[
{"source_document": "", "creation_year": 1364, "culture": " English\n", "content": "CHURCH ***\nTranscriber\u2019s Note: Sidenotes have been treated as footnotes, with\nanchors inserted in the text at the appropriate point. Upright text\nwithin italic passages is indicated ~like this~.\nTHE LAST AGE OF THE CHURCH.\n                       UNIVERSITY LIBRARY, DUBLIN.\n   Fellow of Trinity College, and Treasurer of St. Patrick\u2019s Cathedral.\n                         AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.\n[Illustration]\n\u00b6 The Preface.\nA well known popular Writer on the History of the Christian Church\nhas given it as his Opinion, that whoever will carefully examine the\noriginal Records, will soon be convinced that the Merits of _Wyclyffe_,\nas a Reformer, have been considerably exaggerated.[1] How far this is\ntrue or not, the Writer of these Pages will not attempt to determine;\nbut certain it is, that to \u201cexamine the original Records,\u201d with a View\nto discover the real Doctrines and Opinions of _Wyclyffe_, is much more\neasily said than done; and the Reader who seeks for Satisfaction from\nthe Biographers of the Reformer, or from the Historians of the Period,\nwill soon be convinced that the original Records, and above all, the\nstill remaining Writings of _Wyclyffe_ and his Followers, have never been\nexamined with the Care and Attention necessary for the Purpose of forming\na just Estimate of his Opinions, and of the Merit of his Efforts at a\nReformation of the Church.\nThe List of _Wyclyffe\u2019s_ Writings published by Bishop _Bale_, in his\nWork, _Scriptorum Majoris Brytanni\u00e6 Catalogus_[2], has been necessarily\nmade the Basis of all that subsequent Writers have collected. It has been\nreprinted, with many useful additions, by the learned and indefatigable\n_John Lewis_[3], of whose Labours every Student must speak with\nGratitude. Mr. _Baber_[4] also has done much towards assisting future\nInquirers, by the very valuable List of the Reformer\u2019s Writings that he\nhas compiled. Here, however, we must stop; Mr. _Vaughan\u2019s_ Compilation[5]\nhas not added much to our Knowledge of the Subject, nor can it be\ncommended either for Accuracy or Learning; and Mr. _Le Bas_[6] does\nnot profess to do more than follow his Predecessors. His humbler Task,\nhowever, has been executed with great Elegance and Judgment.\nThe Truth, therefore, is, that until the Works of _Wyclyffe_, real\nand supposititious, be collected and published, it is vain to talk of\ndetermining his Opinions, or fixing his real Merits as a Reformer; and\nit is with the Hope of directing Attention to this Subject that the\nfollowing Tract is now printed. The learned _Henry Wharton_[7] was\nwilling to believe that all the Writings of _Wyclyffe_ might in his Time\nhave been recovered: \u201c_omnia ~Wiclefi~ scripta_,\u201d he says, \u201c_in Anglia\nadhuc delitescere, et ex Bibliothecis nostris qua publicis qua privatis\nin lucem erui posse, lubenter crederem_.\u201d Perhaps we have still all the\nMSS. that existed in _Wharton\u2019s_ Time, and it may be still within our\nPower to rescue them from the Oblivion in which they have so long been\nsuffered to remain. But the Chances of their Destruction are every Day\nbecoming greater, and Delay in such an Enterprize is highly dangerous.\nIt is true that many of these Documents will be found dry, and to the\npopular Reader uninteresting; buried in the barbarous Latinity of the\nSchools, or concealed under the perhaps still more obsolete English of\nthe fourteenth Century. But they who would engage in such a Labour as\nthe Publication of the Works of _Wyclyffe_, must be above the narrow\nInfluences of modern Utilitarianism. They must keep in View a higher\nField of Learning than comes within the Sphere of Mercantile Speculators\nin Literature, or Useful Knowledge Societies. They must feel that the\nValue of these Documents as Compositions, is but a secondary Object in\ntheir Publication; the great End must be the Discovery of Truth, and the\nPreservation of the Remains of an illustrious Character in our History.\nWhat nobler, what more imperishable Monument could the Gratitude of\nEngland raise to her first Reformer, than a complete and uniform Edition\nof his extant Writings?\nThe Editor is fully sensible that the Tract which is now for the first\nTime given to the public, is very far from being a favorable Specimen\nof the Works of _Wyclyffe_. But it commended itself for Publication on\nmany Grounds: First, its Shortness. Secondly, its early Date; for it\nbears internal Evidence of having been composed in the Year 1356[8],\nand must, therefore, (if really by _Wyclyffe_,) have been the earliest\nof his Writings. Another Motive for publishing this Production is\nfurnished by the Consideration, that, if it be genuine, it reveals to\nus a Fact not dwelt upon, so far as the Editor knows, by any of the\nReformer\u2019s Biographers; namely, the Connexion which existed between the\nearlier Doctrines of _Wyclyffe_, and the prophetical Speculations of the\n_Beguins_, circulated under the Name of the famous Abbot _Joachim_.\nIt remains, however, to be proved, that the Tract now printed is really\n_Wyclyffe\u2019s_; and this, the Editor admits, seemed to him an additional\nReason for selecting it for Publication; inasmuch as it served at once\nto raise the Question, How far we have certain Grounds for attributing\nto _Wyclyffe_ the Writings that exist under his Name; nor is it perhaps\ntoo much to say, that this is a Subject which the learned World has\nnever been in a Condition to consider fully. Yet there is no preliminary\nQuestion more deserving of Attention, if we would form a just Estimate\nof our Reformer\u2019s Merits; for it must be evident to every reflecting\nReader, that if we are in any Degree uncertain of the Genuineness of such\nWritings as are quoted under the Name of _Wyclyffe_, the Conclusions\ndrawn from them, as to the Nature and Character of his Doctrines, must be\nin the same Degree uncertain, and destitute of Authority.\nIn the present Case, the Grounds upon which the following Treatise has\nbeen assigned to _Wyclyffe_, are no more than these:\u2014First, that it is\nfound in a MS. Volume of the fourteenth Century, which contains several\nother Tracts, that are believed to be _Wyclyffe\u2019s_. Secondly, that it has\nbeen ascribed to _Wyclyffe_, by Bishop _Bale_, Mr. _Lewis_, and, after\nthem, by his more modern Biographers.\nThese Remarks are not made with a Design to cast any Doubt on the\nGenuineness of the following Treatise. It is very probably by _Wyclyffe_,\nalthough we have no better Reason than the Authority of _Bale_ for\nthinking so. But if any Reader should entertain a Doubt on this Subject,\ndeeming the Tract unworthy of our Reformer, (as many will doubtless\nfeel it to be very different from what they would have expected from the\nPen of _Wyclyffe_,) the Editor must confess himself unable to satisfy\nsuch Scruples; nor is he aware of any Argument by which the Authority\nof _Bale_ and _Lewis_ can be supported. The Conclusion, however, to\nwhich he desires to bring the Reader, and for the Sake of which he has\nhazarded these Remarks, is simply this, that until the various Treatises\nattributed to _Wyclyffe_ are collected, and rendered accessible to the\nLearned, it is vain to think of deciding the Question how far any given\nTract is worthy or unworthy of his Pen. One other Particular, concerning\nthe following Work, remains to be considered. Mr. _Vaughan_[9] tells\nus that \u201cthis is one of the Reformer\u2019s Pieces that is to be found only\nin the Library of Trinity College, Dublin;\u201d and this may, for aught we\nknow, be true, although perhaps it only means that no other Copy of the\nTract was elsewhere found by Mr. _Vaughan_. Certain, however, it is,\nthat Bishop _Bale_ has entered the Treatise in two different Places of\nhis Catalogue, and under two different Titles; from which we may infer,\nthat in his Time, or in the Times of those from whom he copied, the\nTract was found in two different Collections. In one place he enters it\nthus[10]:\u2014(See No. 84 of _Lewis\u2019s_ Catalogue.