the Scriptures as the only safe guide, Wiclif also upheld the Church, as the keeper and expounder of Holy Writ. He thus speaks: "The ground against error is to be established in Christ's law, and to know what His Church is, and the belief of His Church. What is the subject of belief? It is hidden truth, which God tells us is in His law. It is declared enough in the common creed of Christian men. If you will examine thy faith, whether it be the true faith of Christ's Church, look whether it is grounded on any article of the creed; if it be not grounded, take it not as belief."

According to the testimony of one of his bitterest enemies, Wiclif was a great philosopher, and a man of eminent learning.† He admired and carefully studied the writings of the "Fathers," that is, of the divines of the early Christian Church. He not + Knighton.

* Psalm cl.

only translated the Bible, but wrote a great many books besides, which, unhappily, have never come down to us. Had they been preserved, we might have formed a truer and more just opinion of the character of this great and earnest-minded reformer.

CHAPTER XXXV.

RICHARD II. continued.-1384 TO 1399.

SCHISM IN THE CHURCH OF ROME-TWO POPES FILL THE PAPAL CHAIR AT THE SAME TIME-THIS PUBLIC SCANDAL TENDS TO FAVOUR THE CAUSE OF THE LOLLARDS-PEOPLE BEGIN TO DOUBT THE POPE'S INFALLIBILITY— BONIFACE IX. HIS UNWORTHY CHARACTER HE IS THE FIRST TO INTRODUCE THE INDISCRIMINATE SALE OF PLENARY INDULGENCES STRONG ANTI-PAPAL FEELING IN ENGLAND THE ACT OF PROVISORS CONFIRMED, AND FURTHER ENACTMENTS MADE AGAINST ROMAN TYRANNY -THE CHARACTER OF RICHARD RUINED BY A BAD EDUCATION-HE GROWS UP A SELFISH AND PROFLIGATE MAN, AND SURROUNDS HIMSELF WITH EVIL COUNSELLORS-HE ESTRANGES HIS BEST AND WISEST NOBLEMEN BY HIS INDIFFERENCE-REMONSTRANCE OF THE LORD CHANCELLOR ARUNDELTHE KING'S RELUCTANCE TO ATTEND PARLIAMENT HIS FOOLISH AND UNMANLY THREAT-RICHARD, EARL OF ARUNDEL-HIS NOBLE CHARACTER AND POPULARITY -THE DISAFFECTED LORDS DETERMINE ΤΟ BRING RICHARD TO REASON-HIS RAGE AND TREACHEROUS CONDUCT· THOMAS ARUNDEL BECOMES ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY-RICHARD DETERMINES ΤΟ RUIN BOTH THE BROTHERS ARUNDEL HIS DUPLICITY-HE GETS RICHARD, EARL OF ARUNDEL, INTO HIS POWER-HIS TRIAL AND EXECUTION PUBLIC DISSATISFACTION- RICHARD'S UNEASINESS- ARCHBISHOP ARUNDEL BANISHED HIS GRIEF AND RAGE WHEN HE HEARS OF THE MURDER OF HIS BROTHER-HE LONGS FOR VENGEANCE.

ONE thing at this time especially tended to favour the advance of Wiclif's opinions. Some years before, a most extraordinary division had taken place in the Roman Church. Two popes reigned, each claiming for himself universal supremacy.

Early in the fourteenth century, Pope Clement had thought it advisable to remove his court to Avignon, in France; and there it had continued until the year 1376, when Gregory XI., before his death, considered it necessary for the well-being of his Italian States to return to Rome. At his death, a most violent contest took place between the French and Italians, each claiming the right to elect a new pontiff. The Italians determined to stand their ground, and elected the Archbishop of Beri to the Pontificate, who assumed the title of Urban VI.; while the French, equally eager to assert their rights, elected Robert, Count of Gena, to the papal chair. He took the name of Clement VII. As you may imagine, considerable perplexity

existed in the minds of the faithful which of these two popes was indeed the lawful successor of St. Peter. France, Germany, and Austria, together with Scotland, and several other states, acknowledged Clement; while England, Italy, Bohemia, and Hungary supported Urban's claim. The most shameless deeds of cruelty and wrong were committed by the contending parties; while hundreds began to doubt the infallibility of the Church of Rome, and to look for some surer guide. The mere fact that the Lollards were opposed to the popes made their teaching acceptable to a large number, while what was false and unscriptural in it was overlooked in the general desire for reform.

