As yet Wicliffe has appeared before us only as a man of science — a scholar seldom leaving the precincts of Oxford. We are now about to see him step out from the quiet places of the university city and take a leading part in momentous public affairs. The change, although somewhat surprising, does not denote any alteration in him who was the subject of it. Wicliffe had a great mind; he was a man of high mark and possessed a powerful personality. The scholar will now be merged into the patriot, representing in his own person that interpretation of English national feeling which was so conspicuous in the fourteenth century, when crown and people, Norman and Saxon, united, formed a compact body to defend the rights and interests of the kingdom in its external relations, and especially against the Court of Rome.
We have seen how in 1213 King John surrendered the crown of England to Pope Innocent III., and as a sign of his vassalage agreed to pay 1000 marks annually. The oath of fealty was repeated by his son, Henry III., but prudently evaded by succeeding princes; and the tribute was paid, with considerable intermissions, to the close of the minority of Edward III.
Thirty-three years had passed without any payment having been made, and without remonstrance from Rome, when the nation was aroused by the arrival of a letter from Pope Urban V, in 1365, demanding of the English monarch, “the annual payment of a thousand marks, to be transferred to the papal treasury as a feudal acknowledgment for the sovereignty of England and Ireland.” In default of such payment the king was admonished “that he would be cited to appear, and to answer for such neglect, in the Court of the Sovereign Pontiff, who had become his civil, no less than his religious superior.”
This demand, as unexpected as it was insulting, stirred the nation to its depths. The England of Edward III was not the England of King John. During the century which had elapsed since Magna Charta was signed, the nation’s growth had been marvelously rapid. England had fused Norman and Saxon into one people; she had formed her language, extended her commerce, reformed her laws, and founded seats of learning which had already become renowned; she had fought great battles, and won brilliant victories; her valor was felt, and her power feared, by the Continental States; and when this summons to do homage as a vassal of the Pope was heard, the nation hardly knew whether to meet it with indignation or with derision.
The conqueror of Crecy and Poitiers was ill-fitted to become the vassal of a Pope. The bold and daring spirit of Edward III could ill brook the insulting summons from Rome. He acted, however, with the greatest prudence; and, summoning his parliament to meet early in the following year, he laid the Pope’s letter before it, and bade it take counsel and say what answer should be returned. This parliament assembled in May, 1366.
Having received the Pope’s letter, the estates of the realm requested a day to think over the matter; but on the morrow the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, as well as the Commons, met together and unanimously declared against the claims of the Pontiff.
The debate in the parliament was full of importance for England. Wicliffe was present, and, in a tract which was issued shortly afterward, has preserved a summary of the speeches.
The first member to rise was a military baron. “The kingdom of England” said he “was won by the sword, and by the sword has it been defended. Let the Pope then gird on his sword and come and try to exact this tribute by force, and I, for one, am ready to resist him.”
A second baron rose. “He only,” continued he, “is entitled to secular tribute who legitimately exercises secular rule, and is able to give secular protection. The Pope cannot legitimately do either; he is a minister of the Gospel, not a temporal ruler.”
“The Pope,” said the third speaker, “calls himself the servant of the servants of God. Very well: he can claim recompense only for service done. But where are the services which he renders to this land? Does he minister to us in spirituals? Does he help us in temporals? Does he not rather greedily drain our treasures, and often for the benefit of our enemies? I give my voice against this tribute.”
“On what grounds was this tribute originally demanded?”asked another. “Was it not for absolving King John, and releasing the kingdom from interdict? But to bestow spiritual benefits for money is mere simony; it is a piece of ecclesiastical swindling. But if it is as feudal superior of the kingdom that the Pope demands this tribute, why ask a thousand marks? why not ask the throne, the soil, the people of England?”
“Pope Urban tells us,” urged another member, “that all kingdoms are Christ’s, and that he, as His vicar, holds England for Christ, but as the Pope is liable to sin, and may abuse his trust, it appears to me that it were better that we should hold our land directly and alone of Christ.”
