[i]

[ii]

THE LAST AGE
OF
THE CHURCH.

[iii]

The
Last Age of the Church.

By JOHN WYCLYFFE.

Now first Printed
From a Manuscript
In the
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY, DUBLIN.

EDITED WITH NOTES,

By
JAMES HENTHORN TODD, D.D.,
Fellow of Trinity College, and Treasurer of St. Patrick’s Cathedral.

Dublin:
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
M.DCCC.XL.

[v]

[iv]

¶ The Preface.

A well known popular Writer on the History of the Christian Church has given it as his Opinion, that whoever will carefully examine the original Records, will soon be convinced that the Merits of Wyclyffe, as a Reformer, have been considerably exaggerated.[1] How far this is true or not, the Writer of these Pages will not attempt to determine; but certain it is,[vi] that to “examine the original Records,” with a View to discover the real Doctrines and Opinions of Wyclyffe, is much more easily said than done; and the Reader who seeks for Satisfaction from the Biographers of the Reformer, or from the Historians of the Period, will soon be convinced that the original Records, and above all, the still remaining Writings of Wyclyffe and his Followers, have never been examined with the Care and Attention necessary for the Purpose of forming a just Estimate of his Opinions, and of the Merit of his Efforts at a Reformation of the Church.

The List of Wyclyffe’s Writings published[vii] by Bishop Bale, in his Work, Scriptorum Majoris Brytanniæ Catalogus[2], has been necessarily made the Basis of all that subsequent Writers have collected. It has been reprinted, with many useful additions, by the learned and indefatigable John Lewis[3], of whose Labours every Student must speak with Gratitude. Mr. Baber[4] also has done much towards assisting future Inquirers, by the very valuable List of the Reformer’s Writings that he has compiled. Here, however, we must stop; Mr. Vaughan’s Compilation[5] has not added much to our Knowledge of the Subject, nor can it be commended either for Accuracy or Learning; and[viii] Mr. Le Bas[6] does not profess to do more than follow his Predecessors. His humbler Task, however, has been executed with great Elegance and Judgment.

The Truth, therefore, is, that until the Works of Wyclyffe, real and supposititious, be collected and published, it is vain to talk of determining his Opinions, or fixing his real Merits as a Reformer; and it is with the Hope of directing Attention to this Subject that the following Tract is now printed. The learned Henry Wharton[7] was willing to believe that all the Writings of Wyclyffe might in his Time have been recovered: “omnia Wiclefi scripta,” he says, “in Anglia adhuc delitescere,[ix] et ex Bibliothecis nostris qua publicis qua privatis in lucem erui posse, lubenter crederem.” Perhaps we have still all the MSS. that existed in Wharton’s Time, and it may be still within our Power to rescue them from the Oblivion in which they have so long been suffered to remain. But the Chances of their Destruction are every Day becoming greater, and Delay in such an Enterprize is highly dangerous. It is true that many of these Documents will be found dry, and to the popular Reader uninteresting; buried in the barbarous Latinity of the Schools, or concealed under the perhaps still more obsolete English of the fourteenth Century.[x] But they who would engage in such a Labour as the Publication of the Works of Wyclyffe, must be above the narrow Influences of modern Utilitarianism. They must keep in View a higher Field of Learning than comes within the Sphere of Mercantile Speculators in Literature, or Useful Knowledge Societies. They must feel that the Value of these Documents as Compositions, is but a secondary Object in their Publication; the great End must be the Discovery of Truth, and the Preservation of the Remains of an illustrious Character in our History. What nobler, what more imperishable Monument could the Gratitude of England raise to her first[xi] Reformer, than a complete and uniform Edition of his extant Writings?

The Editor is fully sensible that the Tract which is now for the first Time given to the public, is very far from being a favorable Specimen of the Works of Wyclyffe. But it commended itself for Publication on many Grounds: First, its Shortness. Secondly, its early Date; for it bears internal Evidence of having been composed in the Year 1356[8], and must, therefore, (if really by Wyclyffe,) have been the earliest of his Writings. Another Motive for publishing this Production is furnished by the Consideration, that, if it be genuine, it reveals to us a Fact not dwelt upon, so far[xii] as the Editor knows, by any of the Reformer’s Biographers; namely, the Connexion which existed between the earlier Doctrines of Wyclyffe, and the prophetical Speculations of the Beguins, circulated under the Name of the famous Abbot Joachim.

It remains, however, to be proved, that the Tract now printed is really Wyclyffe’s; and this, the Editor admits, seemed to him an additional Reason for selecting it for Publication; inasmuch as it served at once to raise the Question, How far we have certain Grounds for attributing to Wyclyffe the Writings that exist under his Name; nor is it perhaps too much[xiii] to say, that this is a Subject which the learned World has never been in a Condition to consider fully. Yet there is no preliminary Question more deserving of Attention, if we would form a just Estimate of our Reformer’s Merits; for it must be evident to every reflecting Reader, that if we are in any Degree uncertain of the Genuineness of such Writings as are quoted under the Name of Wyclyffe, the Conclusions drawn from them, as to the Nature and Character of his Doctrines, must be in the same Degree uncertain, and destitute of Authority.

In the present Case, the Grounds upon which the following Treatise has been assigned[xiv] to Wyclyffe, are no more than these:—First, that it is found in a MS. Volume of the fourteenth Century, which contains several other Tracts, that are believed to be Wyclyffe’s. Secondly, that it has been ascribed to Wyclyffe, by Bishop Bale, Mr. Lewis, and, after them, by his more modern Biographers.

These Remarks are not made with a Design to cast any Doubt on the Genuineness of the following Treatise. It is very probably by Wyclyffe, although we have no better Reason than the Authority of Bale for thinking so. But if any Reader should entertain a Doubt on this Subject, deeming the Tract unworthy of[xv] our Reformer, (as many will doubtless feel it to be very different from what they would have expected from the Pen of Wyclyffe,) the Editor must confess himself unable to satisfy such Scruples; nor is he aware of any Argument by which the Authority of Bale and Lewis can be supported. The Conclusion, however, to which he desires to bring the Reader, and for the Sake of which he has hazarded these Remarks, is simply this, that until the various Treatises attributed to Wyclyffe are collected, and rendered accessible to the Learned, it is vain to think of deciding the Question how far any given Tract is worthy or unworthy of his Pen.[xvi] One other Particular, concerning the following Work, remains to be considered. Mr. Vaughan[9] tells us that “this is one of the Reformer’s Pieces that is to be found only in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin;” and this may, for aught we know, be true, although perhaps it only means that no other Copy of the Tract was elsewhere found by Mr. Vaughan. Certain, however, it is, that Bishop Bale has entered the Treatise in two different Places of his Catalogue, and under two different Titles; from which we may infer, that in his Time, or in the Times of those from whom he copied, the Tract was found in two different Collections.[xvii] In one place he enters it thus[10]:—(See No. 84 of Lewis’s Catalogue.[11])

In another place[12] he gives it the Title under which it is now published, and describes it thus[13]:—

It is by no means improbable, therefore, that a second Copy of the Tract may still exist, under some Disguise, in our public or private Libraries.

The Volume from which the Treatise is now printed, is preserved among the[xviii] MSS. of Archbishop Ussher, in the Library of the University of Dublin. It appears to have been once the Property of Sir Robert Cotton, whose Autograph is found on the lower Margin of the first Page, in his usual Form of Signature[14]:

On the upper Margin of the same Page, in a Hand of the early Part of the sixteenth Century, now nearly obliterated, may be traced the Words,

Over which Sir Robert Cotton has written,

[xix]

Nothing appears in the Volume to indicate the exact Year in which it was transcribed, but the Hand-writing would lead us to assign it to the latter End of the fourteenth or Beginning of the fifteenth Century. It is imperfect in some places, but contains a very valuable Collection of the Tracts of Wyclyffe, for a complete List of which the Reader is referred to some Papers that were published in the Year 1835, in the British Magazine[15]; where he will also find an Account of the Treatise, now for the first time printed, “On the last Age of the[xx] Chirche,” with an Exposure of certain Mistakes that have been committed respecting it. Several of the Remarks contained in those Papers have been transferred to the Notes, which will be found at the End of the present Volume.