[11])\n    \u201c_De simonia sacerdotum_, lib. 1. _Heu magni sacerdotes in\n    tenebris._\u201d\nIn another place[12] he gives it the Title under which it is now\npublished, and describes it thus[13]:\u2014\n    \u201c_De ultim\u00e2 \u00e6tate Ecclesi\u00e6_, lib. 1, _Sacerdotes, proh dolor!\n    versantes in vitiis._\u201d\nIt is by no means improbable, therefore, that a second Copy of the Tract\nmay still exist, under some Disguise, in our public or private Libraries.\nThe Volume from which the Treatise is now printed, is preserved among\nthe MSS. of Archbishop _Ussher_, in the Library of the University of\n_Dublin_. It appears to have been once the Property of Sir _Robert\nCotton_, whose Autograph is found on the lower Margin of the first Page,\nin his usual Form of Signature[14]:\n    \u201c_Robert Cotton Bruceus._\u201d\nOn the upper Margin of the same Page, in a Hand of the early Part of the\nsixteenth Century, now nearly obliterated, may be traced the Words,\n    \u201c_Wiclefe roas a thousand thre h\u016bderyd thre schorr and uiij._\u201d\nOver which Sir _Robert Cotton_ has written,\n    \u201c_Anno 1368. Wicklif workes to the Duk of Lancaster._\u201d\nNothing appears in the Volume to indicate the exact Year in which it\nwas transcribed, but the Hand-writing would lead us to assign it to the\nlatter End of the fourteenth or Beginning of the fifteenth Century. It is\nimperfect in some places, but contains a very valuable Collection of the\nTracts of _Wyclyffe_, for a complete List of which the Reader is referred\nto some Papers that were published in the Year 1835, in the _British\nMagazine_[15]; where he will also find an Account of the Treatise, now\nfor the first time printed, \u201cOn the last Age of the Chirche,\u201d with an\nExposure of certain Mistakes that have been committed respecting it.\nSeveral of the Remarks contained in those Papers have been transferred to\nthe Notes, which will be found at the End of the present Volume.\n[Illustration]\n\u00b6 The last Age of the Chirche. By John Wyclyffe, S. Th. P.\nM.ccc.luj.\n[Illustration]\nThe last age of the Chirche.\nAlas forsorwe grete prestis sittinge in derkenessis[16] & in schadewe\nof dee\u00fe/ no\u021dt hauynge him \u00feat openly crie\u00fe/ al \u00feis I wille \u021deue \u021dif\n\u00feou auaunce me. \u00deei make reseruaciouns/ \u00fee whiche ben clepid dymes/\nffirst fruytis/ o\u00feer penciouns/ aftir \u00fee opynioun of hem \u00feat trete \u00feis\nmatir. For no more schulde fatte beneficis be reserued \u00fe\u0101ne smale/ \u021dif\nno pryuy cause of symonye were tretide/ \u00fee whiche I seie no\u021dt at \u00feis\ntyme. But Joachur[17]/ in his book of \u00fee seedis of profetis & of \u00fee\nseyingis of popes & of \u00fee chargis of profetis/ tretynge \u00feis matir/ &\nspekynge of \u00fee rente of dymes/ sei\u00fe \u00feus[18]/ foure tribulaciouns Daui\u00fe\n\u00fee profete ha\u00fe bifore seid/ \u00fee seuynty & nyne chapitre/ to entre into\n\u00fee Chirche of God/ & Bernard[19] acordi\u00fe \u00feere wi\u00fe/ vpon cantica/ \u00fee\n\u00fere & pritty sermon/ \u00feat ben/ a ny\u021dtly drede/ an arwe fleynge in day/\nchaffare walkynge in derkenessis/ & myddais deuylrie/ \u00feat is to seye/\nantecrist. Ny\u021dtly drede was whanne alle \u00feat slowen seyntis demyd hem\nsilf do seruyse to God/ & \u00feis was \u00fee firste tribulacioun \u00feat ontrede\n\u00fee Chirche of God. \u00dee arwe fleynge in day was desceyt of heretikis/ &\n\u00feat was \u00fee secunde tribulacioun \u00feat entred \u00fee Chirche of Crist. \u00deat is\nput of bi wisdom of seyntis/ as \u00fee firste was cast out bi stedfastenesse\nof martiris. Chaffare walkynge in derkenessis is \u00fee pryui heresie of\nsymonyans/ bi resoun of whiche \u00fee \u00feridde tribulacioun schal entre into\nCristis Chirche/ \u00fee whiche tribulacioun or angusch schal entre \u00fee Chirche\nof Crist in \u00fee tyme of \u00fee hundrid \u021deer of .x. lettre/ whos ende we ben/\nas I wele preue/ & \u00feis myscheif schal be so heuy \u00feat wel schal be to\n\u00feat man of holy Chirche \u00feat \u00fe\u0101ne schal no\u021dt be on lyue. And \u00feat I preue\n\u00feus bi Joachrin[20] in his book of \u00fee deedis of profetis. Men of ebreu\ntunge haue\u00fe xxii lettris/ and byng\u0233n\u0304ge fro \u00fee first of ebrew lettris/\n& \u021deuynge to euery lettre an hundrid \u021deer/ \u00fee oolde Testament was endid\nwh\u0101ne \u00fee noumbre \u021deuen to \u00fee lettris was fulfillid. So fro \u00fee bygynnynge\nof ebrew lettris in to Crist/ in \u00fee whiche \u00fee oolde Testament was endid/\nweren two and twenty hundriddis of \u021deeris. \u00deis also schewi\u00fe openly bi\ndiscripcioun of tyme/ of Eusebi[21]/ Bede[22]/ & Haymound[23]/ most\npreued of acounteris/ or talkeris. So Cristen men hauen xxi lettris/\n& bygynnynge fro \u00fee first of Latyn lettris/ & \u021deuynge to eche .c./ \u00fee\nnewe Testament was endid whanne \u00fee noumbre of \u00fees assingned lettris\nwas fulfillid. And \u00feis is as so\u00fe as in \u00fee bigynnynge God made heuene &\ner\u00fee/ for \u00fee oolde Testament is figur of \u00fee newe. But aftir Joachim[24]\n& Bede[25]/ fro \u00fee bygynnynge of Latyn lettris to \u00fee comynge of Crist\nweren seuene hundrid \u021deere/ so \u00feat Crist cam in \u00fee hondrid of .h\u2019.\nlettre/ Crist steye to heuene/ and aftir \u00feat/ undir .k\u2019. lettre/ Crist\ndelyuered his Chirche fro ny\u021dtly drede/ \u00fee whiche was \u00fee firste drede \u00feat\nGoddis Chirche was inne. Aftir \u00feat/ vndir .m. lettir/ Crist delyuered\nhis Chirche fro \u00fee arwe fleynge in day/ \u00feat was \u00fee secunde tribulacioun\nof \u00fee Chirche/ & \u00feat was demynge by Joachim[26] & o\u00feere \u00feat vndir .m.\nlettre schewede \u00fee multitude of heretikis contraryinge \u00fee bir\u00fee of Crist\nhis pascioun & his assencioun/ in \u00feat \u00feat .m. lettre most figured Crist.\nEuery lettre in \u00fee abece may be sounded wi\u00fe opyn mou\u00fe saue .m. lettre\none/ \u00fee whiche may no\u021dt be souned but wi\u00fe clos mou\u00fe. So Crist my\u021dte no\u021dt\ncome out of \u00fee maydenes wombe/ but sche hadde be clos. And \u00fees ben uerse\nof .m. lettre/\n    College claustris exire solent patefactis/\n    Una sed ex istis n\u014d egreditur nisi clausis.\nAftir \u00feat/ vnder .x. lettre/ was \u00fee \u00feridde tribulacioun in Goddis\nChirche/ \u00fee whiche .x. lettre is last of Latyn lettris/ & \u00fee \u00feridde\ntribulacioun schal be schewid in \u00fee hondrid \u021deere of .x. lettre. I preue\nit bi two resouns/ \u00fee firste is \u00feis. Petir \u00fee Apostle \u00fee whiche was\nin \u00fee tyme of .I. lettre/ my\u021dte not vttirly distrie Symoun Magus/ but\nbi helpe of Poul[27]/ \u00fee whiche was \u00fee \u00ferittene\u00fe Apostil. So/ \u021dif .x.