Lollardy never died out, either in England or Scotland; and Lollardy was simply the English form of the passive protest against the Medieval Church, which under various names maintained itself in France, Germany, and Bohemia, for centuries, in spite of persecution. As late as 1521, the Bishop of London arrested five hundred Lollards; while in 1533, we find Sir Thomas More, in a letter to Erasmus, describing Tyndale and his sympathizers as Wiclifites.

Writers like Professor Pollard and Dr. Rashdall go so far as to say that the English Reformation was native to the soil, and that it borrowed little or nothing from Luther. They point out that in many particulars it followed the lines laid down by Wiclif long before. When, therefore, it is said that Wiclif lived before his time, that does not mean that he was as one born out of due season or that he sowed his seed in vain; but only that in his case the interval between the sowing and the reaping was longer than usual. 'is certain,' says Dr. Rashdall, 'that the Reformation 'had virtually broken out in the secret Bible-readings ' of the Cambridge Reformers before either the trumpetcall of Luther or the exigencies of Henry VIII.'s personal and political position set men free once more 'to talk openly against the Pope and the monks, and to teach a simpler and more spiritual Gospel than the 'system against which Wycliffe had striven.'

Even as regards his version of the Bible, his work was far more influential than has often been asserted. Professor Plumptre, writing some fifty years ago, said: 'The work of Wycliffe stands by itself. Whatever power 'it exercised in preparing the way for the Reformation ' of the sixteenth century, it had no perceptible influence on later translations.' But Dr. Moulton has since shown that there is so much in common in language and expression between Wiclif and Tyndale, that it is probable that the earlier Wiclifite renderings had passed into general currency and become almost proverbial phrases. The truth is, as Forshall and Madden, the editors of The Wycliffite Versions, put it, that in the Reformation era these versions supplied an example and a model

A SCHOLAR AND A STATESMAN

25

to those excellent men, who in like manner devoted themselves at the hazard of their lives to the translation of Scripture, and to its publication among the 'people of the land.' Even yet there are at least one hundred and fifty manuscripts extant containing the 'whole or part of Purvey's Bible, the majority of which were written within the space of forty years from its 'being finished.' And many of these are full of interest and must have exerted a great influence. If some of them could tell the story of their wanderings and their work it would be a fascinating tale. One belonged to Edward VI. Another was a birthday present to Queen Elizabeth from her chaplain. Another belonged to Henry VI.; and yet another to Richard, Duke of Gloucester.

The exact date of Wiclif's birth is unknown; but it was somewhere about 1324; perhaps a few years earlier. He grew up in his native county of Yorkshire, and studied at Oxford, where he distinguished himself greatly alike as a scholar and as an administrator. He took an active part in guiding Edward III. and the English people to reject the Papal claim to feudatory tribute; and for a time had much influence in public affairs. He incurred the deep enmity of the Romish hierarchy, but there were always friends who saved him from the consequences of its wrath. He advanced step by step in his opposition to formalism and priestism in religion, and to the prevalent corruption in morals. He wrote tracts in English for the common people; and organized a band of preachers, called the Poor Priests, who went through the country preaching his doctrines of grace. And so he was led on to the great work of translation which occupied his later years. He had laid it down. as fundamental that God's Word must be taught because it is the indispensable bread of life, the seed of regeneration and conversion. The next step was to see and determine that the Bible must be rendered into the language of the people, so that it might be known everywhere as God's good news of salvation. That was the next step, the natural and obvious step-when once it had been taken; but it had never been taken before, and all

honour to the heroic man who took it, as Wiclif did, in loyalty to the logic of the soul.

It is probable that parts of Wiclif's Bible were issued earlier than 1382; but that was the year in which the whole book was finished-two years before his death. It was translated from the Vulgate, the Latin version that is, which had been in use since the time of Jerome in the beginning of the fifth century. The time had not yet come for a rendering from the original Hebrew and Greek. Neither of these languages was at that time taught in the West. Of the actual work of translation, only the New Testament can be assigned with certainty to Wiclif himself; his friend Nicholas of Hereford being responsible for most of the Old Testament and of the Apocrypha. What is believed to be the original MS. of his translation is in the Bodleian Library and breaks off at Baruch 3. 20; while in a second MS., copied from it, it is noted that the translation of Nicholas ended there. It is generally supposed that Wiclif himself did the remainder, and that the work of revising the whole, to which he set himself at once thereafter, occupied the rest of his lifetime.