[xxi]

¶ The last Age of
the Chirche. By
John Wyclyffe,
S. Th. P.

M.ccc.luj.

[xxii]

[xxiii]

The last age
of the
Chirche.

Alas forsorwe grete prestis sittinge in derkenessis[16] & in schadewe of deeþ/ noȝt hauynge him þat openly crieþ/ al þis I wille ȝeue ȝif þou auaunce me. Þei make reseruaciouns/ þe whiche ben clepid dymes/ ffirst fruytis/ oþer penciouns/ aftir þe opynioun of hem þat trete þis matir. For no more[xxiv] schulde fatte beneficis be reserued þāne smale/ ȝif no pryuy cause of symonye were tretide/ þe whiche I seie noȝt at þis tyme. But Joachur[17]/ in his book of þe seedis of profetis & of þe seyingis of popes & of þe chargis of profetis/ tretynge þis matir/ & spekynge of þe rente of dymes/ seiþ þus[18]/ foure tribulaciouns Dauiþ þe profete haþ bifore seid/ þe seuynty & nyne chapitre/ to entre into þe Chirche of God/ & Bernard[19] acordiþ þere wiþ/ vpon cantica/ þe þre & pritty sermon/ þat ben/ a nyȝtly drede/ an arwe fleynge in day/ chaffare walkynge in derkenessis/ & myddais deuylrie/ þat is to seye/ antecrist. Nyȝtly drede was whanne alle þat slowen seyntis demyd hem silf do seruyse to[xxv] God/ & þis was þe firste tribulacioun þat ontrede þe Chirche of God. Þe arwe fleynge in day was desceyt of heretikis/ & þat was þe secunde tribulacioun þat entred þe Chirche of Crist. Þat is put of bi wisdom of seyntis/ as þe firste was cast out bi stedfastenesse of martiris. Chaffare walkynge in derkenessis is þe pryui heresie of symonyans/ bi resoun of whiche þe þridde tribulacioun schal entre into Cristis Chirche/ þe whiche tribulacioun or angusch schal entre þe Chirche of Crist in þe tyme of þe hundrid ȝeer of .x. lettre/ whos ende we ben/ as I wele preue/ & þis myscheif schal be so heuy þat wel schal be to þat man of holy Chirche þat þāne schal noȝt be on lyue. And þat I preue þus[xxvi] bi Joachrin[20] in his book of þe deedis of profetis. Men of ebreu tunge haueþ xxii lettris/ and byngȳn̄ge fro þe first of ebrew lettris/ & ȝeuynge to euery lettre an hundrid ȝeer/ þe oolde Testament was endid whāne þe noumbre ȝeuen to þe lettris was fulfillid. So fro þe bygynnynge of ebrew lettris in to Crist/ in þe whiche þe oolde Testament was endid/ weren two and twenty hundriddis of ȝeeris. Þis also schewiþ openly bi discripcioun of tyme/ of Eusebi[21]/ Bede[22]/ & Haymound[23]/ most preued of acounteris/ or talkeris. So Cristen men hauen xxi lettris/ & bygynnynge fro þe first of Latyn lettris/ & ȝeuynge to eche .c./ þe newe Testament was endid whanne þe noumbre of þes assingned[xxvii] lettris was fulfillid. And þis is as soþ as in þe bigynnynge God made heuene & erþe/ for þe oolde Testament is figur of þe newe. But aftir Joachim[24] & Bede[25]/ fro þe bygynnynge of Latyn lettris to þe comynge of Crist weren seuene hundrid ȝeere/ so þat Crist cam in þe hondrid of .h’. lettre/ Crist steye to heuene/ and aftir þat/ undir .k’. lettre/ Crist delyuered his Chirche fro nyȝtly drede/ þe whiche was þe firste drede þat Goddis Chirche was inne. Aftir þat/ vndir .m. lettir/ Crist delyuered his Chirche fro þe arwe fleynge in day/ þat was þe secunde tribulacioun of þe Chirche/ & þat was demynge by Joachim[26] & oþere þat vndir .m. lettre schewede þe multitude of heretikis contraryinge þe[xxviii] birþe of Crist his pascioun & his assencioun/ in þat þat .m. lettre most figured Crist. Euery lettre in þe abece may be sounded wiþ opyn mouþ saue .m. lettre one/ þe whiche may noȝt be souned but wiþ clos mouþ. So Crist myȝte noȝt come out of þe maydenes wombe/ but sche hadde be clos. And þes ben uerse of .m. lettre/

Aftir þat/ vnder .x. lettre/ was þe þridde tribulacioun in Goddis Chirche/ þe whiche .x. lettre is last of Latyn lettris/ & þe þridde tribulacioun schal be schewid in þe hondrid ȝeere of .x. lettre. I preue it bi two resouns/ þe firste is þis. Petir[xxix] þe Apostle þe whiche was in þe tyme of .I. lettre/ myȝte not vttirly distrie Symoun Magus/ but bi helpe of Poul[27]/ þe whiche was þe þritteneþ Apostil. So/ ȝif .x. lettre be þe þritteneþe fro .I. lettre/ in þe tyme of .x. lettre Crist schal clanse his Chirche fro marchaundise walkygnge in derkenessis. Þe secunde resoun is suche. Ȝit cam noȝt þat tribulacioun þat schal be in Goddis Chirche bi cause of chaffare walkynge in derkenesses/ & þat þat is prophesied schal come. Siþþe þanne þat we ben in .x. lettre/ as it is schewid/ þis tribulacioun schal come in .x. lettre oþere aftir/ but aftir .x. lettre/ þat is þe last of Latyn lettris/ schal be no tribulacioun in Goddis Chirche bote þe fourþe & þe[xxx] laste/ þe whiche schal be bi þe deuel of mydday/ þat is Antecrist[28]/ þe whiche tribulacioun bi no Latyn lettre may be certefied/ as þes þre bifore. Ffor his comynge oonly to God is knowen/ & knowleche of him to God oonly reserued. Whefore it folwiþ þat vndir .x. lettre schal be schewid þilke tribulacioun þat schal be in Goddis Chirche/ by resoun of chaffare walkynge in derkenessis.

Þat we ben vndir þe hundrid ȝeere of .x. lettre/ I schewe schortly by Bede[29] vpon þe profetis of Sibille/ and by Joachim[30] in þe book of þe seedis of profetis/ & oþere writeris of stories. Ffro þe bygynnynge of Latyn lettris to Crist Ihū/ were seuene hundrid ȝeer/ and fro Crist til now/[xxxi] þrittene hundrid ȝeer and sixe & fyfty[31]/ so þat þere ben to come of our abece but foure & fourty ȝeer/ & bi þis of þe hundrid ȝeere of .x. beþ passid sixe & fifty ȝeere. Þe synnes bi cause of whiche suche persecucioun schal be in Goddis Chirche our tyme ben þes/ for Goddis Chirche is foundid in kynrade of prelatis. Þis same rekened Joachim[32] in þe bookis bifore. Also for goodis of holy Chirche þat prelatis wiþ holdeþ to hem/ as pensiouns/ firste frutis/ fermes/ prouendris/ þe whiche may wel be clepid collibiste/ þes synnes and oþere suche ben marchaundise walkynge in derkenessis. Þe manere of tribulacioun schal be such as Joachim[33] seiþ in þe book of þe charge of profetis. Men of holy[xxxii] Chirche schal be seyd in a manere of careyne/ þei schal be cast out as dogge in myddis placis. Her wiþ acordiþ Carnosencis/ in a book þat he clepiþ pollicraticon[34]/ þe seuenþe book/ þe tenþe chapitre/ & he aleyeþ Gregor seiynge þus/ pestilencis/ smyttingis to gidere of folkis/ & hurtlynge to gidere of rewmes/ & oþir harmes schal come to þe erþe/ for þat worschipis of holy Chirche beþ ȝeue to vnworþi men. And in þe eiȝteþe book[35]/ defaute of prestis among Goddis folk bryngiþ in tirnauntis. Þat þis tribulacioun is nyȝe/ and whanne it schal come/ bi hem þat tretiþ þis matir is/ whanne men schulle wante teeþ/ and comynly alle children/ boren siþþen þe first pestylence/ ben such þat wanten eiȝte[xxxiii] grete teeþ. Herwiþ acordiþ Merlyn Ambrose[36]/ þat such angusche is nyȝe/ for as by hem/ in þe tyme of þe myscheif of þe kok/ þat we clepe fraunce/ þat schal be distroyed by þe sixte of irlond/ þe witt is our kyng wiþ his children. Sibille[37] acordiþ herto/ þat suche tribulacioun is nyȝe/ in þes verse:

Þei þat treten þes verse of Sibille/ alle þat I haue seen/ acorden in þis/ þat seculer power of þe Hooly Goost elispirid/ & þat[xxxiv] deþ/ veniaunce of swerd/ myscheifs vnknowe bifore/ bi whiche men þes daies schule be ponyschid/ schulen falle for synne of prestis. Men schal falle on hem/ & caste hem out of her fatte beneficis/ and þei schule seye/ he cam in to his benefice by his kynrede/ þes bi couenant maad bifore/ he for his seruyse/ & þes for moneye/ cam into Goddis Chirche. Þanne schal eche suche prest crye/ Alas/ Alas/ þat no good spiryt dwellid wiþ me at my comynge into Goddis Chirche. Þe wordis of Josue 2. cᵒ. þe þridde. I seide þat Crist entrede into hooly þingis/ þat is holy Chirche/ by holy lyuynge & holy techinge/ preynge þe Fadir for vs. Þe Mayster of Scholys[38] rehersiþ/ þe þridde[xxxv] book of Kyngis/ þe v. cᵒ./ aftir þe talis of iewis of Salamon/ þere was a stork hadde a berd/ & his berd was sperid vndir a vessel of glas/ and whanne þis stork sau his brid/ &. þat he myȝte noȝt come to hym/ he brouȝt a litil reed worme out of wildirnesse/ & wiþ his blood he anoyntide þe glas. Þe glass to barst/ & þe brid fleye his wey. So oure Lord þe Fadir of heuene hadde mankynde in helle/ þat was glasyne/ þat is to seye britil as glas. To breke it be brouȝt suche a litil reed worme/ þat was our Lord Ihū Crist/ as Dauiþ seiþ/ þe on & twenty Salme. 2i.[39] Ego sum vermis/ & non homo/ I am a worme & no man/ & wiþ his blood he delyuered mannes kynde. Zacarie[40] writiþ/[xxxvi] þe nynþe chapitre/ þou forsoþe wiþ blood of witnesse/ or þi testament/ hast ledde out hem þat were bounde in þe pyt. So whanne we weren synful/ & children of wraþþe/ Goddis sone cam out of heuene/ & preyying his fadir for his enemyes/ & he deyed for vs þanne/ myche raþere now we ben maad riȝtful bi his blood schule be saued. Poul writiþ to þe romayns. v. cᵒ.[41] He schal preye for vs. Ihūs wente into heuene to apere to þe semlant of God for vs. Poul to þe hebrees.[42] Þe whiche semlant he graunte vs to see/ þat lyueþ & regneþ wiþout eende/ Amen.

[xxxvii]

[xxxix]

Notes.

How far the foregoing Tract has suffered from the Carelessness or Ignorance of the Transcriber, it will not be possible to determine, until another Copy shall be discovered. It is the Object of the following Notes to correct some of the more obvious Mistakes, as well as to trace the Historical Origin of the Tract, and to explain its References and Allusions. The Editor has not thought it necessary to preserve in every Instance the Contractions of the original Manuscript; but he has carefully[xl] retained the Spelling, even in some Cases where an Error of the Transcriber is evident. The Anglo-Saxon Letters, þ and ȝ, are used throughout the MS., and are preserved, as being characteristic of the Orthography of the Period.

Page xxiii. line 3.

Noȝt hauynge him þat openly crieþ.

There seems some Error or Omission of the Transcriber here; but the Allusion is probably to St. Matt. iv. 9. A learned Friend has ingeniously suggested to the Editor, that “nought-having” may mean disregarding, pro nihilo habentes, not fearing, abhorring, or thinking any Harm of him that openly crieth, “all these Things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me;” i. e. not fearing the Demon of Simony. “Avaunce” is[xli] perhaps substituted for adoraveris, in order to render the Passage more applicable to Clerical Simony, or Purchase of Preferment.

Ibid. line 6.

Þei make reseruaciouns.

The Exactions of the Court of Rome had been made the Subject of Legislation in England, from the 35 of Edw. I., in which Year (A.D. 1306-7) Petitions were presented to the King from the Nobility and Commonalty of the Realm against the intolerable Exactions of the Pope[43]; (Super variis novis et intollerabilibus gravaminibus, oppressionibus, injuriis, et extorsionibus ... auctoritate et mandato Domini Papæ;) and these Petitions were the Occasion of a Statute[44], passed at a Parliament held at Carlisle in that Year, whereby the Papal Taxation of Abbeys and Religious[xlii] Houses was restrained, and in certain Cases prohibited. In the Year 1350-1, however, (25 Edw. III.) only Six Years before the Date of the Tract before us, the Statute against Papal Provisions of Benefices was passed[45], in which the Pope’s Power of presenting to Benefices in England, in Violation of the Rights of the natural Patrons, was restrained, and the Provisors attached. The Word Reservation seems to be used in the Text to denote the Provisions prohibited by these Acts of Parliament;—it is thus defined by Du Cange[46]: “Rescriptum seu mandatum summi Pontificis, quo certorum beneficiorum, cum vacaverint, collationem sibi reservat faciendam cui voluerit, aliis legitimis collatoribus exclusis.” This is exactly what the Statutes referred to term Provision. The Word Reservation, however, is used by our modern Law-Authorities[47] in a more general Sense, to denote[xliii] a Rent or Profit reserved by the Owner of an Estate or Tenement for his own Use: and in this Sense the First Fruits or Annates, Tenths, and Pensions, claimed by the Court of Rome are rightly termed Reservations, and in their Origin are clearly Simoniacal: such Pensions, First Fruits, and Tenths being in fact the Price paid to the Court of Rome for Collation, as appears from the Statute 13 Ric. II.[48] Stat. 2, c. 2, (A.D. 1389-90,) where after reciting the Statutes 25 Edw. III. and 35 Edw. I. the Act goes on to complain: Et ja monstre soit a n̄r. sʳ. le Roi &c. “And now it is shewed to our Lord the King, in this present Parliament holden at Westminster, at the Utas of the Purification of our Lady, ... by the grievous Complaints of all the Commons of his Realm, that the Grievances and Mischiefs aforesaid do daily abound, to the great Damage and Destruction of all this[xliv] Realm, more than ever were before, viz. that now of late our Holy Father the Pope, by Procurement of Clerks and otherwise, hath reserved, and doth daily reserve to his Collation, generally and especially, as well Archbishopricks, Bishopricks, Abbeys, and Priories, as all other Dignities, and other Benefices of England, which be of the Advowry of People of Holy Church, and doth give the same as well to Aliens as to Denizens, and taketh of all such Benefices, the First Fruits, and many other Profits, and a great Part of the Treasure of the said Realm is carried away and dispended out of the said Realm by the Purchasers of such Graces; and also by such privy Reservations many Clerks advanced in this Realm by their true Patrons, which have peaceably holden their Advancements by long Time, be suddenly put out: Whereupon, the said Commons have prayed our said Lord the[xlv] King, &c.” And again, in Statute 6 Hen. IV.[49] (A.D. 1404) cap. 1. Sur la grevouse compleint, &c. “For the grievous Complaints made to our Sovereign Lord the King by his Commons of this Parliament, holden at Coventry, the vj. Day of October, the vj. Year of his Reign, of the horrible Mischiefs and damnable Custom which is introduct of new in the Court of Rome, that no Parson, Abbot, nor other, should have Provision of any Archbishoprick or Bishoprick, which shall be void, till he hath compounded with the Pope’s Chamber, to pay great and excessive Sums of Money, as well for the First Fruits of the same Archbishoprick or Bishoprick, as for other less Services in the same Court, and that the same Sums, or the greater part thereof, be paid beforehand, &c.”