\nlettre be \u00fee \u00ferittene\u00fee fro .I. lettre/ in \u00fee tyme of .x. lettre Crist\nschal clanse his Chirche fro marchaundise walkygnge in derkenessis. \u00dee\nsecunde resoun is suche. \u021cit cam no\u021dt \u00feat tribulacioun \u00feat schal be in\nGoddis Chirche bi cause of chaffare walkynge in derkenesses/ & \u00feat \u00feat\nis prophesied schal come. Si\u00fe\u00fee \u00feanne \u00feat we ben in .x. lettre/ as it is\nschewid/ \u00feis tribulacioun schal come in .x. lettre o\u00feere aftir/ but aftir\n.x. lettre/ \u00feat is \u00fee last of Latyn lettris/ schal be no tribulacioun\nin Goddis Chirche bote \u00fee four\u00fee & \u00fee laste/ \u00fee whiche schal be bi \u00fee\ndeuel of mydday/ \u00feat is Antecrist[28]/ \u00fee whiche tribulacioun bi no Latyn\nlettre may be certefied/ as \u00fees \u00fere bifore. Ffor his comynge oonly to God\nis knowen/ & knowleche of him to God oonly reserued. Whefore it folwi\u00fe\n\u00feat vndir .x. lettre schal be schewid \u00feilke tribulacioun \u00feat schal be in\nGoddis Chirche/ by resoun of chaffare walkynge in derkenessis.\n\u00deat we ben vndir \u00fee hundrid \u021deere of .x. lettre/ I schewe schortly by\nBede[29] vpon \u00fee profetis of Sibille/ and by Joachim[30] in \u00fee book of\n\u00fee seedis of profetis/ & o\u00feere writeris of stories. Ffro \u00fee bygynnynge\nof Latyn lettris to Crist Ih\u016b/ were seuene hundrid \u021deer/ and fro Crist\ntil now/ \u00ferittene hundrid \u021deer and sixe & fyfty[31]/ so \u00feat \u00feere ben to\ncome of our abece but foure & fourty \u021deer/ & bi \u00feis of \u00fee hundrid \u021deere\nof .x. be\u00fe passid sixe & fifty \u021deere. \u00dee synnes bi cause of whiche suche\npersecucioun schal be in Goddis Chirche our tyme ben \u00fees/ for Goddis\nChirche is foundid in kynrade of prelatis. \u00deis same rekened Joachim[32]\nin \u00fee bookis bifore. Also for goodis of holy Chirche \u00feat prelatis wi\u00fe\nholde\u00fe to hem/ as pensiouns/ firste frutis/ fermes/ prouendris/ \u00fee\nwhiche may wel be clepid collibiste/ \u00fees synnes and o\u00feere suche ben\nmarchaundise walkynge in derkenessis. \u00dee manere of tribulacioun schal\nbe such as Joachim[33] sei\u00fe in \u00fee book of \u00fee charge of profetis. Men of\nholy Chirche schal be seyd in a manere of careyne/ \u00feei schal be cast out\nas dogge in myddis placis. Her wi\u00fe acordi\u00fe Carnosencis/ in a book \u00feat\nhe clepi\u00fe pollicraticon[34]/ \u00fee seuen\u00fee book/ \u00fee ten\u00fee chapitre/ & he\naleye\u00fe Gregor seiynge \u00feus/ pestilencis/ smyttingis to gidere of folkis/ &\nhurtlynge to gidere of rewmes/ & o\u00feir harmes schal come to \u00fee er\u00fee/ for\n\u00feat worschipis of holy Chirche be\u00fe \u021deue to vnwor\u00fei men. And in \u00fee ei\u021dte\u00fee\nbook[35]/ defaute of prestis among Goddis folk bryngi\u00fe in tirnauntis. \u00deat\n\u00feis tribulacioun is ny\u021de/ and whanne it schal come/ bi hem \u00feat treti\u00fe\n\u00feis matir is/ whanne men schulle wante tee\u00fe/ and comynly alle children/\nboren si\u00fe\u00feen \u00fee first pestylence/ ben such \u00feat wanten ei\u021dte grete tee\u00fe.\nHerwi\u00fe acordi\u00fe Merlyn Ambrose[36]/ \u00feat such angusche is ny\u021de/ for as by\nhem/ in \u00fee tyme of \u00fee myscheif of \u00fee kok/ \u00feat we clepe fraunce/ \u00feat schal\nbe distroyed by \u00fee sixte of irlond/ \u00fee witt is our kyng wi\u00fe his children.\nSibille[37] acordi\u00fe herto/ \u00feat suche tribulacioun is ny\u021de/ in \u00fees verse:\n    Gallus succuutus aquile victricia signa/\n    Mundus adorabit/ est vrbs vix presule digna/\n    Papa cito moritur/ Sesar regnabit vbique/\n    Sub quo tunc vana cessabit gloria cleri.\n\u00deei \u00feat treten \u00fees verse of Sibille/ alle \u00feat I haue seen/ acorden in\n\u00feis/ \u00feat seculer power of \u00fee Hooly Goost elispirid/ & \u00feat de\u00fe/ veniaunce\nof swerd/ myscheifs vnknowe bifore/ bi whiche men \u00fees daies schule be\nponyschid/ schulen falle for synne of prestis. Men schal falle on hem/\n& caste hem out of her fatte beneficis/ and \u00feei schule seye/ he cam in\nto his benefice by his kynrede/ \u00fees bi couenant maad bifore/ he for his\nseruyse/ & \u00fees for moneye/ cam into Goddis Chirche. \u00deanne schal eche\nsuche prest crye/ Alas/ Alas/ \u00feat no good spiryt dwellid wi\u00fe me at my\ncomynge into Goddis Chirche. \u00dee wordis of Josue 2. c\u1d52. \u00fee \u00feridde. I seide\n\u00feat Crist entrede into hooly \u00feingis/ \u00feat is holy Chirche/ by holy lyuynge\n& holy techinge/ preynge \u00fee Fadir for vs. \u00dee Mayster of Scholys[38]\nrehersi\u00fe/ \u00fee \u00feridde book of Kyngis/ \u00fee v. c\u1d52./ aftir \u00fee talis of iewis\nof Salamon/ \u00feere was a stork hadde a berd/ & his berd was sperid vndir\na vessel of glas/ and whanne \u00feis stork sau his brid/ &. \u00feat he my\u021dte\nno\u021dt come to hym/ he brou\u021dt a litil reed worme out of wildirnesse/ &\nwi\u00fe his blood he anoyntide \u00fee glas. \u00dee glass to barst/ & \u00fee brid fleye\nhis wey. So oure Lord \u00fee Fadir of heuene hadde mankynde in helle/ \u00feat\nwas glasyne/ \u00feat is to seye britil as glas. To breke it be brou\u021dt suche\na litil reed worme/ \u00feat was our Lord Ih\u016b Crist/ as Daui\u00fe sei\u00fe/ \u00fee on &\ntwenty Salme. 2i.[39] Ego sum vermis/ & non homo/ I am a worme & no man/\n& wi\u00fe his blood he delyuered mannes kynde. Zacarie[40] writi\u00fe/ \u00fee nyn\u00fee\nchapitre/ \u00feou forso\u00fee wi\u00fe blood of witnesse/ or \u00fei testament/ hast ledde\nout hem \u00feat were bounde in \u00fee pyt. So whanne we weren synful/ & children\nof wra\u00fe\u00fee/ Goddis sone cam out of heuene/ & preyying his fadir for his\nenemyes/ & he deyed for vs \u00feanne/ myche ra\u00feere now we ben maad ri\u021dtful bi\nhis blood schule be saued. Poul writi\u00fe to \u00fee romayns. v. c\u1d52.[41] He schal\npreye for vs. Ih\u016bs wente into heuene to apere to \u00fee semlant of God for\nvs. Poul to \u00fee hebrees.[42] \u00dee whiche semlant he graunte vs to see/ \u00feat\nlyue\u00fe & regne\u00fe wi\u00feout eende/ Amen.\nNOTES.\n[Illustration]\nNotes.\nHow far the foregoing Tract has suffered from the Carelessness or\nIgnorance of the Transcriber, it will not be possible to determine, until\nanother Copy shall be discovered. It is the Object of the following\nNotes to correct some of the more obvious Mistakes, as well as to trace\nthe Historical Origin of the Tract, and to explain its References and\nAllusions. The Editor has not thought it necessary to preserve in\nevery Instance the Contractions of the original Manuscript; but he has\ncarefully retained the Spelling, even in some Cases where an Error of\nthe Transcriber is evident. The Anglo-Saxon Letters, \u00fe and \u021d, are used\nthroughout the MS., and are preserved, as being characteristic of the\nOrthography of the Period.\nPAGE xxiii. line 3.\nNo\u021dt hauynge him \u00feat openly crie\u00fe.