Wic. p. 58.

"Council, if the English compiler, too passionate for the " glory of his nation, &c. had not undertaken to suppress " it, and to place in its stead a confession of faith, which, " properly speaking, is nothing more than a pure cunning "discourse, smoothing over the errors of Wiclif." For proof of this, he refers to one Wingeon, whom he else-Hist. du where calls Vingeon and Vington, a writer whom nobody Hist. de ever heard of before. But it is but looking into Sir Henry l'Heresie, Spelman's Collection to be satisfied that all this is forgery P. 42. and pure invention: however, our translator, to shew his judgment, approves of the story. But so exceedingly transported is he with zeal against Wiclif, as to seem to think nothing amiss that serves to blacken his memory, and render it hateful.

For this purpose he tells his reader, that " Dr. Wiclif's Pref. p. 7. cause was first patronized by one who endeavoured to

" be a vile usurper, and by a whore, and was carried on
" by no better means to its period: that his first motive
" to reform was revenge for the loss of a bishoprick; that p. 9.
" he went on through all his conduct with evident signs
" of being a wicked man; that his notions were wicked p. 12.
"and abominable, and his religion chiefly supported by
"two main pillars, viz. sacrilege and rebellion: and that p. 33.
" he was guilty of impiety and enthusiasm, in obviating
"all the laws of God and man, and destroying the peace
" of society: nay, that his notions animated all the rebel- p. 35.
"lions we have had since, and under Henry VIII. plun-
"dered churches, destroyed monasteries, and wrought
"such convulsions as have shocked religion ever since."
So exceeding mad does our translator shew himself against
the memory of this great Reformer.

But the rest of his performance is like this. He offers to assert, that "the foreign Reformers have ever laid the p. 7. "foundations of their religion in blood." As if among the Papists there never were any state revolutions, nor civil commotions. He very reverently charges King Edward p. 11. III. with folly, for letting such a poisonous weed as Wiclif grow. He is so hardy as to affirm, that "temporal lords p. 22, 23.

"cannot take away the goods of the Church without sa"crilege; nay, that it is blasphemy to assert that they " can transfer a monastery to any other than ecclesiastical "'property." As if by the Christian institution ecclesiastics were to have the property of all kingdoms and na

tions invested in them, and all other people were to be Bp. Sander their tenants and slaves. "It is well known how before

son's Sermons, p.

211, 212.

Sermon be

"the Reformation both Church and commonwealth groaned " under the heavy burden of the abbey lubbers: the com"monwealth whilst they became lords of very little less "than the one half of the temporalities of the kingdom; " and the Church whilst they engrossed into their hands "the fruits of most of the best benefices of the realm."

Bp. Bisse's Nor was this all; the zeal of these men, who were thus mufore the nificently provided for, was "constantly shewn in betraySons of the "ing the sovereignty and wealth of the kingdom to the

Clergy, p.

10. " usurpation of a detestable foreign power."

p. 59.

He further represents Wiclif as an enemy to Episcopacy, and declaring that Archbishops, Bishops, Archdeacons, &c. are the pimps of Antichrist; but he seems on purpose to have omitted the other nine, viz. the Pope, Cardinals, Patriarchs, &c. lest his reader should see that Wiclif

speaks only of the Papal hierarchy: who, it is plain, are Pont. Rom. sworn when they are made Bishops to "assist in main"taining and defending the Roman Papacy, and the re"galities of St. Peter." What Dr. Wiclif's opinion was of Episcopacy is shewn in the following papers. He allowed the Pope to be "the highest Vicar that Christ has "here in earth," and Bishops to be the successors of the Apostles: but he denied that Bishops were of a different order from Priests, or that by virtue of their calling they had any power to do what Priests have not. And this was certainly the sense of the Church of England long before Dr. Wiclif's time. The seventeenth of the canons of Æl

fric to Bishop Wulfin in the Saxon language runs thus: Spel. Con- "Haud pluris interest inter Missalem Presbyterum et cil. vol. i. "Episcopum, quam quod Episcopus constitutus sit ad orSomner, "dinationes conferendas, et ad confirmandum, et ad in

Eccl.Christi

"spiciendum, curandumque ea quæ ad Deum pertinent, MS. in Bibl. " eo quod nimiæ ascriberetur multitudini (ejusmodi rerum Cantuar. "administratio) si omnis Presbyter hoc idem faceret. "Ambo siquidem unum tenent eundemque ordinem, "quamvis dignior sit alter scil. Episcopi." Is not this the same with Dr. Wiclif's assertion, that " they are Pre" latès on account of their power of jurisdiction, as being " of a superior majesty and government?"