Thus it appears that the Exactions of the Papal Court were attracting great Attention[xlvi] in England, at the Period when this Tract was written. The Parliament, viewing the Matter as Politicians, denounced the Papal Claims on the Grounds that large Sums of Money were annually sent out of England, and Aliens advanced to spiritual Livings in the Church; Wyclyffe taking up the Question as a Theologian, censures these Exactions as Simoniacal, and refers to them as symptomatic of the Approach of Antichrist.

The Dismes mentioned in the Text are the Decimæ Decimarum, or Tenths of all Livings, which, with the First Fruits, were originally claimed by the Pope, although subsequently annexed to the Crown; and which now form the Foundation of the Fund called Queen Anne’s Bounty.[50]

The Pensions exacted by the Court of Rome were still more directly Simoniacal: they are thus alluded to in the Preamble of[xlvii] an Act[51] passed in the Reign of King Henry VIII., where the Commons, addressing the King, say: “That where your Subjects of this your Realm, and of other Countries and Dominions being under your Obeysance, by many Years past have been, and yet be greatly decayed and impoverished by such intolerable Exactions of great Sums of Money as have been claimed and taken, and yet continually be claimed to be taken out of this your Realm, and other your said Countries and Dominions, by the Bishop of Rome, called the Pope, and the See of Rome, as well in Pensions, Censes, Peter-pence, Procurations, Fruits, Suits for Provisions, and Expeditions of Bulls for Archbishopricks and Bishopricks, &c.... It may, therefore, please your most noble Majesty, for the Honor of Almighty God, &c.... That no Person or Persons of this your Realm, or of any other your Dominions,[xlviii] shall from henceforth pay any Pensions, Censes, Portions, Peter-pence, or any other Impositions to the Use of the said Bishop, or of the See of Rome.”

Page xxiv. line 2.

smale.

This Word in the MS. is written apparently “samle,” which must be an Error. The Editor has ventured to adopt a conjectural Emendation, and print it “smale,” i. e. small. This, at least, will make Sense; for, the Author’s Argument is, that if there were nothing of a Simoniacal Nature in the Reservation of Benefices, the small Benefices would be as often made the Subjects of the Papal Provisions and Reservations, as the “fatte” or more valuable Livings; but the contrary being the Case, it follows that the Income of the Benefice[xlix] is the real Object, and, therefore, that all these Exactions of the Court of Rome are Simoniacal in their Origin.

Ibid. line 4.

Joachur.

An evident mistake of the Scribe for Joachim. In another Place, by a different Error, we find the Abbot called Joachrin. See p. xxvi.

Ibid.

In his book of þe seedis of profetis, &c.

Whether one Book or more be here referred to seems doubtful. The Editor is disposed to think that three different Works are intended;—the first, Of the Seedis of Profetis; the[l] second, Of the Seyingis of Popes; and the third, Of the Chargis of Profetis. In another Place (p. xxvi) we find Joachim quoted “in his Book of the Deedis of Profetis;” and (p. xxix) “Joachim in the Book of the Seedis of Prophetis.” Again (p. xxx) “the Bookis” of Joachim are spoken of in the plural Number, and “the Book Of the Charge of Prophetis” is quoted, as distinct from the rest.

It is probable that the Book of the Seedis of Profetis, and the Book of the Deedis of Profetis, may be the same; the Word Deedis or Seedis being one or other of them a Mistake of the Transcriber. If the Word Seedis be correct, the Title of the Work was probably De seminibus prophetarum; unless we take Seedis, as derived from the Verb to say, for dicta; for which there seems no Authority, especially as we find Seyingis used to[li] express dicta, in the very Passage before us. From the other Reading, the Title of the Book would be De gestis prophetarum. The Book Of the Seyingis of Popes may, perhaps, be meant for the Liber de Flore of the Abbot Joachim, which the Author of his Life[52] tells us was also called De summis pontificibus.

It is quite obvious, however, that if these Books contained the Doctrine for which they are quoted by Wycliffe, (viz. that the Year 1400 was to be the Date of the Revelation of Antichrist,) they could not have been genuine Productions of the Abbot Joachim. The Opinion of Joachim was, that the Year 1256 would be the Era of the total Extinction of the Christian Church, and that the Triumph of Antichrist was then to commence, and to continue for three Years and a half, counting from the Middle of the Year 1256, to the End of the year 1260. As in the Lines:—

[lii]

This Theory was derived from the famous 1260 Days of Prophecy[54], taking Days for Years, and computing from the Commencement of the common Christian Era. But when the Year 1260 passed away and the Prophecy was not fulfilled, the Followers of Joachim attempted to correct the Hypothesis of their Master, and many of them (as for Example the Beguins[55], who adopted the Speculations of Peter John de Oliva,) took hold of the 1335 Days of Daniel, and from them fixed upon the Year 1335, as the Date of Antichrist’s Destruction. The Editor has not had Access to any of the Remains of Peter John’s Writings, but he is informed by a learned[liii] Friend, in whose Accuracy he has the fullest Confidence, that Peter John, in his Tractatus de Antichristo[56], has fixed upon the Year 1356, as the Year of the Revelation, not the Destruction, of Antichrist, by adding 96, the supposed Date of the Apocalypse, to 1260. Joachim, however, in greater Conformity with Scripture, made the Termination of the 1260 Days, (or Years, as he considered them,) the Period of the End, not of the Beginning of Antichrist. Our Author’s Theory[57], supported by a Cabbalistic Computation from the Letters of the Alphabet, which the Editor has not been able to discover elsewhere, makes the Year 1400 the Era of the Revelation of Antichrist; and Walter Brute[58], in 1390, appears to have put forward a Conclusion not very dissimilar, although maintained on different Grounds. His Argument was drawn from the Joachitic Theory of the prophetic Days taken[liv] for Years, and from the Supposition that the 1335 Days of Daniel commenced at the Desolation of the Temple under Adrian.

On the whole then it is unquestionable, that Wycliffe had before him some spurious Productions of Beguinism, circulated under the Name of the Abbot Joachim, but which could not possibly have been derived from the genuine Writings of that Enthusiast. None of these spurious Books, so far as the Editor’s limited Means of Research have enabled him to ascertain, have been preserved in our Libraries, or are noticed by the Authors who treat of the Doctrines of Joachim and his Successors.

It is evident from p. xxxi, that the Tract before us was composed in or after the Year 1356, the fatal Year of the Revelation of Antichrist, according to the Followers of Peter John.

[lv]

Ibid. line 9.

þe seuynty & nyne chapitre.

The Passage quoted is taken from the ninetieth Psalm, as it is numbered in the Latin Vulgate, (ninety-first in our English Version.) The Editor is not aware of any Reason why this Psalm should be referred to as “the seventy and ninth Chapter,” and he is, therefore, constrained to assume, that there is here a Mistake of the Transcriber, who, perhaps, had before him numeral Letters or Figures, which he read erroneously. The Words referred to are to be found in Verses 5 and 6. Non timebis a timore nocturno. A sagitta volante in die, a negotio perambulante in tenebris: ab incursu, et dæmonio meridiano.

[lvi]

Ibid. line 11.

And Bernard acordiþ þere wiþ.

The Passage here referred to will be found in St. Bernard’s Works[59], Serm. xxxiii. in Cantica, num. 14, et seq. Adhuc nisi tædio fuerit longitudo sermonis, has quatuor tentationes tentabo suo ordine assignare ipsi corpori Christi, quod est Ecclesia. Et ecce quam brevius possum percurro. Videte primitivam Ecclesiam, si non primo pervasa est acriter nimis a timore nocturno. Erat enim nox, quando omnis qui interficeret sanctos, arbitrabatur obsequium se præstare Deo. Hac autem tentatione devicta, et sedata tempestate, inclyta facta est, et juxta promissionem ad se factam, in brevi posita in superbiam sæculorum. Et dolens inimicus quod frustratus[lvii] esset, a timore nocturno convertit se callide ad sagittam volantem in die, et vulneravit in ea quosdam de ecclesia. Et surrexerunt homines vani, cupidi gloriæ, et voluerunt sibi facere nomen: et exeuntes de ecclesia, diu eamdem matrem suam afflixerunt in diversis et perversis dogmatibus. Sed hæc quoque pestis depulsa est in sapientia sanctorum, sicut et prima in patientia martyrum.

Page 25. line 7.

chaffare walkynge in derkenessis is þe pryui heresie of symonyans.