\nThere seems some Error or Omission of the Transcriber here; but the\nAllusion is probably to St. Matt. iv. 9. A learned Friend has ingeniously\nsuggested to the Editor, that \u201cnought-having\u201d may mean disregarding, _pro\nnihilo habentes_, not fearing, abhorring, or thinking any Harm of him\nthat openly crieth, \u201call these Things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall\ndown and worship me;\u201d i. e. not fearing the Demon of Simony. \u201cAvaunce\u201d\nis perhaps substituted for _adoraveris_, in order to render the Passage\nmore applicable to Clerical Simony, or Purchase of Preferment.\nIbid. line 6.\n\u00deei make reseruaciouns.\nThe Exactions of the Court of _Rome_ had been made the Subject of\nLegislation in _England_, from the 35 of _Edw._ I., in which Year\n(A.D. 1306-7) Petitions were presented to the King from the Nobility\nand Commonalty of the Realm against the intolerable Exactions of the\nPope[43]; (_Super variis novis et intollerabilibus gravaminibus,\noppressionibus, injuriis, et extorsionibus ... auctoritate et mandato\nDomini Pap\u00e6_;) and these Petitions were the Occasion of a Statute[44],\npassed at a Parliament held at _Carlisle_ in that Year, whereby the Papal\nTaxation of Abbeys and Religious Houses was restrained, and in certain\nCases prohibited. In the Year 1350-1, however, (25 _Edw._ III.) only Six\nYears before the Date of the Tract before us, the Statute _against Papal\nProvisions of Benefices_ was passed[45], in which the Pope\u2019s Power of\npresenting to Benefices in _England_, in Violation of the Rights of the\nnatural Patrons, was restrained, and the Provisors attached. The Word\n_Reservation_ seems to be used in the Text to denote the _Provisions_\nprohibited by these Acts of Parliament;\u2014it is thus defined by _Du\nCange_[46]: \u201c_Rescriptum seu mandatum summi Pontificis, quo certorum\nbeneficiorum, cum vacaverint, collationem sibi reservat faciendam cui\nvoluerit, aliis legitimis collatoribus exclusis._\u201d This is exactly what\nthe Statutes referred to term _Provision_. The Word _Reservation_,\nhowever, is used by our modern Law-Authorities[47] in a more general\nSense, to denote a Rent or Profit reserved by the Owner of an Estate\nor Tenement for his own Use: and in this Sense the First Fruits or\nAnnates, Tenths, and Pensions, claimed by the Court of _Rome_ are rightly\ntermed _Reservations_, and in their Origin are clearly Simoniacal:\nsuch Pensions, First Fruits, and Tenths being in fact the Price paid\nto the Court of _Rome_ for Collation, as appears from the Statute 13\n_Ric._ II.[48] _Stat._ 2, c. 2, (A.D. 1389-90,) where after reciting the\nStatutes 25 _Edw._ III. and 35 _Edw._ I. the Act goes on to complain:\n_Et ja monstre soit a n\u0304r. s\u02b3. le Roi &c._ \u201cAnd now it is shewed to our\nLord the King, in this present Parliament holden at _Westminster_, at\nthe Utas of the Purification of our Lady, ... by the grievous Complaints\nof all the Commons of his Realm, that the Grievances and Mischiefs\naforesaid do daily abound, to the great Damage and Destruction of all\nthis Realm, more than ever were before, viz. that now of late our Holy\nFather the Pope, by Procurement of Clerks and otherwise, hath reserved,\nand doth daily reserve to his Collation, generally and especially, as\nwell Archbishopricks, Bishopricks, Abbeys, and Priories, as all other\nDignities, and other Benefices of _England_, which be of the Advowry of\nPeople of Holy Church, and doth give the same as well to Aliens as to\nDenizens, and taketh of all such Benefices, the First Fruits, and many\nother Profits, and a great Part of the Treasure of the said Realm is\ncarried away and dispended out of the said Realm by the Purchasers of\nsuch Graces; and also by such privy Reservations many Clerks advanced\nin this Realm by their true Patrons, which have peaceably holden their\nAdvancements by long Time, be suddenly put out: Whereupon, the said\nCommons have prayed our said Lord the King, &c.\u201d And again, in Statute\n6 _Hen._ IV.[49] (A.D. 1404) cap. 1. _Sur la grevouse compleint_, &c.\n\u201cFor the grievous Complaints made to our Sovereign Lord the King by his\nCommons of this Parliament, holden at _Coventry_, the vj. Day of October,\nthe vj. Year of his Reign, of the horrible Mischiefs and damnable Custom\nwhich is introduct of new in the Court of _Rome_, that no Parson, Abbot,\nnor other, should have Provision of any Archbishoprick or Bishoprick,\nwhich shall be void, till he hath compounded with the Pope\u2019s Chamber, to\npay great and excessive Sums of Money, as well for the First Fruits of\nthe same Archbishoprick or Bishoprick, as for other less Services in the\nsame Court, and that the same Sums, or the greater part thereof, be paid\nbeforehand, &c.\u201d\nThus it appears that the Exactions of the Papal Court were attracting\ngreat Attention in _England_, at the Period when this Tract was\nwritten. The Parliament, viewing the Matter as Politicians, denounced\nthe Papal Claims on the Grounds that large Sums of Money were annually\nsent out of _England_, and Aliens advanced to spiritual Livings in the\nChurch; _Wyclyffe_ taking up the Question as a Theologian, censures\nthese Exactions as Simoniacal, and refers to them as symptomatic of the\nApproach of _Antichrist_.\nThe _Dismes_ mentioned in the Text are the _Decim\u00e6 Decimarum_, or Tenths\nof all Livings, which, with the First Fruits, were originally claimed by\nthe Pope, although subsequently annexed to the Crown; and which now form\nthe Foundation of the Fund called _Queen Anne\u2019s Bounty_.[50]\nThe _Pensions_ exacted by the Court of _Rome_ were still more directly\nSimoniacal: they are thus alluded to in the Preamble of an Act[51]\npassed in the Reign of King _Henry_ VIII., where the Commons, addressing\nthe King, say: \u201cThat where your Subjects of this your Realm, and of\nother Countries and Dominions being under your Obeysance, by many Years\npast have been, and yet be greatly decayed and impoverished by such\nintolerable Exactions of great Sums of Money as have been claimed and\ntaken, and yet continually be claimed to be taken out of this your Realm,\nand other your said Countries and Dominions, by the Bishop of _Rome_,\ncalled the Pope, and the See of _Rome_, as well in Pensions, Censes,\nPeter-pence, Procurations, Fruits, Suits for Provisions, and Expeditions\nof Bulls for Archbishopricks and Bishopricks, &c.... It may, therefore,\nplease your most noble Majesty, for the Honor of Almighty God, &c....\nThat no Person or Persons of this your Realm, or of any other your\nDominions, shall from henceforth pay any Pensions, Censes, Portions,\nPeter-pence, or any other Impositions to the Use of the said Bishop, or\nof the See of _Rome_.\u201d\nPAGE xxiv. line 2.\nsmale.\nThis Word in the MS. is written apparently \u201csamle,\u201d which must be an\nError. The Editor has ventured to adopt a conjectural Emendation, and\nprint it \u201csmale,\u201d i. e. _small_. This, at least, will make Sense; for,\nthe Author\u2019s Argument is, that if there were nothing of a Simoniacal\nNature in the Reservation of Benefices, the small Benefices would be as\noften made the Subjects of the Papal Provisions and Reservations, as\nthe \u201cfatte\u201d or more valuable Livings; but the contrary being the Case,\nit follows that the Income of the Benefice is the real Object, and,\ntherefore, that all these Exactions of the Court of _Rome_ are Simoniacal\nin their Origin.\nIbid. line 4.\nJoachur.\nAn evident mistake of the Scribe for _Joachim_. In another Place, by a\ndifferent Error, we find the Abbot called _Joachrin_. See p. xxvi.