Transcriber’s Note: Sidenotes have been treated as footnotes, with
anchors inserted in the text at the appropriate point. Upright text
within italic passages is indicated ~like this~.




THE LAST AGE OF THE CHURCH.




                                   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.




[Illustration]




¶ 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, 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 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 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, 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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. In one place he enters it
thus[10]:—(See No. 84 of _Lewis’s_ Catalogue.[11])

    “_De simonia sacerdotum_, lib. 1. _Heu magni sacerdotes in
    tenebris._”

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

    “_De ultimâ ætate Ecclesiæ_, lib. 1, _Sacerdotes, proh dolor!
    versantes in vitiis._”

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 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]:

    “_Robert Cotton Bruceus._”

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,

    “_Wiclefe roas a thousand thre hūderyd thre schorr and uiij._”

Over which Sir _Robert Cotton_ has written,

    “_Anno 1368. Wicklif workes to the Duk of Lancaster._”

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 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.

[Illustration]




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

M.ccc.luj.




[Illustration]




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 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 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 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 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 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/

    College claustris exire solent patefactis/
    Una sed ex istis nō egreditur nisi clausis.

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 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 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/ 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 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 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:

    Gallus succuutus aquile victricia signa/
    Mundus adorabit/ est vrbs vix presule digna/
    Papa cito moritur/ Sesar regnabit vbique/
    Sub quo tunc vana cessabit gloria cleri.

Þei þat treten þes verse of Sibille/ alle þat I haue seen/ acorden in
þis/ þat seculer power of þe Hooly Goost elispirid/ & þat 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 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/ 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.




NOTES.




[Illustration]




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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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:—

    _Hoc ~Cistercienni Joachim~ prædixit in anno_
    _Quo ~Saladinus~ sanctum sibi subdidit Urbem,_
    _Cum fuerint anni completi mille ducenti,_
    _Et seni decies a partu ~Virginis~ almæ,_
    _Tunc ~Antichristus~ nascetur demone plenus._[53]

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 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 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_.


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._


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 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 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_.

    And here-againes no Creature on live
    Of no degree availleth for to strive.[61]

_On live_ is now contracted or corrupted into _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_;

    “The Waters, Lord, perceived thee,
      The Waters saw thee well,
    And they for Feare away did flee
      The Depths on trembling fell.”

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

    “On hunting ben they ridden really.”

and again,[64]

    “He could hunt as the wilde dere,
    And ride on hauking for the rivere.”


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.


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.


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_.


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
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
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_.


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.


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]


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_.


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.


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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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, 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. 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; 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 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 _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 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 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 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~._

    _Illius imperium gens barbara senciet illum,_
    _~Roma~ volet tanto principe digna dici,_
    _Conferet hic ~Rome~ plus laudis quam sibi ~Roma~,_
    _Plus dabit hic orbi quam dabit orbis ei._

_Versus vaticinales de ~Normannia~, de eodem ~Sexto~._

    _~Anglia~ transmittet Leopardum lilia Galli,_
    _Qui pede calcabit Cancrum cum fratre superbo,_
    _Ungues diripient Leopardi Gallica regna,_
    _Circulus inuictus circumdabit unde peribunt._
    _~Anglia~ regnabit, ~Vasconia~ porta redibit_
    _Ad iuga consueta Leopardi ~Flandria~ magna_
    _Flumina concipient que confundent genetricem._
    _Lilia marcescent, Leopardi posse vigebit,_
    _Ecclesie sub quo libertas prima redibit._
    _Huic ~Babilon~ veniet truces aras non teret omnes,_
    _~Acon Ierusalem~ Leopardi posse redempte,_
    _Ad cultum fidei gaudebunt se redituras,_
    _Imperium mundi sub quo dabit hic heremita._

_Versus cuiusdem nomine ~Gildas~, per quantum tempus regnabit idem
~Sextus~._

    _Ter tria lustra tenent cum semi tempora ~Sexti~,_
    _En vagus in prima perdet, sub fine resumet,_
    _Multa rapit medio volitans sub fine secundi,_
    _Orbem submittet reliquo, clerumque reducet_
    _Ad statum primum, post hoc renouat loca sancta_
    _Hinc terram spernens secundo ethere scandit._

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.