Matters were not improved when, at the death of Urban, Boniface IX. was elected by the Italians to fill the vacant chair. Had they really desired union, they would surely have come to terms with Pope Clement, who still lived; but the faith of God's holy Church, and the well-being of His people, were to be sacrificed to the aims of worldly and selfish men, who cared little for the harm which they knew must inevitably accrue to the Christian cause by so open and shameless a schism. Boniface IX., an ignorant and worthless man, seems to have been bent only on replenishing his exhausted treasury. In order more effectually to raise money, he resorted to the altogether new and startling plan of proclaiming the indiscriminate sale of plenary indulgences. That is, he offered to any one, who chose to pay for it, a full remission of purgatorial pains, without imposing on them either penance, confession, or a pilgrimage to any holy spot. Those, therefore, who stayed at home could, by paying a certain sum, claim the same privileges as those who had endured a long term of severe penance, or journeyed footsore and weary to some distant shrine.*

Boniface IX. was the first to sanction and encourage this shameless system, which, perhaps, more than anything else, hastened on the Reformation. But though the Pope's emissaries appeared in England, and daily continued their pernicious traffic, the English government was still strongly anti-papal; and Archbishop Courtenay, though he seems to have wavered a little at one time, joined with the rest of his countrymen in passing another decided Act of Parliament against the papal aggression. The statute of provisors, which, you remember, was made in the reign of Edward III., was confirmed; while it was further enacted, that if any man send or bring within the realm any sentence, summons, or excommunication from the Pope against any person whatever, he shall be taken, arrested, put in prison, forfeit all his possessions and goods for ever, and * Dr. Hook's Lives of the Archbishops, vol. iv., p. 381.

incur the pain of life and of member. And if any prelate abet such proceedings, his temporalities shall be seized, and abide in the King's hands until due redress and correction be thereof made." ""* I mention this act because it is the most important anti-papal one passed before the reign of Henry VIII., and shows us that the English, as a nation, were becoming less and less disposed to acknowledge the claim of a foreign bishop.

Up to this time, nearly all that you have heard about Richard II. has been favourable. His spirited and wise conduct with regard to the rebels shows us that he lacked neither courage nor presence of mind; while the patience with which he seemed at first disposed to listen to their demands proves that he possessed considerable tact, and was not wanting in humanity. But King Richard's history affords us a melancholy instance of the way in which a noble character may be marred and ruined by a worldly, irreligious education. Early taught to disregard what was true and noble, and to live only for himself, the young King grew up into a selfish, profligate, and weak man, and surrounding himself with unworthy favourites, soon lost the love and respect of his honest subjects. Richard II. is to be deeply pitied, not blamed. He was elegant in person, refined in his tastes, and, to a certain extent, clever; but his character was unstable, false, and hollow, and his nobles soon found to their cost that even his most solemn oaths and promises could not be trusted.

It is necessary that I should enter somewhat fully upon the troublous events that now occurred, because they are so closely connected with the ecclesiastics of the time. The nobles whom Richard loved to gather around him were mostly unprincipled and unpatriotic men, while those of his lords who would fain have given him good advice, and supported his lawful authority, were shunned by him and regarded with suspicion. Richard, absorbed in his own selfish enjoyments, cared little or nothing for his country, and even considered it a trouble to appear in person to consult with his nobles in parliament. Thomas Arundel, Bishop of Ely and Lord Chancellor, remonstrated with Richard on his culpable indifference. You have, sire," said he, "been absent for a long space of time, and yet you still refuse to come among us, greatly to the hindrance of your parliament." Richard at length reluctantly consented to attend; but he had far better have kept away, for his childish and unwise words were by no means calculated to conciliate his offended nobles. His speech shows an utter want of tact and right feeling. "Our people and commons," he exclaimed, "go about to rise against us; therefore we think we cannot do better *Collier, vol. iii., p. 204.

66