\nIbid.\nIn his book of \u00fee seedis of profetis, &c.\nWhether one Book or more be here referred to seems doubtful. The Editor\nis disposed to think that three different Works are intended;\u2014the first,\n_Of the Seedis of Profetis_; the second, _Of the Seyingis of Popes_;\nand the third, _Of the Chargis of Profetis_. In another Place (p. xxvi)\nwe find _Joachim_ quoted \u201cin his Book _of the Deedis of Profetis_;\u201d and\n(p. xxix) \u201c_Joachim_ in the Book _of the Seedis of Prophetis_.\u201d Again (p.\nxxx) \u201cthe _Bookis_\u201d of _Joachim_ are spoken of in the plural Number, and\n\u201cthe Book _Of the Charge of Prophetis_\u201d is quoted, as distinct from the\nrest.\nIt is probable that the Book _of the Seedis of Profetis_, and the Book\n_of the Deedis of Profetis_, may be the same; the Word _Deedis_ or\n_Seedis_ being one or other of them a Mistake of the Transcriber. If\nthe Word _Seedis_ be correct, the Title of the Work was probably _De\nseminibus prophetarum_; unless we take _Seedis_, as derived from the Verb\n_to say_, for _dicta_; for which there seems no Authority, especially as\nwe find _Seyingis_ used to express _dicta_, in the very Passage before\nus. From the other Reading, the Title of the Book would be _De gestis\nprophetarum_. The Book _Of the Seyingis of Popes_ may, perhaps, be meant\nfor the _Liber de Flore_ of the Abbot _Joachim_, which the Author of his\nLife[52] tells us was also called _De summis pontificibus_.\nIt is quite obvious, however, that if these Books contained the Doctrine\nfor which they are quoted by _Wycliffe_, (viz. that the Year 1400 was\nto be the Date of the Revelation of _Antichrist_,) they could not have\nbeen genuine Productions of the Abbot _Joachim_. The Opinion of _Joachim_\nwas, that the Year 1256 would be the Era of the total Extinction of\nthe Christian Church, and that the Triumph of _Antichrist_ was then to\ncommence, and to continue for three Years and a half, counting from the\nMiddle of the Year 1256, to the End of the year 1260. As in the Lines:\u2014\n    _Hoc ~Cistercienni Joachim~ pr\u00e6dixit in anno_\n    _Quo ~Saladinus~ sanctum sibi subdidit Urbem,_\n    _Cum fuerint anni completi mille ducenti,_\n    _Et seni decies a partu ~Virginis~ alm\u00e6,_\n    _Tunc ~Antichristus~ nascetur demone plenus._[53]\nThis Theory was derived from the famous 1260 Days of Prophecy[54],\ntaking Days for Years, and computing from the Commencement of the common\nChristian Era. But when the Year 1260 passed away and the Prophecy\nwas not fulfilled, the Followers of _Joachim_ attempted to correct\nthe Hypothesis of their Master, and many of them (as for Example the\n_Beguins_[55], who adopted the Speculations of _Peter John de Oliva_,)\ntook hold of the 1335 Days of _Daniel_, and from them fixed upon the\nYear 1335, as the Date of _Antichrist\u2019s_ Destruction. The Editor has\nnot had Access to any of the Remains of _Peter John\u2019s_ Writings, but he\nis informed by a learned Friend, in whose Accuracy he has the fullest\nConfidence, that _Peter John_, in his _Tractatus de Antichristo_[56],\nhas fixed upon the Year 1356, as the Year of the Revelation, not the\nDestruction, of _Antichrist_, by adding 96, the supposed Date of the\n_Apocalypse_, to 1260. _Joachim_, however, in greater Conformity\nwith Scripture, made the Termination of the 1260 Days, (or Years, as\nhe considered them,) the Period of the End, not of the Beginning of\n_Antichrist_. Our Author\u2019s Theory[57], supported by a Cabbalistic\nComputation from the Letters of the Alphabet, which the Editor has not\nbeen able to discover elsewhere, makes the Year 1400 the Era of the\nRevelation of _Antichrist_; and _Walter Brute_[58], in 1390, appears to\nhave put forward a Conclusion not very dissimilar, although maintained on\ndifferent Grounds. His Argument was drawn from the _Joachitic_ Theory of\nthe prophetic Days taken for Years, and from the Supposition that the\n1335 Days of _Daniel_ commenced at the Desolation of the Temple under\n_Adrian_.\nOn the whole then it is unquestionable, that _Wycliffe_ had before him\nsome spurious Productions of _Beguinism_, circulated under the Name of\nthe Abbot _Joachim_, but which could not possibly have been derived from\nthe genuine Writings of that Enthusiast. None of these spurious Books,\nso far as the Editor\u2019s limited Means of Research have enabled him to\nascertain, have been preserved in our Libraries, or are noticed by the\nAuthors who treat of the Doctrines of _Joachim_ and his Successors.\nIt is evident from p. xxxi, that the Tract before us was composed in or\nafter the Year 1356, the fatal Year of the Revelation of _Antichrist_,\naccording to the Followers of _Peter John_.\nIbid. line 9.\n\u00fee seuynty & nyne chapitre.\nThe Passage quoted is taken from the ninetieth _Psalm_, as it is numbered\nin the _Latin_ Vulgate, (ninety-first in our _English_ Version.) The\nEditor is not aware of any Reason why this _Psalm_ should be referred to\nas \u201cthe seventy and ninth Chapter,\u201d and he is, therefore, constrained to\nassume, that there is here a Mistake of the Transcriber, who, perhaps,\nhad before him numeral Letters or Figures, which he read erroneously.\nThe Words referred to are to be found in Verses 5 and 6. _Non timebis\na timore nocturno. A sagitta volante in die, a negotio perambulante in\ntenebris: ab incursu, et d\u00e6monio meridiano._\nIbid. line 11.\nAnd Bernard acordi\u00fe \u00feere wi\u00fe.\nThe Passage here referred to will be found in St. _Bernard\u2019s_ Works[59],\nSerm. xxxiii. _in Cantica_, num. 14, et seq. _Adhuc nisi t\u00e6dio fuerit\nlongitudo sermonis, has quatuor tentationes tentabo suo ordine assignare\nipsi corpori Christi, quod est Ecclesia. Et ecce quam brevius possum\npercurro. Videte primitivam Ecclesiam, si non primo pervasa est acriter\nnimis ~a timore nocturno~. Erat enim nox, quando omnis qui interficeret\nsanctos, arbitrabatur obsequium se pr\u00e6stare Deo. Hac autem tentatione\ndevicta, et sedata tempestate, inclyta facta est, et juxta promissionem\nad se factam, in brevi posita in superbiam s\u00e6culorum. Et dolens inimicus\nquod frustratus esset, a ~timore nocturno~ convertit se callide ad\nsagittam ~volantem in die~, et vulneravit in ea quosdam de ecclesia. Et\nsurrexerunt homines vani, cupidi glori\u00e6, et voluerunt sibi facere nomen:\net exeuntes de ecclesia, diu eamdem matrem suam afflixerunt in diversis\net perversis dogmatibus. Sed h\u00e6c quoque pestis depulsa est in sapientia\nsanctorum, sicut et prima in patientia martyrum._\nPAGE 25. line 7.\nchaffare walkynge in derkenessis is \u00fee pryui heresie of symonyans.\nHere our Author abandons St. _Bernard\u2019s_ Interpretation, which expounds\n_negotium perambulans in tenebris_, not of Simony, but of Hypocrisy,\nand Avarice. _Serpit hodie putida tabes per omne corpus Ecclesi\u00e6, et\nquo latius, eo desperatius: eoque periculosius, quo interius ... omnes\nqu\u00e6 sua sunt qu\u00e6runt. Ministri Christi sunt, et serviunt Antichristo.\nHonorati incedunt de bonis Domini, qui Domino honorem non deferunt.\nInde is quem quotidie vides meretricius nitor, histrionicus habitus,\nregius apparatus.... Inde dolia pigmentaria, inde referta marsupia.\nPro hujusmodi volunt esse et sunt ecclesiarum pr\u00e6positi, decani,\narchidiaconi, episcopi, archiepiscopi. Nec enim h\u00e6c merito cedunt, sed\nnegotio illi, quod perambulat in tenebris._[60]\nIbid. last line.