    _~Sextus Hybernensis~ milleno milite cinctus,_
      _Hostibus expulsis castra relicta petet,_
    _Menia subversa vix antrix apta ferarum_
      _Pinget et eiectus bubo necabit apem._


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, 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 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]

    _~Gallorum~ lenitas ~Germanos~ iustificabit,_
    _~Italiæ~ gravitas ~Gallos~ confusa necabit._
    _Succumbet ~Gallus~[94], ~Aquilæ~ victricia[95] signa_
    _Mundus adorabit,[96] erit urbs sub[97] presule digna._
    _Millenis ducentenis nonaginta sub annis,_
    _Et tribus[98] adiunctis, consurget aquila grandis._
    _Terræ motus erunt, quos[99] non procul[100] auguror esse._
    _~Constantine~ cades, et equi de marmore facti,_
    _Et lapis erectus, et multa palatia ~Rome~._
    _Papa cito moritur, ~Cesar~ regnabit ubique,_
    _Sub quo tunc vana cessabit gloria[101] cleri._
    _Anno millesimo C.ter vicesimo v. dabit ether_
    _Blada vina fractus fiet pro principe luctus;_
    _Una columpna cadet, quæ terram schismate tradet,_
    _Gens periet subito, ~Petro~ testante perito._

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]; 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,
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.


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._

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 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, 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.

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 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), 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,
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 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 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; 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.

[Illustration]




FOOTNOTES


[1] Milner, Hist. of the Church, vol. iv. p. 121. Lond. 1819.

[2] Cent. vi. p. 450.

[3] The Hist. of the Life of _John Wiclif_, D.D. By _John Lewis_, M.A.
Oxf. 1820.

[4] Memoirs of _Wiclif_. By the Rev. _H. H. Baber_, M.A. 4to. Lond. 1810.

[5] The Life of _John de Wycliffe_, D.D. By _Robert Vaughan_. Lond. 1831.

[6] The Life of _Wiclif_. By _Chas. W. Le Bas_, M.A. Lond. 1832.

[7] Appendix ad Histor. Litterar. Cl. V. _Gul. Cave._ vol. ii. p. 63.
Fol. Oxon. 1743.

[8] See _Page_ xxxi.

[9] _Vaughan’s_ Life of _Wycliffe_. Vol. i. p. 255. Note. _2nd Edit._

[10] _Balæus_, De Script. Brytanniæ. _Cent._ vi. p. 453.

[11] _Lewis_, Life of _Wiclif_, p. 195.

[12] _Bale_, _U.S._ p. 454.

[13] _Lewis_, p. 205. No. 148.

[14] See _Nichols’_ Autographs, _Plate 44_. No. 5.

[15] British Magazine, _vol._ vii. p. 532, and p. 690. _Vol._ viii. p.
267, and p. 402.

[16] Ps. 106.

[17] Joachim.

[18] Psal. 90.

[19] Bernard.

[20] Joachim.

[21] Eusebi.

[22] Bede.

[23] Haymound.

[24] Joachim.

[25] Bede.

[26] Joachim.

[27] Act. 8.

[28] Antecrist.

[29] Bede.

[30] Joachim.

[31] Nota.

[32] Joachim.

[33] Joachim.

[34] Carnotensis, in Polycratico.

[35] In lib. 8ᵒ.

[36] Merlyn Ambrose.

[37] Sibille.

[38] Mayster of Scholys.

[39] Psal. 21.

[40] Zach. 9.

[41] Rom. v.

[42] Heb. 9.

[43] _Ryley_, Placita Parliam. p. 379.

[44] _Statutes of the Realm_, Vol. i. _Lond._ 1810, p. 150.

[45] _Ibid._ p. 316. _Gibson’s_ Codex, p. 65. _2nd Edit._

[46] _Glossarium_, in voc.

[47] _Coke_: Part i. lib. ii. c. 12, sect. 215.

[48] _Statutes of the Realm_, vol. ii. p. 70, 71. _Lond._ 1816.

[49] _Ibid._ p. 48.

[50] See _Gibson_, Codex, Tit. xxxv. p. 824. _Godolphin_, Repertorium, c.
xxx. _Ayliffe_, Parergon, p. 63.

[51] Stat. 25, _Hen._ VIII. c. 21. _Gibson’s_ Codex, p. 87.

[52] Vit. _Joach._ c. v. _Acta Sanctorum, Maii_ tom. vii. p. 103.

[53] MS. _Harleian_. Num. 1280. 8. fol. 227.

[54] _Rev._ xi. 3, xii. 6.

[55] See the _Beguin_ Confessions in the _Liber Sententiar. Inquis.
Tolos._ pp. 298, 303, published by _Limborch. Hist. Inquisit._

[56] _Tract. de Antichristo_, fol. 48, b.