Here our Author abandons St. Bernard’s Interpretation, which expounds negotium perambulans in tenebris, not of Simony, but of Hypocrisy, and Avarice. Serpit hodie putida tabes per omne corpus Ecclesiæ, et quo latius, eo[lviii] desperatius: eoque periculosius, quo interius ... omnes quæ sua sunt quærunt. Ministri Christi sunt, et serviunt Antichristo. Honorati incedunt de bonis Domini, qui Domino honorem non deferunt. Inde is quem quotidie vides meretricius nitor, histrionicus habitus, regius apparatus.... Inde dolia pigmentaria, inde referta marsupia. Pro hujusmodi volunt esse et sunt ecclesiarum præpositi, decani, archidiaconi, episcopi, archiepiscopi. Nec enim hæc merito cedunt, sed negotio illi, quod perambulat in tenebris.[60]

Ibid. last line.

on lyue.

As Chaucer.

On live is now contracted or corrupted into[lix] alive. Thus we say, a-coming, a-saying, a-board, a-purpose, a-sleep, a-way, &c., for on coming, on saying, on board, on purpose, &c. By which it appears that Dr. Wallis[62] is mistaken in supposing this Class of Words to be compounded with the Preposition at.

John Hopkins, in his Version of Psalm lxxvii. 16, has retained the old Form, on trembling, for a-trembling;

Numerous instances will be found in Chaucer[63], as,

and again,[64]

[lx]

Page xxvi. line 2.

haueþ.

This Word should probably be haven; but it is haveth in the MS. In the next Line, “byngȳn̄ge,” for “bygynnynge,” is an obvious Mistake of the MS.

Ibid. line 9.

weren two and twenty hundriddis of ȝeeris.

By this Date the Writer probably intended the Interval from the Birth of Heber, to the Birth of Christ: which by the Computation of Bede in his Chronicon sive de sex ætatibus mundi, wanted but five Years of 2200, a mere Trifle with such Expounders of Prophecy as our Author.

[lxi]

Ibid. line 12.

Eusebi, Bede, & Haymound.

The Works here referred to are, probably, the Chronicon of Eusebius, translated and preserved by St. Jerome[65]; the venerable Bede’s Chronicon, sive de sex ætatibus mundi; and the Historiæ Ecclesiasticæ Breviarium, sive de Christianarum rerum memoria, Libb. X. of Haymo, Bishop of Halberstadt, who died A.D. 853.

Page xxvii. line 5.

fro þe bygynnynge of Latyn lettris.

That is to say, from the Foundation of Rome. The Writer speaks in round Numbers.

[lxii]

Ibid. line 15.

demynge.

This Word is perhaps a Mistake of the Transcriber for demed, i. e. deemed, considered.

Page xxviii. line 8.

and þes ben uerse of .m. lettre.

The Editor has not been able to find these Verses elsewhere. The Letters of the Alphabet are represented as Collegæ, or Members of a College, all the rest of whom go forth when the Gates are open; one only, viz. m, when they are shut. College is for Collegæ.

[lxiii]

Page xxix. line 3.

but bi helpe of Poul.

This alludes to the well-known Story, told by a great Number of the Antients, of the Destruction of Simon Magus, by the Prayers of Saints Peter and Paul. Sulpitius Severus[66] relates this Event in the following Words: Etenim tum illustris illa adversus Simonem, Petri ac Pauli congressio fuit. Qui cum magicis artibus, ut se Deum probaret, duobus suffultus dæmoniis evolasset, orationibus Apostolorum fugatis dæmonibus, delapsus in terram, populo inspectante disruptus est. The same Account is given by St. Cyrill of Jerusalem[67]; after stating that Simon had so far succeeded in deceiving the Romans, that the Emperor Claudius had erected a Statue to him with the Inscription[lxiv] ΣΙΜΩΝΙ ΘΕΩ ἉΓΙΩ, he adds[68]: “The Error spreading, that goodly Pair, Peter and Paul, the Rulers of the Church, being present, set Matters right again; and on Simon, the supposed God, attempting a Display, they straightway laid him dead. Simon, that is, promised that he should be raised aloft towards Heaven, and accordingly was borne through the Air on a Chariot of Dæmons; on which, the Servants of God falling on their Knees, gave an Instance of that Agreement, of which Jesus said[69], If two of you shall agree as touching any Thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them: and reaching the Sorcerer with this Unanimity of their Prayer, they precipitated him to the Earth.”

For other Authorities, see the Note of the Benedictine Editor of St. Cyrill, on this Passage,[70] and Tillemont, Memoires pour servir a[lxv] l’Histoire Ecclesiastique; Saint Pierre, Art. 34.[71]

Ibid. line 6.

Crist schal clanse his Chirche.

In the Original this is, “Chirche schal clanse his Chirche;” the Editor has not hesitated to correct so obvious a Mistake.

Page xxx. line 1.

þe deuel of mydday.

Demonium meridianum, alluding to Ps. xc. 6, in the Vulgate.

Ibid. line 6.

whefore.

A Mistake of the MS. for Wherefore.

[lxvi]

Ibid. line 10.

in derkenessis.

The Word in was omitted by the Original Scribe; but is added in the MS. by a more recent Hand.

Ibid. line 12.

Bede vpon þe profetis of Sibille.

This Reference is to some spurious Work attributed to Bede, and which is probably not the same as the Tract De Sybillis[72], published among Bede’s Works, and also by Joh. Opsopæus Brettanus, at the End of his Edition of the Sybilline Oracles; for that Tract does not contain any thing like the Computation from the Latin Letters, for which Bede is here referred to by our Author.

[lxvii]

Page xxxi. line 8.

Goddis Chirche is foundid in kynrade of prelatis.

This Expression is illustrated by the Preamble of the Statute of Provisors, (25 Edw. III.)[73]: “Whereas late in the Parliament of good Memory of Edward King of England, Grandfather to our Lord the King that now is, the xxv. [leg. xxxv.] Year of his Reign, holden at Carlisle, the Petition heard, put before the said Grandfather and his Council, in his said Parliament, by the Communalty of the said Realm, containing: That whereas the Holy Church of England was founden in the Estate of Prelacy, within the Realm of England, &c.”[74]

[lxviii]

Ibid. line 13.

þe whiche may wel be clepid collibiste.

Collybiste, from the Greek Word κολλύβιστης, which is used St. Matt. xxi. 12, where St. Jerome remarks: Sed quia erat lege præceptum, ut nemo usuras acciperet, et prodesse non poterat pecunia fœnerata, quæ commodi nihil haberet, et interdum sortem perderet, excogitaverunt et aliam technam, ut pro nummulariis, Collybistas facerent, cujus verbi proprietatem Latina lingua non exprimit. Collyba dicuntur apud eos, quæ nos appellamus tragemata, vel vilia munuscula. Verbi gratia, frixi ciceris, uvarumque passarum, et poma diversi generis.[75]

See also Du Cange, Glossarium, vv. Collibium, Collybista.

[lxix]

Page xxxii. line 1.

schal be seyd in a manere of careyne.

Careyne, from the old French, carogne, carrion; “seyd in a manere of careyne,” perhaps may mean, “they shall be spoken of as a Sort of Carrion,” unless there be here some Mistake of the Transcriber, which is not improbable. The next Clause, “thei schal be cast out as dogge in myddis places,” is possibly an Allusion to Is. v. 25. Et facta sunt morticinia eorum, quasi stercus in medio platearum; the Word dogge being a Mistake for donge; and, “in myddis places” the Author’s Version of in medio platearum; although it is highly probable that myddis is corrupt.

[lxx]

Ibid. line 3.

her wiþ acordiþ Carnosencis.

John of Salisbury, called Carnotensis, because he was Bishop of Chartres. The Passage referred to occurs in his Polycraticus, sive De Nugis Curialium, Lib. vii. cap. 20.[76] Si dicas quia ignis per septuaginta annos Babylonicæ captivitatis sub aqua vixerat, demum extinctus est, Antiocho vendente Jasoni sacerdotium; aut quod Beatus Gregorius testatur, quia pestilentia et fames, concussiones gentium, collisiones regnorum, et quamplurima adversa terris proveniunt, ex eo quod honores ecclesiastici ad pretium vel humanam gratiam conferuntur personis non meritis. The other Reference (Line 11) is to Lib. viii. cap. 18.[77] Nam et peccata populi faciunt regnare[lxxi] hypocritam, et sicut Regum testatur historia, defectus sacerdotum, in populo Dei, tyrannos induxit.