\non lyue.\nAs _Chaucer_.\n    And here-againes no Creature on live\n    Of no degree availleth for to strive.[61]\n_On live_ is now contracted or corrupted into _alive_. Thus we say,\n_a-coming_, _a-saying_, _a-board_, _a-purpose_, _a-sleep_, _a-way_, &c.,\nfor _on_ coming, _on_ saying, _on_ board, _on_ purpose, &c. By which it\nappears that Dr. _Wallis_[62] is mistaken in supposing this Class of\nWords to be compounded with the Preposition _at_.\n_John Hopkins_, in his Version of Psalm lxxvii. 16, has retained the old\nForm, _on trembling_, for _a-trembling_;\n    \u201cThe Waters, Lord, perceived thee,\n      The Waters saw thee well,\n    And they for Feare away did flee\n      The Depths on trembling fell.\u201d\nNumerous instances will be found in _Chaucer_[63], as,\n    \u201cOn hunting ben they ridden really.\u201d\nand again,[64]\n    \u201cHe could hunt as the wilde dere,\n    And ride on hauking for the rivere.\u201d\nPAGE xxvi. line 2.\nhaue\u00fe.\nThis Word should probably be _haven_; but it is _haveth_ in the MS. In\nthe next Line, \u201cbyng\u0233n\u0304ge,\u201d for \u201cbygynnynge,\u201d is an obvious Mistake of the\nMS.\nIbid. line 9.\nweren two and twenty hundriddis of \u021deeris.\nBy this Date the Writer probably intended the Interval from the Birth\nof _Heber_, to the Birth of CHRIST: which by the Computation of _Bede_\nin his _Chronicon sive de sex \u00e6tatibus mundi_, wanted but five Years of\n2200, a mere Trifle with such Expounders of Prophecy as our Author.\nIbid. line 12.\nEusebi, Bede, & Haymound.\nThe Works here referred to are, probably, the _Chronicon_ of _Eusebius_,\ntranslated and preserved by St. _Jerome_[65]; the venerable _Bede\u2019s\nChronicon, sive de sex \u00e6tatibus mundi_; and the _Histori\u00e6 Ecclesiastic\u00e6\nBreviarium, sive de Christianarum rerum memoria_, _Libb. X._ of _Haymo_,\nBishop of _Halberstadt_, who died A.D. 853.\nPAGE xxvii. line 5.\nfro \u00fee bygynnynge of Latyn lettris.\nThat is to say, from the Foundation of _Rome_. The Writer speaks in round\nNumbers.\nIbid. line 15.\ndemynge.\nThis Word is perhaps a Mistake of the Transcriber for _demed_, i. e.\n_deemed_, _considered_.\nPAGE xxviii. line 8.\nand \u00fees ben uerse of .m. lettre.\nThe Editor has not been able to find these Verses elsewhere. The Letters\nof the Alphabet are represented as _Colleg\u00e6_, or Members of a College,\nall the rest of whom go forth when the Gates are open; one only, viz.\n_m_, when they are shut. _College_ is for _Colleg\u00e6_.\nPAGE xxix. line 3.\nbut bi helpe of Poul.\nThis alludes to the well-known Story, told by a great Number of the\nAntients, of the Destruction of _Simon Magus_, by the Prayers of Saints\n_Peter_ and _Paul_. _Sulpitius Severus_[66] relates this Event in the\nfollowing Words: _Etenim tum illustris illa adversus Simonem, Petri ac\nPauli congressio fuit. Qui cum magicis artibus, ut se Deum probaret,\nduobus suffultus d\u00e6moniis evolasset, orationibus Apostolorum fugatis\nd\u00e6monibus, delapsus in terram, populo inspectante disruptus est._ The\nsame Account is given by St. _Cyrill_ of _Jerusalem_[67]; after stating\nthat _Simon_ had so far succeeded in deceiving the _Romans_, that the\nEmperor _Claudius_ had erected a Statue to him with the Inscription\n\u03a3\u0399\u039c\u03a9\u039d\u0399 \u0398\u0395\u03a9 \u1f09\u0393\u0399\u03a9, he adds[68]: \u201cThe Error spreading, that goodly Pair,\nPeter and Paul, the Rulers of the Church, being present, set Matters\nright again; and on Simon, the supposed God, attempting a Display, they\nstraightway laid him dead. Simon, that is, promised that he should be\nraised aloft towards Heaven, and accordingly was borne through the Air\non a Chariot of D\u00e6mons; on which, the Servants of God falling on their\nKnees, gave an Instance of that Agreement, of which JESUS said[69], _If\ntwo of you shall agree as touching any Thing that they shall ask, it\nshall be done for them_: and reaching the Sorcerer with this Unanimity of\ntheir Prayer, they precipitated him to the Earth.\u201d\nFor other Authorities, see the Note of the _Benedictine_ Editor of St.\n_Cyrill_, on this Passage,[70] and _Tillemont_, _Memoires pour servir a\nl\u2019Histoire Ecclesiastique_; _Saint Pierre_, Art. 34.[71]\nIbid. line 6.\nCrist schal clanse his Chirche.\nIn the Original this is, \u201cChirche schal clanse his Chirche;\u201d the Editor\nhas not hesitated to correct so obvious a Mistake.\nPAGE xxx. line 1.\n\u00fee deuel of mydday.\n_Demonium meridianum_, alluding to Ps. xc. 6, in the Vulgate.\nIbid. line 6.\nwhefore.\nA Mistake of the MS. for _Wherefore_.\nIbid. line 10.\nin derkenessis.\nThe Word _in_ was omitted by the Original Scribe; but is added in the MS.\nby a more recent Hand.\nIbid. line 12.\nBede vpon \u00fee profetis of Sibille.\nThis Reference is to some spurious Work attributed to _Bede_, and which\nis probably not the same as the Tract _De Sybillis_[72], published among\n_Bede\u2019s_ Works, and also by _Joh. Opsop\u00e6us Brettanus_, at the End of his\nEdition of the Sybilline Oracles; for that Tract does not contain any\nthing like the Computation from the Latin Letters, for which _Bede_ is\nhere referred to by our Author.\nPAGE xxxi. line 8.\nGoddis Chirche is foundid in kynrade of prelatis.\nThis Expression is illustrated by the Preamble of the _Statute of\nProvisors_, (25 Edw. III.)[73]: \u201cWhereas late in the Parliament of\ngood Memory of _Edward_ King of _England_, Grandfather to our Lord the\nKing that now is, the xxv. [_leg._ xxxv.] Year of his Reign, holden at\n_Carlisle_, the Petition heard, put before the said Grandfather and his\nCouncil, in his said Parliament, by the Communalty of the said Realm,\ncontaining: That whereas the Holy Church of _England_ was founden in the\nEstate of Prelacy, within the Realm of _England_, &c.\u201d[74]\nIbid. line 13.\n\u00fee whiche may wel be clepid collibiste.\n_Collybiste_, from the Greek Word \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03cd\u03b2\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, which is used St. _Matt._\nxxi. 12, where St. _Jerome_ remarks: _Sed quia erat lege pr\u00e6ceptum, ut\nnemo usuras acciperet, et prodesse non poterat pecunia f\u0153nerata, qu\u00e6\ncommodi nihil haberet, et interdum sortem perderet, excogitaverunt et\naliam technam, ut pro nummulariis, ~Collybistas~ facerent, cujus verbi\nproprietatem Latina lingua non exprimit. ~Collyba~ dicuntur apud eos,\nqu\u00e6 nos appellamus ~tragemata~, vel vilia munuscula. Verbi gratia, frixi\nciceris, uvarumque passarum, et poma diversi generis._[75]\nSee also _Du Cange_, Glossarium, vv. _Collibium_, _Collybista_.\nPAGE xxxii. line 1.\nschal be seyd in a manere of careyne.\n_Careyne_, from the old French, _carogne_, _carrion_; \u201cseyd in a manere\nof careyne,\u201d perhaps may mean, \u201cthey shall be spoken of as a Sort of\nCarrion,\u201d unless there be here some Mistake of the Transcriber, which\nis not improbable. The next Clause, \u201cthei schal be cast out as dogge in\nmyddis places,\u201d is possibly an Allusion to _Is._ v. 25. _Et facta sunt\nmorticinia eorum, quasi stercus in medio platearum_; the Word _dogge_\nbeing a Mistake for _donge_; and, \u201cin myddis places\u201d the Author\u2019s Version\nof _in medio platearum_; although it is highly probable that _myddis_ is\ncorrupt.\nIbid. line 3.