This revision, however, was a work of time, especially the revision of what Nicholas had done, and Wiclif was not spared to see it completed. The revised Wiclif Bible, which is the standard, appeared in 1388, four years after his death. The improvements in it, which were very real, were essentially the work of one man, the trusted friend of the Reformer and in later years his fellow-worker, John Purvey, whose name will never be forgotten while that of Wiclif survives-which will surely be as long as the English Bible has its place in our land. When their translation appeared, it was most eagerly received and widely read. Although it cost a sum equal to forty pounds of our money, many copies of it were soon in circulation. Many, of course, had to be content with small portions of it; as, for instance, those who gave a load of hay for a few chapters of an epistle. Touching stories are told of how the people used to gather to hear someone read or even repeat the Word of God in their own speech; and it is not

HIS TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE

27

possible to estimate how much this first English Bible must have done to keep the fire burning on the altar in these dark, and in some respects darkening, ages. It had been written for the common people, and they heard it gladly; and with the spelling modernized it can still be read with ease. It is said that not many years ago long passages from it were read aloud in Yorkshire, when it was found, not only that they were understood by the hearers but that almost every word employed is still in use there.

It was, of course, a great drawback that Wiclif's translation was from the Latin and not from the original tongues. But nothing else was possible then; and while there is much even in his English which is now archaic, it was the English in which all future English literature was to be written. Just as Luther's Bible stands at the head of the New High German, Wiclif's opens the period of Middle English. Chaucer is usually taken as representative of the Middle English literature; but although he is the father of English poetry and has some rare features of superiority, the tendency among philologists now is to recognize Wiclif's prose as the earliest classic Middle English. Chaucer and he stand side by side; and it has been remarked that Wiclif rises to an uncommon pitch of perspicuity, force, and beauty, in his Bible translation as compared with his other English writings. Doubtless the greatness of his theme inspired and ennobled him all round, just as it was with Tyndale when, a century and a half later, he took up the same great work. Of the later translator it has been remarked that the exquisite grace and melody of the language of his New Testament has been a matter of surprise to those who are familiar with his other writings, which have no qualities that raise them above the ordinary level of the time. Both men made this their life-work, and threw themselves into it, body, soul, and spirit; and the glory of their work and theme pervaded their whole being.

The peculiar glory of Wiclif, however, in this work of translation is not his style or his services to the English language; but that for high and holy ends he

set himself to render the whole Bible into the vernacular. Special portions of it had been already translated for special purposes; but he was the first whose whole being thrilled with the great conception of the Bible for the people, and for the people's use in their own homes. The special merit of his translation is that at the time it was not only the one translation of the whole of the Scriptures into English which had ever 'been made, but actually by a hundred years the first 'translation into a European tongue.' It is absurd either for Sir Thomas More in his day, or for Father Gasquet in ours, to deny this. What meaning could there have been in the attack on Wiclif by his contemporaries, had he not been a pioneer?

One Kneighton, a chronicler of the time, writing in all probability before the year 1400, openly laments the translation of the Bible into English, and ascribes the guilt categorically to Wiclif. He maintained that Christ gave His Gospel, not to the Church, but only to the clergy and doctors of the Church, that they might communicate it to the weaker brethren and the laity according to their need; and he angrily complains that Wiclif had made the Scriptures common and more open to 'laymen and to women than it was wont to be to clerks 'well-learned and of good understanding, so that the 'pearl of the Gospel is trodden under foot of swine.'

The theory of the Medieval Church, that any knowledge of the Scriptures which was necessary for the laity should come to them through the clergy, was all the more intolerable in that, as corruptions increased, the clergy did not know the Scriptures themselves so as to be able to break the bread of life to the hungry multitudes who looked up to them to be fed; and so often looked in vain. There were only too many ecclesiastics, like the Bishop of Dunkeld, who thanked God that he knew neither the Old Testament nor the New. In England in the year 1551, out of 311 clerics in the diocese of Gloucester, all incumbents of parishes, who were examined as to their knowledge of the Ten Commandments, the Apostles' Creed, and the Lord's Prayer, only 90 passed well or fairly well. No fewer