Ibid. line 10.

beþ ȝeue.

A Mistake probably for ben geve, i. e. been given.

Ibid. line 16.

alle children boren siþþen þe first pestylence, &c.

The Year 1348 and two following Years are recorded in all our Chronicles, as remarkable for a most formidable Pestilence which devastated Europe[78], and is said to have been attended with this singular Circumstance, that the Children born after the Pestilence[lxxii] had begun, were found to be deficient in the usual Number of Teeth. It may be enough to quote from our English Annalists, the Chronicle of Caxton. Speaking of the 23rd Year of King Edward the Third, the Historian says[79]: “¶ And in the xxiij Yere of his Regne, in yᵉ East Partyes of the Worlde, there began a Pestylence and Deth of Sarasyns and Paynyms, that so grete a Deth was never herde of afore, and that wasted away the People, so that unneth the tenth Persone was left alive. ¶ And in the same Yere, about yᵉ South Countrees there fell so moche Rayne, and so grete Waters, that from Chrystmasse unto Mydsomer there was unnethes no Daye nor Nyght but that rayned somewhat, through which Waters yᵉ Pestilence was so enfected, and so haboundant in all Countrees, and namely, about yᵉ Court of Rome, and other Places, and See Costes, that unneth[lxxiii] there were lefte lyuyng Folke for to bury them honestly yᵗ were deed. But made grete Diches and Pyttes yᵗ were wonders brode and depe, and therin buryed them, and made a Renge of deed Bodyes, and cast a lytell Erth to couer them aboue, and than cast in another Renge of deed Bodyes, and another Renge aboue them. And thus were they buryed, and none other wyse, but yf it were so yᵗ they were Men of grete Estate, so that they were buryed as honestly as they myght.” And again[80], “And in this same Yere,” [24 Edw. III.] “and in the Yere afore, and in the Yere nexte folowynge, was so grete a Pestylence of Men from the Eest in to the West, and namely through Botches, yᵗ they that sekened, as on this Daye, dyed on the thyrde Daye after, to yᵉ whiche Men yᵗ so dyed in this Pestylence had but lytell Respyte of theyr Lyggynge. Than Pope Clement of his Goodnes and Grace,[lxxiv] gave them full Remyssyon and Forgyuenes of all theyr Synnes that they were shryuen of, and this Pestylence lasted in London fro Mighelmasse vnto August nexte followynge, almost an hole Yere. And in these Dayes was Deth without Sorowe, Weddynges without Frendshyp, wylful Penaunce, and Derth without Scarsete, and Fleynge wᵗout Refute or Sucour, for many fledde from Place to Place bycause of the Pestylence, but they were infected, and might not escape yᵉ Deth, after yᵗ yᵉ Prophete Isaie sayth, Who that fleeth fro the Face of Drede, he shall fall into the Dyche. And he yᵗ wyndeth him out of yᵉ Dyche, he shall be holden and tyed with a Grenne. But whan this Pestylence was cesed, as God wolde, unnethes yᵉ tenth Parte of the People was left on lyue. ¶ And in yᵉ same Yere began a wonders thynge, that all yᵗ were borne after yᵉ Pestylence had two[lxxv] Cheketethe in ther Heed lesse than they had afore.”

Hollinshed records[81] in like Manner the Fact of the Pestilence, and the Desolation caused by it throughout Europe. Of London he says that the Death “had bin so great and vehement within that Citie, that over and beside the Bodies buried in other accustomed burieng Places, (which for their infinit Number cannot be reduced into Account), there were buried that Yeare” [viz. 1350] “dailie, from Candlemasse till Easter, in the Charterhouse Yard of London, more than two hundred dead Corpses.” He also notices the Fact of the Children wanting Teeth, but he makes the Defect to be four, not two “cheke Teeth,” as Caxton’s Chronicle stated[82]: “¶ This Yeare in August died Philip de Valois the French King. Here is to be noted, that all those that were borne after the Beginning of that[lxxvi] great Mortalitie whereof ye have heard, wanted foure cheke Teeth (when they came to the time of Growth) of those 32 which the People before that Time commonlie vsed to have, so that they had but 28.”

Our Author, it will be observed, differs from Hollinshed in making the Defect “eight grete Teeth,” and in this he has the Authority of the second Continuator of the Chronicle of William de Nangis, published by D’Achery in his Spicilegium[83]; a Narrative which apparently has been the Source from which many of our English Chroniclers have borrowed. It contains a very minute History of this memorable Pestilence, with several curious Particulars not mentioned by other Writers. The Author endeavours to account for the Plague by supposing the Explosion of a Comet, whose sudden Evaporation, he suggests, may have disseminated in the Atmosphere pestilential[lxxvii] Vapours. He tells us also that the Jews were suspected of having poisoned the Fountains, and that many of them were in consequence put to Death, and burnt, in various Places. The circumstance of the Children born with a smaller Number of Teeth is thus recorded[84]:—

Cessante autem dictâ epidemiâ, pestilentiâ, et mortalitate, nupserunt viri qui remanserunt et mulieres ad invicem, conceperunt uxores residuæ per mundum ultrà modum, nulla sterilis efficiebatur, sed prægnantes hinc inde videbantur, et plures geminos pariebant, et aliquæ tres infantes insimul vivos emittebant; sed quod ultra modum admirationem facit, est quod dicti pueri nati post tempus illud mortalitatis supradictæ, et deinceps, dum ad ætatem dentium devenerunt, non nisi viginti dentes vel viginti duos in ore communiter habuerunt, cum ante dicta tempora homines de communi cursu triginta duos dentes,[lxxviii] sub et supra, simul in mandibulis habuissent. Quid autem numerus iste dentium in post natis significet, multum miror, nisi dicatur, quod per talem et tantam mortalitatem hominum infinitorum et successionem aliorum et reliquorum qui remanserant, mundus est quodammodo renovatus et seculum, ut sic sit quædam nova ætas; sed proh dolor! ex hujus renovatione seculi non est mundus propter hoc in melius commutatus. Nam homines fuerunt postea magis avari et tenaces, cum multo plura bona quam antea possiderent; magis etiam cupidi, et per lites brigas et rixas atque per placita seipsos conturbantes, nec per hujusmodi terribilem mortis pestem a Deo inflictam fuit pax inter Reges et dominos reformata, quinimo inimici Regis Franciæ ac etiam guerræ Ecclesiæ fortiores et pejores quam ante per mare et per terram suscitaverunt, et mala ampliora ubique pullularunt.[lxxix] Et quod iterum mirabile fuit; nam cum omnis abundantia omnium bonorum esset, cuncta tamen cariora in duplo fuerunt, tam de rebus utensilibus, quam de victualibus, ac etiam de mercimoniis et mercenariis et agricolis et servis, exceptis aliquibus hereditatibus et domibus quæ superflue remanserant his diebus. Charitas etiam ab illo tempore refrigescere cœpit valde, et iniquitas abundavit cum ignorantiis et peccatis: nam pauci inveniebantur qui scirent aut vellent in domibus, villis, et castris, informare pueros in grammaticalibus rudimentis.

The Allusion contained in the Tract before us to the Circumstance of the Children wanting Teeth, may possibly be urged as an Objection to the early Date of 1350, which it claims for itself. For if this Circumstance of the Want of Teeth be a Fable, it is not probable that it could so soon have become current;[lxxx] and if on the other hand it be true, it seems hardly possible that the Fact could have been ascertained in 1350, respecting all Children born since the first Pestilence, i. e. since 1348. However, it is possible that by the first Pestilence our Author may have alluded, not to that of 1348, but to that of 1340, which is thus described by Knighton[85], under that Year: “In æstate scilicet anno gratiæ M.CCC.XL., accidit quædam execrabilis et enormis infirmitas in Anglia quasi communis, et præcipue in comitatu Leicestriæ, adeo quod durante passione homines emiserunt vocem latrabilem ac si esset latratus canum; et fuit quasi intolerabilis pœna durante passione. Exinde fuit magna pestilentia hominum.”