[57] See p. xxvii, _et seq._

[58] _Fox’s_ Acts and Monuments, vol. i. p. 545. _Lond._ fol. 1684.

[59] _Opp. S. Bernardi._ Ed. Bened. p. 1396. C. tom. iv.

[60] In Cant. Serm. xxxiii. s. 15.

[61] Cant. Tales. v. 3041.

[62] _Wallisii_ Gram. Anglic. p. 86. _Lond._ 8vo. 1765.

[63] Cant. Tales, v. 1689.

[64] _Ibid._ v. 13666, 7.

[65] Opp. B. _Hieronymi_. tom. viii. Ed. _Vallarsii_.

[66] Sacræ Hist. lib. ii. p. 95, 12mo. Amstel. 1695.

[67] Catech. vi. 14.

[68] _Library of the Fathers_, (vol. ii. Transl.) 8vo. _Oxford_, 1838, p.
68.

[69] Matt. xviii. 19.

[70] Opp. B. Cyril. fol. Par. 1720, p. 96.

[71] Tom. i. p. 176.

[72] Sibyllina Oracula ex vett. Codd. Aucta, &c. a Joh. Ops. Brettanno,
8vo. Paris, 1607, p. 515.

[73] _Statutes of the Realm_, vol. i. p. 316.

[74] _Gibson’s_ Codex, p. 65.

[75] B. _Hieron._ in Matt. xxi. 12, 13, tom. vii. Ed. _Vallarsii_, 4to.
_Venet._ 1769, Col. 162.

[76] _Polycrat._ p. 491. _Lugd. Bat._ 1639, 8vo.

[77] _Ibid._ p. 635.

[78] See _Boccacio_ Decameron, _Giorn_, 1ᵐᵃ.

[79] _Caxton’s Chronicle_, fol. Lond. 1528, fol. c.xxiii.a.

[80] Fol. cxxiii. d.

[81] Chron. _sub._ _an._ 1348, vol. ii. p. 378-9. Lond. 1587.

[82] _Ibid._ p. 379.

[83] _D’Achery_, Spicileg. tom. iii. p. 109, sq.

[84] _Ibid._ p. 110.

[85] De event. _Angliæ_. (Apud x. Script.) Col. 2580.

[86] See p. xxxi.

[87] _Galf. Monmuthen_. lib. vii. c. 3, ap. _Rer. Brittan. Scriptores._
p. 50. _Heidelb._ 1587.

[88] _Cod._ MS. _in Bibl._ Coll. SS. Trin. Dubl. _Cl._ B. _Tab._ 2, _No._
7, fol. 209.

[89] Vid. _Contin. altera Chronici_ Gul. de Nangis, _ap._ Dacherii
_Spicil._ t. iii. 104, _where this Prophecy is attributed to_ Johannes de
Muis.

[90] _Cod._ MS. _in Bibl._ Coll. SS. Trin. Dubl. _Class._ E. _Tab._ 5,
_No._ 10, fol. xliii.

[91] _Prophetia Anglicana_ vii. Libris explanationum _Alani de Insulis_.
Francof. 1603. 12ᵐᵒ. lib. iii. p. 91.

[92] _Cod. MS. in Biblioth._ Coll. SS. Trin. Dublin. Class. E. Tab. 5,
No. 10.

[93] _Deest titul. in Cod. Dublin._

[94] _Gallus_ succumbet. A. D.

[95] Victoria. D.

[96] Abhorrebit. D.

[97] Vox. D.

[98] Aliis. D.

[99] Erit, quem. A.

[100] Plus. A.

[101] Cessabunt gaudia. D.

[102] Limborch. _Hist. Inquisit._ ad fin. p. 303.

[103] Hist. of the Life of _Wiclif._ Oxf. 1820. (_Table of obsolete
Words_; in voc.)

[104] _Petri Comestoris_ Hist. Schol. 8ᵒ. Florent. 1526. _fol._ cxvii.

[105] Berchorii _Red. Mor._ lib. xiv. c. 60. n. 4. p. 658. fol. Venet.
1683.

[106] _Gesta Romanorum_, &c. translated from the Latin by the Rev.
_Charles Swan_. 2 vols. 12ᵒ. _London_, 1824.

[107] _Talmud Babyl._ Tract. _Gittin._ fol. 68. col. 1, 2.

[108] _Vol._ i. p. 259. 2nd Edit.