\nher wi\u00fe acordi\u00fe Carnosencis.\n_John of Salisbury_, called _Carnotensis_, because he was Bishop of\n_Chartres_. The Passage referred to occurs in his _Polycraticus, sive\nDe Nugis Curialium_, _Lib._ vii. _cap._ 20.[76] _Si dicas quia ignis\nper septuaginta annos ~Babylonic\u00e6~ captivitatis sub aqua vixerat, demum\nextinctus est, ~Antiocho~ vendente ~Jasoni~ sacerdotium; aut quod Beatus\n~Gregorius~ testatur, quia pestilentia et fames, concussiones gentium,\ncollisiones regnorum, et quamplurima adversa terris proveniunt, ex eo\nquod honores ecclesiastici ad pretium vel humanam gratiam conferuntur\npersonis non meritis._ The other Reference (Line 11) is to _Lib._ viii.\n_cap._ 18.[77] _Nam et peccata populi faciunt regnare hypocritam, et\nsicut Regum testatur historia, defectus sacerdotum, in populo Dei,\ntyrannos induxit._\nIbid. line 10.\nbe\u00fe \u021deue.\nA Mistake probably for _ben geve_, i. e. _been given_.\nIbid. line 16.\nalle children boren si\u00fe\u00feen \u00fee first pestylence, &c.\nThe Year 1348 and two following Years are recorded in all our Chronicles,\nas remarkable for a most formidable Pestilence which devastated\nEurope[78], and is said to have been attended with this singular\nCircumstance, that the Children born after the Pestilence had begun,\nwere found to be deficient in the usual Number of Teeth. It may be enough\nto quote from our English Annalists, the Chronicle of _Caxton_. Speaking\nof the 23rd Year of King _Edward_ the Third, the Historian says[79]: \u201c\u00b6\nAnd in the xxiij Yere of his Regne, in y\u1d49 East Partyes of the Worlde,\nthere began a Pestylence and Deth of Sarasyns and Paynyms, that so grete\na Deth was never herde of afore, and that wasted away the People, so that\nunneth the tenth Persone was left alive. \u00b6 And in the same Yere, about y\u1d49\nSouth Countrees there fell so moche Rayne, and so grete Waters, that from\nChrystmasse unto Mydsomer there was unnethes no Daye nor Nyght but that\nrayned somewhat, through which Waters y\u1d49 Pestilence was so enfected, and\nso haboundant in all Countrees, and namely, about y\u1d49 Court of Rome, and\nother Places, and See Costes, that unneth there were lefte lyuyng Folke\nfor to bury them honestly y\u1d57 were deed. But made grete Diches and Pyttes\ny\u1d57 were wonders brode and depe, and therin buryed them, and made a Renge\nof deed Bodyes, and cast a lytell Erth to couer them aboue, and than cast\nin another Renge of deed Bodyes, and another Renge aboue them. And thus\nwere they buryed, and none other wyse, but yf it were so y\u1d57 they were Men\nof grete Estate, so that they were buryed as honestly as they myght.\u201d\nAnd again[80], \u201cAnd in this same Yere,\u201d [24 _Edw._ III.] \u201cand in the\nYere afore, and in the Yere nexte folowynge, was so grete a Pestylence\nof Men from the Eest in to the West, and namely through Botches, y\u1d57 they\nthat sekened, as on this Daye, dyed on the thyrde Daye after, to y\u1d49\nwhiche Men y\u1d57 so dyed in this Pestylence had but lytell Respyte of theyr\nLyggynge. Than Pope _Clement_ of his Goodnes and Grace, gave them full\nRemyssyon and Forgyuenes of all theyr Synnes that they were shryuen of,\nand this Pestylence lasted in _London_ fro Mighelmasse vnto August nexte\nfollowynge, almost an hole Yere. And in these Dayes was Deth without\nSorowe, Weddynges without Frendshyp, wylful Penaunce, and Derth without\nScarsete, and Fleynge w\u1d57out Refute or Sucour, for many fledde from Place\nto Place bycause of the Pestylence, but they were infected, and might not\nescape y\u1d49 Deth, after y\u1d57 y\u1d49 Prophete _Isaie_ sayth, Who that fleeth fro\nthe Face of Drede, he shall fall into the Dyche. And he y\u1d57 wyndeth him\nout of y\u1d49 Dyche, he shall be holden and tyed with a Grenne. But whan this\nPestylence was cesed, as God wolde, unnethes y\u1d49 tenth Parte of the People\nwas left on lyue. \u00b6 And in y\u1d49 same Yere began a wonders thynge, that all\ny\u1d57 were borne after y\u1d49 Pestylence had two Cheketethe in ther Heed lesse\nthan they had afore.\u201d\n_Hollinshed_ records[81] in like Manner the Fact of the Pestilence, and\nthe Desolation caused by it throughout _Europe_. Of _London_ he says that\nthe Death \u201chad bin so great and vehement within that Citie, that over\nand beside the Bodies buried in other accustomed burieng Places, (which\nfor their infinit Number cannot be reduced into Account), there were\nburied that Yeare\u201d [viz. 1350] \u201cdailie, from Candlemasse till Easter, in\nthe Charterhouse Yard of _London_, more than two hundred dead Corpses.\u201d\nHe also notices the Fact of the Children wanting Teeth, but he makes\nthe Defect to be four, not two \u201ccheke Teeth,\u201d as _Caxton\u2019s_ Chronicle\nstated[82]: \u201c\u00b6 This Yeare in August died _Philip de Valois_ the French\nKing. Here is to be noted, that all those that were borne after the\nBeginning of that great Mortalitie whereof ye have heard, wanted foure\ncheke Teeth (when they came to the time of Growth) of those 32 which the\nPeople before that Time commonlie vsed to have, so that they had but 28.\u201d\nOur Author, it will be observed, differs from _Hollinshed_ in making\nthe Defect \u201ceight grete Teeth,\u201d and in this he has the Authority of the\nsecond Continuator of the Chronicle of _William de Nangis_, published by\n_D\u2019Achery_ in his _Spicilegium_[83]; a Narrative which apparently has\nbeen the Source from which many of our English Chroniclers have borrowed.\nIt contains a very minute History of this memorable Pestilence, with\nseveral curious Particulars not mentioned by other Writers. The Author\nendeavours to account for the Plague by supposing the Explosion of a\nComet, whose sudden Evaporation, he suggests, may have disseminated in\nthe Atmosphere pestilential Vapours. He tells us also that the Jews were\nsuspected of having poisoned the Fountains, and that many of them were in\nconsequence put to Death, and burnt, in various Places. The circumstance\nof the Children born with a smaller Number of Teeth is thus recorded[84]:\u2014\n_Cessante autem dict\u00e2 epidemi\u00e2, pestilenti\u00e2, et mortalitate, nupserunt\nviri qui remanserunt et mulieres ad invicem, conceperunt uxores residu\u00e6\nper mundum ultr\u00e0 modum, nulla sterilis efficiebatur, sed pr\u00e6gnantes hinc\ninde videbantur, et plures geminos pariebant, et aliqu\u00e6 tres infantes\ninsimul vivos emittebant; sed quod ultra modum admirationem facit, est\nquod dicti pueri nati post tempus illud mortalitatis supradict\u00e6, et\ndeinceps, dum ad \u00e6tatem dentium devenerunt, non nisi viginti dentes vel\nviginti duos in ore communiter habuerunt, cum ante dicta tempora homines\nde communi cursu triginta duos dentes, sub et supra, simul in mandibulis\nhabuissent. Quid autem numerus iste dentium in post natis significet,\nmultum miror, nisi dicatur, quod per talem et tantam mortalitatem hominum\ninfinitorum et successionem aliorum et reliquorum qui remanserant, mundus\nest quodammodo renovatus et seculum, ut sic sit qu\u00e6dam nova \u00e6tas; sed\nproh dolor! ex hujus renovatione seculi non est mundus propter hoc in\nmelius commutatus. Nam homines fuerunt postea magis avari et tenaces, cum\nmulto plura bona quam antea possiderent; magis etiam cupidi, et per lites\nbrigas et rixas atque per placita seipsos conturbantes, nec per hujusmodi\nterribilem mortis pestem a Deo inflictam fuit pax inter Reges et dominos\nreformata, quinimo inimici Regis Franci\u00e6 ac etiam guerr\u00e6 Ecclesi\u00e6\nfortiores et pejores quam ante per mare et per terram suscitaverunt,\net mala ampliora ubique pullularunt. Et quod iterum mirabile fuit;\nnam cum omnis abundantia omnium bonorum esset, cuncta tamen cariora\nin duplo fuerunt, tam de rebus utensilibus, quam de victualibus, ac\netiam de mercimoniis et mercenariis et agricolis et servis, exceptis\naliquibus hereditatibus et domibus qu\u00e6 superflue remanserant his diebus.