It is no Doubt a Difficulty that the Continuator of William de Nangis and other Chroniclers, represent the Phenomenon of the Want of Teeth as the Consequence of the Pestilence[lxxxi] of 1348, but the Story may have originated at the former Period, although later Writers recorded it in Connexion with the more recent and more formidable Pestilence.

The Editor, however, leaves this Question to be decided by future Research, and by Judges more competent than himself. It is not impossible that the whole Passage[86] in which the Date of “thrittene hundrid yere and sixe and fifty” has been given, may prove to be a Quotation from the Book referred to under the Title of “Joachim in the Book of the Seedis of Profetis,” and if so, the Tract before us must of course be the Production of a later Period.

Page xxxiii. line 1.

Merlyn Ambrose.

For the History of Merlyn, see Geoffrey of[lxxxii] Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniæ, Lib. vi. c. 17, 18. The famous Prophecy of Merlyn will be found in Lib. vii. c. 3, 4. It has also been repeatedly published in a separate Form, with the Commentaries in seven Books of Alanus de Insulis.

Ibid. line 3.

of þe myscheif.

In the original MS. these Words are repeated, “in the tyme of the myscheif of the myscheif of the Kok;” the Editor did not deem it necessary to retain so obvious a Mistake of the Transcriber.

Ibid. line 5.

þe sixte of irlond.

This Personage is mentioned in numerous[lxxxiii] Prophecies circulated under the Names of Merlyn, Gildas, Robert of Bridlington, Sybill, and others, in the fourteenth and fifteenth Centuries, many of which appear to have had their Origin in the Prophecy of Merlyn, preserved by Geoffrey of Monmouth, already referred to, where we find “the sixte of Irlond” thus noticed:—

Sextus Hiberniæ mœnia subvertet, et nemora in planitiem mutabit: Diversas portiones in unum reducet, et capite leonis coronabitur.[87]

The following Collection of Prophecies relating to Sextus of Ireland, is from a MS. written about the Middle of the Fourteenth Century, and preserved in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin.

Iste sunt prophetie diuerse a diuersis prophetate de Sexto Hibernie[88], qui vocatur Dominus [here there is an erasure in the MS.] Rex Anglie et Francie et Sextus Dominus Hibernie, de[lxxxiv] quo Prophetie sunt notate. Hermerus Dominus sapientum. Anno a Creatione mundi sex M.CCC et IIII.ˣˣ[89] Lilium regnans in nobiliore mundi mouebit se contra senem leonem, et veniet in terram eius inter spinas regni sui, et circumdabit filium leonis illo anno ferens feras in brachio suo. Cuius regnum erit in terra lune timendus per vniuersum mundum potestate agentis principalis, cum magno exercitu suo transiet aquas et gradietur in terram leonis carentis auxilio, quia bestie regionis sue iam dentibus suis eius pellem dilaceraverint. Illo anno veniet Aquila a parte orientali, alis extensis super solem, cum multitudine pullorum suorum, in adiutorium Filii hominis. Illo anno Aquila destruetur. Amor magnus erit in mundo. Una die in quadam parte leonis erit bellum inter plures reges crudeles, quod usque ad diem illum non viderunt homines; illa die erit sanguinis diluvium, et perdet Lilium coronam[lxxxv] solis, quam accepit Aquila, de qua Filius hominis postmodum coronabitur. Per quatuor annos sequentes fient multa in mundo prelia inter omnes homines fidem tenentes, quia illo tempore credenda sunt. Omnia tunc erint communia. Maior pars mundi destruetur, caput mundi erit ad terram declinatum. Filius hominis et Aquila relevabunt ille [sic], et tunc erit pax in toto orbe terrarum, et copia fructuum, et filius hominis mare transiet, et portabit signum mirabile ad terram promissionis, sed prima causa sibi permissa remanebit.

Item versus illius sompniatoris viri religiosi, per quos versus cognoscitur Sextus Hiberniæ.

Versus vaticinales de Normannia, de eodem Sexto.

Versus cuiusdem nomine Gildas, per quantum tempus regnabit idem Sextus.

In another MS.[90] in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin, there is preserved a Prophecy in which Sextus of Ireland is also mentioned, and which, as the Editor is informed by his learned Friend John Holmes, Esq., of the British Museum, occurs also in the Arundel MS. 57, fol. 4, b., where it is entitled, “Versus Gylde de Prophetia Aquile.”

It will suffice to quote from this Prophecy the Lines where Sextus is mentioned.

[lxxxviii]

Ibid.

þe witt is our kyng wiþ his children.

“The witt,” i. e. the Meaning; alluding probably to the Interpretation given of this part of the Prophecy by Alanus de Insulis, who supposes the then reigning King Henry II. and his Sons to be intended; his Words are[91]:—

Henricus qui nunc in Anglia regnat, quinque filios suscepit ex Regina conjuge sua, quorum unus mortuus est, quatuor vero supersunt. Habuit et sextum ex concubina, qui clericus est, magnæ, ut aiunt, juxta ætatem, probitatis. Hic itaque vel sextus dicetur Henrici Regis filius, si mortuus ille quem habuit ex Regina inter alios computetur, vel quintus, si soli superstites a propheta numerantur, et alius adhuc expectandus, quem hic Sextum appellat. Possumus tamen sextum istum intelligere, qui in Anglia regnaturus sit post quatuor istos,[lxxxix] et alium quintum quicunque ille sit, hoc est sive istorum frater, sive non, de quo dicitur quod Hyberniæ sit mænia subversurus, excisurus nemora, et in planitiem mutaturus diversas portiones, id est regna diversa, non est enim unum regnum, sed plura, ad unum regnum reducturus, ejusque coronam, assumpta feritate et fortitudine leonina, suo capite impositurus.

Ibid. line 9.

Sibille acordiþ herto.

The Verses of “Sibille” here quoted are to be found in a large Collection of other Prophecies of the same character, in a Manuscript[92] of the fourteenth Century, preserved in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin. The Editor is also enabled, through the Kindness of Mr. Holmes, to give here a complete Copy of them from the Cotton[xc] MS. Claud. B. vii., collated with the Arundel MS. 57, fol. In this latter MS. which is written, as Mr. Holmes conjectures, in a Hand of about the Year 1350, and also in the Dublin MS. the Line Terræ motus, &c. comes immediately before the Line Millenis ducentenis. The other various Readings are given in the Margin; A. denoting the Arundel, and D. the Dublin Manuscript.

“Sybilla de eventibus regnorum et eorum Regum ante finem mundi.”[93]

The last four Verses occur only in the Dublin MS., and seem to contain an Allusion to the Prophetical Doctrines of Peter John, or rather of his Followers. The Date intended is probably 1325, taking “C.ter” for CCC; and that this Year was one of the Eras fixed by the Beguins for the Revelation of Antichrist, appears from the Liber Sententiarum Inquisitionis Tholosanæ, published by Limborch[102];[xcii] for Example Petrus Moresii, a Beguin, receptus ad tercium ordinem Sancti Francisci conjugatus, was examined by the Inquisitors on the 8th of April, 1322, and declares, Credidit et credebat firmiter, tempore quo captus fuit, quod Antichristus esset venturus, et consumpmaturus cursum suum, infra annum quo computabitur incarnacio Domini M.CCC.XXV.

The Verses, as quoted by our Author, are very corrupt in the Original MS. The Editor has therefore ventured to alter “viccus” into “victricia;” “urbis” into “urbs,” and “tessabit” into “cessabit.”

Ibid. last line.

elispirid.

This Word is very probably corrupt, although Lewis, who appears to have received from Dublin a Transcript of this Tract, or copious Extracts,[xciii] does not seem to have considered it so, for he has inserted the Word in his Glossary, and quotes for it only the Authority of the Passage before us; he says[103],

“Elispired, perhaps for expired. Secular power of the Hooly Goost expired, alluding to the secular Power the Popes have. For having quoted four Verses of Sibille, one of which is: Papa cito moritur, Cæsar regnabit ubique, Wiclif adds, thei that treten this Verse of Sibille, alle that I have seen, accorden in this, that secular power of the Hooly Goost elispired.”

Page xxxiv. line 13.