The last speaker said, “Let us go at once to the root of this matter. King John had no right to give away the kingdom of England without the consent of the nation. That consent was never given. If John gave his subjects to Innocent like so many chattels, Innocent may come and take his property if he can. We, the people of England, had no voice in the matter; we hold the bargain null and void from the beginning.”
Thus spake the parliament of Edward III. In bold and pithy language they declared for the King and rejected the Pope. Their decision ran as follows: “Forasmuch as neither King John, nor any other king, could bring his realm and kingdom into such thraldom and subjection but by common assent of parliament, the which was not given, therefore that which he did was against his oath at his coronation, besides many other causes. If, therefore, the Pope should attempt anything against the king by process, or other matters in deed, the king, with all his subjects, should with all their force and power resist the same.”
This decision was unanimous. Not a voice was heard in defense of Urban’s arrogant demand. From this time the Pope never explicitly claimed temporal jurisdiction over England.
How far did Wicliffe influence the parliament of Edward III in arriving at this important conclusion? That he had prepared the way for it by his teaching at Oxford seems certain, but that his influence was more immediately exerted in connection with the present decision appears evident from the fact that very shortly afterward a doctor of theology, a monk, whose name is unknown, challenged Wicliffe, singling him out by name, to refute certain propositions advanced by this monk in defense of the papal claims.
Why specially single out the reformer, unless he had become a marked man in connection with this controversy?
Whether Wicliffe was actually a member of this parliament it is now difficult to decide, but that such was the fact seems probable. Six masters of arts were returned to represent the inferior clergy, and he may have been one of these; or he may have been summoned by the king as a special commissioner on account of his learning and ability. Lechler thinks that the title assumed by Wicliffe in his reply, The King’s Peculiar Clerk, supports the supposition that the king had specially summoned him to parliament.
In the tract which the reformer was called upon to refute, his antagonist first proposed that the Pope, as vicar of Jesus Christ, was the feudal superior of monarchs and the lord paramount of their kingdoms; he then asserted that the sovereignty of England was legally forfeited to the Pope by the failure of the annual tribute, and furthermore, that the clergy, whether considered as individuals or communities, were fairly exempt, both in person and property, from all subjection to the magistrate. The task imposed upon Wicliffe was one full of danger. Nevertheless, he accepted the challenge and replied to his adversary.
In opening he stated, “But inasmuch as I am the king’s peculiar clerk, I the more willingly undertake the office of defending and counseling that the king exercises his just rule in the realm of England, when he refuses tribute to the Roman Pontiff.”
After describing himself as a humble and obedient son of the Church, he proposed to affirm nothing that might be reported to her injury or reasonably offend the ears of devout men, and then he stated his grounds of objection to the temporal power of the Pope. These were the natural rights of men, the laws of the realm of England, and the precepts of Scripture. “Already,” he said, “a third and more of England is in the hands of the Pope. There cannot be two temporal sovereigns in one country — either Edward is king or Urban is king. We accept Edward of England, and reject Urban of Rome.” Falling back upon the debate in Parliament, he presented a summary of the speeches then made, and thus placing the estates of the realm in the front, and covering himself with the shield of their authority, he showed to all that the question at issue was the affair of the king and the nation, and not a petty quarrel between an unknown monk and an Oxford doctor.
Shortly after this, in 1372, Wicliffe took his degree of Doctor in Divinity — a distinction more rare in those days than in ours. The circle of his influence was extended, and he began to be regarded as the center of a new age. A profound teacher and an eloquent preacher, he demonstrated to the learned during the week what he intended to preach, and on Sunday he preached to the people what he had previously demonstrated. His disputations gave strength to his sermons, and his sermons shed light upon his disputations. He accused the clergy of having banished the Holy Scriptures, and required the re-establishment of their authority in the Church. Loud acclamations crowned these discussions, and the emissaries of Rome trembled when they heard these shouts of applause.
About this time he published his Exposition of the Decalogue, an explanation of the law contained in the Ten Commandments.
All unseen, the Master walketh
By the toiling servant’s side;
Comfortable words He talketh,
While His hands uphold and guide.
Grief; nor pain, nor any sorrow,
Rends thy heart to Him unknown;
He today, and He tomorrow,
Grace sufficient gives His own.