He tells us news, that the eighteen Articles condemned p. 27. by Archbishop Arundel, in the Convocation which met Feb. 26, 1396, were not condemned by him till the year after; and that the very same Articles that were condemned by the Council of Constance, were publicly maintained by Huss and Jerome. It is very plain, that the first, second, and third of these Articles were never maintained by John Huss, who constantly professed to hold the doctrines of the real presence and transubstantiation. Thus he quotes Bede with approbation. "Quia panis cor Passio Chri" hominis confirmat, et vinum auget sanguinem in ho-sti ex IV. Evangelist. " mine, merito idem panis in carnem Domini mutatur, et apud Opera " idem vinum in sanguinem transfertur, non per figuram, ii.p. 16. c. 2. nec per umbram, sed per veritatem." The same has L'Enfant been shewn of Jerome of Prague, that he professed to hold Histoire du and believe what the Church believes and holds; saying, Constance, that he rather believed Austin and the rest of the Doctors P. 396.

of the Church, than Wiclif and Huss.

Article IV. was denied both by Dr. Wiclif and John

J. Huss, vol.

Concile de

apud Opera,

c. 2.

Huss. Thus does the latter deliver his sense. "Item De Cœna credendum est quod tam bonus quam malus sacerdos, Domini, "habens fidem rectam circa sacramentum venerabile, et vol. i. p. 48. "habens intentionem sic facere ut præcepit Christus, et "dicens verba in Missa secundum institutionen Ecclesiæ "conficit, id est, virtute verborum sacramentaliter, facit "ministerialiter, esse sub specie panis verum corpus "Christi. Similiter sub specie vini facit ministerialiter,

"

esse verum sanguinem Christi. Et digo facit ministeri"aliter, quia tanquam minister Christi, qui potestate et

Fascic. Rer.

"verbis Christi facit, quod facit Christus potestate pro" pria et verbis propriis, transubstantians panem in cor"pus suum et vinum in sanguinem suum."

The sixth Article, I have shewn, was utterly denied by Dr. Wiclif; so was likewise Art. XV. and Art. XVI. and Art. XVII. and the latter part of Art. XVIII.

As to Art. XXVII. I have shewn in what sense Dr. Wiclif held it in the following papers.

There is nothing appears in those writings of his that I have perused, that shews he said any such things of Universities, Colleges, &c. as he is charged with saying of them in Art. XXIX.

Article XXX. is wrongfully charged upon him, as is the latter part of Art. XXXVII.

Article XLII. is directly contrary to what was held and taught by him.

Article XLV. is plainly misunderstood, as if he intended vol.i. p. 295. by it to condemn the Christian religion as introduced by the Devil; whereas he only spoke of the Religious Orders, which he calls the Four Sects.

So far is it from being true, that "the very same Ar" ticles, in number forty-five, which were condemned by the "Council of Constance, were acknowledged ever after as "Wiclif's, and publicly maintained by Huss and Jerome."

The translator proceeds to inform his reader, that John Woodford was commanded by the Archbishop of Canterbury to oppugn "eighteen errors of John Wiclif's taken " out of his Trialogue, and that one of them struck at In"fant Baptism:" that one Article is the IV. which is thus expressed; "That they who determine that the child" ren of the faithful who die without Baptism shall not be " saved, are in this presumptuous and foolish.”

He adds, that "not only Woodford, but even the Coun"cil of Constance harmoniously agreed in the same ac"cusations." But it is very sure that the sixth Article condemned by the Council of Constance, viz. Deus debet obedire Diabolo, is not once mentioned by Woodford, nor

yet by Thomas de Walden, one of Wiclif's sharpest opposers.

He proceeds in a very assuming manner to aver, that "Wiclif's friends have nothing to allege on their side but "positive assertions, without the least shadow of proof." As if Popish severity had been so effectual as to destroy all that learned man's writings, and not to suffer a single leaf to remain.

p. 6.

In another uncharitable pamphlet he resents it very Letter to highly, that Wiclif should affirm, that " in St. Paul's time Bp. of Ely, "two orders in the Church were sufficient, Sacerdos et "Diaconus, and that in the time of the Apostles there

tution of a

was no distinction of Pope, Patriarch, Archbishop, &c." as if this was not very plain to every one who has read his Bible, and made the best of it. Time was, when this was not reckoned either an heretical or erroneous opinion, even in this Church. In the year 1537, it was affirmed as truth, The Instiby the two Archbishops of Canterbury and York, nineteen Christian Bishops, eight Archdeacons, and seventeen Doctors of Di- Man, fol. vinity, Canon and Civil Law, that "in the New Testament "there is no mention made of any degrees or distinctions "in Orders, but only of Deacons or Ministers, and of "Priests or Bishops."

41. b.

ton's Pre

It is altogether as wise and judicious a remark that he makes on Bishop Reginald Pecock, whom he in contempt styles one Reginald Pecock, Bishop of Chichester, that "he lopped off four supernumerary articles in the Apo"stles' Creed;" because he was charged with affirming, 1. Mr. WharThat the Apostles composed not the vulgar Creed. 2. face, p. 38. That the Article of Christ's descent into hell was not formerly in the Creed. 3. That it is not necessary to believe in the holy Catholic Church. 4. That it is not necessary to believe the Communion of Saints. Now it is well known to all learned men, that in the most ancient copies Usser de of this Creed, the words he descended into hell, the Com-Symbolis, munion of Saints, and the word Catholic before Church, Bp. Pearare wholly omitted. And it is a very great argument of Creed, p. the ignorance and barbarity of that unhappy age, that 225, 334.

p.