þe wordis of Josue 2. cᵒ. þe þridde.

The Editor is unable to explain this Reference.

[xciv]

Ibid. line 17.

þe Mayster of Scholys rehersiþ.

Peter Comestor, Chancellor of the Cathedral of Paris in 1164, and Author of the Historia Scholastica, is the Person here called Master of Schools. The Passage referred to occurs in the Hist. Schol. on the third Book of Kings, cap. viii. (not cap. v. as quoted by our Author), and is as follows[104]:—

Fabulantur Iudei ad eruderandos lapidei celerius habuisse Salomonem sanguinem vermiculi qui Tamir dicitur: quo aspersa marmora facile secabantur, quem invenit hoc modo. ¶ Erat Salomoni strutio habens pullum, et inclusus est pullus sub vase vitreo. Quem cum videret strutio, sed habere nequiret: de deserto tulit vermiculum: cuius sanguine liniuit vitrum, et fractum est.

[xcv]

The same Story with the very same mystical Application of it which is made by our Author, is given by Peter Berchorius in his Reductorium morale, who quotes from Gervase of Tilbury. This latter Writer, as we learn from Berchorius, took the Story from Peter Comestor, and being an Englishman, was most probably the immediate Source from which the Author of the Tract before us derived it, especially as Gervase wrote upwards of a Century before Berchorius, who died in 1362. The Editor has not had an Opportunity of consulting the Work of Gervase of Tilbury, but it is probable that Berchorius has done little more than extract his Words.[105]

De struthione mirabile quid ponit Geruasius, et videtur accipere de Historia Scholastica. Dicunt Iudæi (ut ait) quod cum Salomon templum ædificaret, ut lapides citius sculperentur, inclusit pullum struthionis in vase[xcvi] vitreo, quem cum struthio habere nequiret, ad desertum iuit, et exinde vermem qui Thamus dicitur, apportauit, cuius sanguine vitrum liniuit; fractoque statim vitro, pullum recuperauit. Quo agnito Salomon de sanguine illorum vermium lapides templi fecit liniri, et sic faciliter potuerunt imprimi vel sculpi. Idem verò Geruasius dicit Romæ in quodam antiquo palatio fialam liquore lacteo plenam, esse inuentam, quo liniti lapides facillimè sculpebantur. Talis vermis videtur fuisse Christus. Pullus enim Struthionis, i. homo (qui erat per creationem pullus, et filius Dei Patris) fuerat incarceratus, et carceri culpæ et pœnæ, a mundi principio destinatus. Struthio ergo, i. Deus Pater, a deserto paradisi, vermem, i. Christum hominem factum, adduxit, et ipsum per passionem occidit, vel occidi permisit, et sic cum isto sanguine portas carceris infernalis fregit,[xcvii] et pullum suum hominem liberavit. Zac. 9. Tu autem in sanguine testamenti tui eduxisti vinctos tuos de lacu. Igitur quicunque voluerit lapidem, quicunque cor suum durum et lapideum, per contritionem scindere, et per conversationem sculpere decreuerit, adhibeat sanguinem huius vermis, i. dominicæ passionis memoriam, et liquorem lacteum memoriæ suæ benedictæ, et sic nunquam erit ita durum aut obstinatum, quin recipiat contritionis scissuram, et correctionis sculpturam. Ezech. 36. Auferam cor lapideum de carne vestra, et dabo vobis cor carneum.

The same Story occurs in some Copies of the Gesta Romanorum[106], where the Artifice by which the Worm “thumare,” (as it is there called,) was detected, is ascribed to the Emperor Diocletian of Rome. See Swan’s Translation of the Gesta Romanorum, vol. 1. Introd. p. lxiv.

[xcviii]

The Name of the Worm, to which the marvellous Property of breaking Stones is ascribed, is corruptly given by the foregoing Authorities. It is called by the Jews, not tamir, or thamus, but schamir (שמיר), and frequent Allusions to it occur in the Rabbinical Writers. The original Story is to be found in the Talmud, and seems intended to explain what we read 1 Kings, vi. 7, that neither Hammer nor Axe nor any Tool of Iron was heard in the Temple of Solomon while it was in building. The following[107] is an abridged Account of the original Legend: Solomon, when about to build the Temple, perceived by his Wisdom, that it would be more acceptable to God, if built of Stones upon which no Tool of Iron had ever been raised. Whereupon he inquired of the Rabbis how this was to be effected.—They told him that he must procure the Worm Schamir, by the Help of which Moses had cut[xcix] the Stones of the High Priest’s Breastplate. Solomon then inquired where this Worm was to be found. The Rabbis confessed their Ignorance, but advised him to summon certain Devils, and compel them, by Torments, to make the Discovery; this was done, and the Devils answered, that Aschmedai, the King of the Devils, alone, could tell where the Worm Schamir was to be found. Accordingly, Benaiah, Son of Jehoiada, was sent with a Chain on which the Name of God was inscribed, to bind Aschmedai, and bring him before Solomon. It took some Time to capture Aschmedai, and a long Account is given of the Difficulties of the Undertaking. At Length, on the third Day, he is brought to Solomon, who asks him for the Schamir. Aschmedai answers, It is not in my Keeping; but Sara-Dima (the Angel that presides over the Sea) has it, and he will entrust it only to the Wild-Hen (תרנגולא),[c] from whom he exacts an Oath for its safe Return. Solomon asked what the Wild-Hen did with the Schamir; the Dæmon answered, She brings the Worm to the Rocky Mountains, destitute of Grass and Verdure, and by its means she breaks down their Rocks; she then carries up the Seeds of Trees, and thus the Mountains, once Barren, become covered with Woods. Having obtained this Information, Solomon sought out the Nest of the Wild-Hen, and enclosed it, with her Young Ones, in a Covering of transparent Crystal. The Wild-Hen, on her Return, seeing her Nest and Young Ones, but finding herself unable to enter it, flew away, and soon after returned with the Worm Schamir; whereupon Solomon’s Servants, who had been lying in Wait for her, set up a great Shout, which so terrified her, that she dropped the Worm, and thus Solomon obtained Possession of it. The Wild-Hen, however,[ci] flew away, and hanged herself, for having lost the Worm, and broken her Oath. See Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum Theil, I. p. 350. Johan. Christoph. Wagenseilii Sota, p. 1072, and Buxtorfii Lexicon Chald. et Talmud. in voce שמיר.

Page xxxv. line 1.

aftir þe talis of iewis of Salamon.

That is, “reherseth, after, or according to, the Tales or Legends of the Jews, concerning Solomon.”

Ibid. line 8.

Þe glass to barst.

To, perhaps for “al to,” statim, penitus. Thus in our English Version of the Bible, (Judg. ix. 53.) “And a certain Woman[cii] cast a Piece of a Millstone upon Abimelech’s Head, and al to brake his Skull.”

Ibid. line 14.

þe on & twenty Salme. 2i.

The Editor is not sure that he has rightly deciphered the Letters represented by “2i;” he once thought they were “xi,” but this seemed inexplicable, and he now believes them to be an Attempt of a very ignorant Transcriber to represent in Arabic Numerals the Number of the Psalm referred to.

Page xxxvi. line 15.

Poul writiþ to þe romayns.

This Reference belongs to what goes before, not to what follows. Mr. Vaughan, in his Life[ciii] of Wycliffe[108], not perceiving this, has altered the Text to make the Sense perfect, and quotes the Passage thus: “So, when we were sinful, and the Children of Wrath, God’s Son came out of Heaven, and praying His Father for His Enemies, He died for us. Then much rather shall we be saved, now we are made righteous through His Blood. St. Paul writeth to the Romans, that Jesus should pray for us, and that He went into Heaven to appear in the Presence of God for us. The same also he writeth to the Hebrews, the which Presence may He grant us to behold, who liveth and reigneth without End.—Amen.”

Mr. Vaughan, however, does not tell his Readers what Passage of the Epistle to the Romans, occurring, also, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, he supposes our Author to have quoted. There exists, in Fact, no such Passage;[civ] nor does the Text stand in Need of any Emendation. The References, in both Cases, come after the Passages quoted; and this removes all the Difficulty which Mr. Vaughan appears to have found in the Reading of the original Manuscript.

FINIS.