ing doctrine of the real corporal presence. The duke of Lancaster, in dismay at his temerity, now abandoned him. He was summoned before the convocation at Oxford (1382), where he maintained his opinions. A mandate was obtained from the king banishing him from that university, and he retired to Lutterworth, where he died of paralysis on the last day of the year 1384. Thirty years after, by a decree of the council of Constance, his remains were taken up and burnt, and cast into the adjacent stream named the Swift.

The whole system of the church of Rome is so diametrically opposed to Scripture, that it need not surprise us to find Wickliffe arriving at the truth on most points when once he had the courage to search the Scriptures for himself. His discoveries, like those of all independent inquirers, were of course gradual; hence we must expect to find in his writings, as in those of such as by patient inquiry have endeavoured to extricate themselves out of the labyrinth of error, imperfect views and even contradictions, bold assertions and unguarded expressions poured out in the first fervour of discovery, but softened and restricted on cooler consideration. This renders it difficult to state with any certainty what his real opinions on every point were, and the difficulty is increased by the circumstance of only a portion of his works having been printed*.

The two pillars of Popery are the doctrines of Merits and Transubstantiation : in opposition to the former, Wickliffe held the doctrine of justification by faith only, though perhaps not in such strong terms as some subsequent reformers have done; on the latter point he seems to have agreed with the present Church of England in denying a bodily, but acknowledging a real spiritual presence in the sacramental elements. To most of the other erro

a

neous doctrines then inculcated, rather than shock prejudices by denying them, he tried to give a rational sense ; but against pardons, indulgences and excommunications, those great implements of clerical extortion and encouragement to sin, his invectives were trumpet-toned. Viewing with the Albigenses, with Dante, Petrarca and all the opponents of the church of Rome, the pope as Anti-Christ, he unsparingly applied that and similar terms to him and his supporters; and as his was an age of coarseness and plain speaking, his language frequently passes the limits set to controversy by the decorum of the present day*,

In opposition to the church of Rome, Wickliffe was strenuous in upholding the authority of the state over all orders of men. Tithes he regarded as alms bestowed on the church, and he held that the state was justified in withholding them if the clergy neglected their duty; perhaps he went even further, and thought that in such case the individual layman might refuse tithe and dues. His own retention of a valuable living till his death is, we should suppose, a sufficient proof that he did not think that the clergy should derive their only support from voluntary offerings. Still his language on this point was ambiguous and very liable to perversion. It was equally so on another, the right of wicked men to their temporal possessions, and Wickliffe has been charged with holding the doctrine of dominion being founded in grace. Yet here again the inference is belied by his life and conduct, and his language if rightly understood is perfectly innocent and far less strong than that of even St. Augustine on the same subject. It is however not impossible that, as is asserted, these principles of Wickliffe, misunderstood, may have

been used at the time of the rising of the peasantry to justify the excesses they were urged to commit.

Following the maxim that we may learn from the enemy, Wickliffe sent his Poor Priests, as he styled them, as itinerant preachers through the kingdom, imitating in this his foes the friars. His doctrines were thus widely spread, and they were embraced by numbers of both sexes. His followers, who were remarked for the purity and even austerity of their morals, were named Lollards*.

But Wickliffe gave Rome a deeper wound than any she had yet received by translating the Bible into English, and thus enabling even the unlearned to see how repugnant to the Word of God were her doctrines and practices. This is the weapon which as the sword of the Spirit Rome has always dreaded, and which alone suffices to overthrow

325

CHAPTER IX.

HENRY IV. (OF BOLINGBROKE.)*

1399-1413.

Murder of Richard II.-Battle of Homildon.-Battle of Shrewsbury.-Sup.

pression of the insurrection.-Seizure of the prince of Scotland.-Anecdotes of the prince of Wales.--King's death and character.--The clergy.

That Henry of Lancaster was the choice of the nation is an undeniable fact. The true heir of the throne was the earl of March ; but he was a child only seven years old,

1 and not a voice was raised in his favour. So little fears had Henry from his claims that he contented himself with holding him and his brother in an honourable confinement at Windsor.

When parliament met the titles of prince of Wales, duke of Cornwall, Guienne, etc. were conferred on Henry's eldest son-an indirect way of acknowledging the justice of the king's title. The acts of the twenty-first year of Richard were repealed, and those of his eleventh year were affirmed. The lords appellant against the duke of Gloucester and his friends were deprived of the titles and estates bestowed on them on that account. Future appeals of treason were prohibited, as also were delegations of the powers of Parliament to a committee. It was also forbidden under heavy penalties for any one but the king to give liveries. Toward the close of the session, the primate having previously enjoined all the lords to strict secrecy, the earl of Northumberland delivered a message from the king requiring them to say what should be done with the deposed monarch, whose life the king was resolved to preserve. They replied

that he should be placed in sure ward in a place where there should be no concourse of people, under trusty officers, and that none of his friends should be admitted to him. The king then came to the house (Oct. 27,) and passed this sentence on his unhappy predecessor, whose fate it was evident was now sealed.

How long that fate might have been delayed had no conspiracy been formed in his favour, it is hard to say. But five of the lords appellant had agreed among themselves to invite the king to a tournament at Oxford, and there to seize him and to proclaim Richard. Rutland, however, who was one of them, proved a traitor. It is said indeed that his father the duke of York insisting on seeing a letter he had received, he went, finding concealment impossible, and revealed the whole to the king. The conspirators, who had altered their plan, seized (Jan. 4, 1400,) the castle of Windsor; but Henry, warned by Rutland, had left it and gone to London, where he proclaimed them as traitors and commenced a levy of troops. They retired to the west proclaiming Richard as they went. At Cirencester, where they lay the first night, the people rose under their mayor and attacked the quarters of the earls of Kent and Salisbury, whom they forced to surrender, and beheaded them the next night; the same fate befell the lords Lumley and Despenser at Bristol ; and the earl of Huntingdon falling into the hands of the late duke of Gloucester's tenants at Pleshy, was put to death by them. The death of the deposed monarch soon followed; the lords had risen in the first week of January, and before the end of the month his death at Pontefract was announced. He had refused food it was said when he heard of the deaths of his brothers Kent and Huntingdon. To this however few gave credit; the general opinion was that he had been starved to death by order of Henry, and that he had lingered for fifteen days. Another account says that sir Piers of Exton came from London with seven assistants to murder him.