\nCharitas etiam ab illo tempore refrigescere c\u0153pit valde, et iniquitas\nabundavit cum ignorantiis et peccatis: nam pauci inveniebantur qui\nscirent aut vellent in domibus, villis, et castris, informare pueros in\ngrammaticalibus rudimentis._\nThe Allusion contained in the Tract before us to the Circumstance of the\nChildren wanting Teeth, may possibly be urged as an Objection to the\nearly Date of 1350, which it claims for itself. For if this Circumstance\nof the Want of Teeth be a Fable, it is not probable that it could so\nsoon have become current; and if on the other hand it be true, it seems\nhardly possible that the Fact could have been ascertained in 1350,\nrespecting all Children born _since_ the first Pestilence, i. e. since\n1348. However, it is possible that by the _first_ Pestilence our Author\nmay have alluded, not to that of 1348, but to that of 1340, which is thus\ndescribed by Knighton[85], under that Year: \u201c_In \u00e6state scilicet anno\ngrati\u00e6 M.CCC.XL., accidit qu\u00e6dam execrabilis et enormis infirmitas in\n~Anglia~ quasi communis, et pr\u00e6cipue in comitatu ~Leicestri\u00e6~, adeo quod\ndurante passione homines emiserunt vocem latrabilem ac si esset latratus\ncanum; et fuit quasi intolerabilis p\u0153na durante passione. Exinde fuit\nmagna pestilentia hominum._\u201d\nIt is no Doubt a Difficulty that the Continuator of _William de Nangis_\nand other Chroniclers, represent the Phenomenon of the Want of Teeth\nas the Consequence of the Pestilence of 1348, but the Story may have\noriginated at the former Period, although later Writers recorded it in\nConnexion with the more recent and more formidable Pestilence.\nThe Editor, however, leaves this Question to be decided by future\nResearch, and by Judges more competent than himself. It is not impossible\nthat the whole Passage[86] in which the Date of \u201cthrittene hundrid yere\nand sixe and fifty\u201d has been given, may prove to be a Quotation from\nthe Book referred to under the Title of \u201c_Joachim_ in the Book of the\nSeedis of Profetis,\u201d and if so, the Tract before us must of course be the\nProduction of a later Period.\nPAGE xxxiii. line 1.\nMerlyn Ambrose.\nFor the History of _Merlyn_, see _Geoffrey_ of _Monmouth\u2019s_ _Historia\nRegum Britanni\u00e6_, Lib. vi. c. 17, 18. The famous Prophecy of _Merlyn_\nwill be found in Lib. vii. c. 3, 4. It has also been repeatedly published\nin a separate Form, with the Commentaries in seven Books of _Alanus de\nInsulis._\nIbid. line 3.\nof \u00fee myscheif.\nIn the original MS. these Words are repeated, \u201c_in the tyme of the\nmyscheif of the myscheif of the Kok_;\u201d the Editor did not deem it\nnecessary to retain so obvious a Mistake of the Transcriber.\nIbid. line 5.\n\u00fee sixte of irlond.\nThis Personage is mentioned in numerous Prophecies circulated under\nthe Names of _Merlyn_, _Gildas_, _Robert of Bridlington_, _Sybill_, and\nothers, in the fourteenth and fifteenth Centuries, many of which appear\nto have had their Origin in the Prophecy of _Merlyn_, preserved by\n_Geoffrey_ of _Monmouth_, already referred to, where we find \u201cthe sixte\nof _Irlond_\u201d thus noticed:\u2014\n_~Sextus Hiberni\u00e6~ m\u0153nia subvertet, et nemora in planitiem mutabit:\nDiversas portiones in unum reducet, et capite leonis coronabitur._[87]\nThe following Collection of Prophecies relating to _Sextus_ of _Ireland_,\nis from a MS. written about the Middle of the Fourteenth Century, and\npreserved in the Library of _Trinity College, Dublin_.\n_Iste sunt prophetie diuerse a diuersis prophetate de ~Sexto\nHibernie~[88], qui vocatur Dominus ~[here there is an erasure in the\nMS.]~ Rex ~Anglie~ et ~Francie~ et ~Sextus~ Dominus ~Hibernie~, de quo\nProphetie sunt notate. ~Hermerus~ Dominus sapientum. Anno a Creatione\nmundi sex M.CCC et IIII.\u02e3\u02e3[89] ~Lilium~ regnans in nobiliore mundi\nmouebit se contra senem leonem, et veniet in terram eius inter spinas\nregni sui, et circumdabit filium leonis illo anno ferens feras in brachio\nsuo. Cuius regnum erit in terra lune timendus per vniuersum mundum\npotestate agentis principalis, cum magno exercitu suo transiet aquas et\ngradietur in terram leonis carentis auxilio, quia bestie regionis sue iam\ndentibus suis eius pellem dilaceraverint. Illo anno veniet Aquila a parte\norientali, alis extensis super solem, cum multitudine pullorum suorum, in\nadiutorium Filii hominis. Illo anno Aquila destruetur. Amor magnus erit\nin mundo. Una die in quadam parte leonis erit bellum inter plures reges\ncrudeles, quod usque ad diem illum non viderunt homines; illa die erit\nsanguinis diluvium, et perdet Lilium coronam solis, quam accepit Aquila,\nde qua Filius hominis postmodum coronabitur. Per quatuor annos sequentes\nfient multa in mundo prelia inter omnes homines fidem tenentes, quia\nillo tempore credenda sunt. Omnia tunc erint communia. Maior pars mundi\ndestruetur, caput mundi erit ad terram declinatum. Filius hominis et\nAquila relevabunt ille ~[sic]~, et tunc erit pax in toto orbe terrarum,\net copia fructuum, et filius hominis mare transiet, et portabit signum\nmirabile ad terram promissionis, sed prima causa sibi permissa remanebit._\n_Item versus illius sompniatoris viri religiosi, per quos versus\ncognoscitur ~Sextus Hiberni\u00e6~._\n    _Illius imperium gens barbara senciet illum,_\n    _~Roma~ volet tanto principe digna dici,_\n    _Conferet hic ~Rome~ plus laudis quam sibi ~Roma~,_\n    _Plus dabit hic orbi quam dabit orbis ei._\n_Versus vaticinales de ~Normannia~, de eodem ~Sexto~._\n    _~Anglia~ transmittet Leopardum lilia Galli,_\n    _Qui pede calcabit Cancrum cum fratre superbo,_\n    _Ungues diripient Leopardi Gallica regna,_\n    _Circulus inuictus circumdabit unde peribunt._\n    _~Anglia~ regnabit, ~Vasconia~ porta redibit_\n    _Ad iuga consueta Leopardi ~Flandria~ magna_\n    _Flumina concipient que confundent genetricem._\n    _Lilia marcescent, Leopardi posse vigebit,_\n    _Ecclesie sub quo libertas prima redibit._\n    _Huic ~Babilon~ veniet truces aras non teret omnes,_\n    _~Acon Ierusalem~ Leopardi posse redempte,_\n    _Ad cultum fidei gaudebunt se redituras,_\n    _Imperium mundi sub quo dabit hic heremita._\n_Versus cuiusdem nomine ~Gildas~, per quantum tempus regnabit idem\n~Sextus~._\n    _Ter tria lustra tenent cum semi tempora ~Sexti~,_\n    _En vagus in prima perdet, sub fine resumet,_\n    _Multa rapit medio volitans sub fine secundi,_\n    _Orbem submittet reliquo, clerumque reducet_\n    _Ad statum primum, post hoc renouat loca sancta_\n    _Hinc terram spernens secundo ethere scandit._\nIn another MS.[90] in the Library of _Trinity College, Dublin_, there is\npreserved a Prophecy in which _Sextus_ of _Ireland_ is also mentioned,\nand which, as the Editor is informed by his learned Friend _John Holmes_,\nEsq., of the _British Museum_, occurs also in the _Arundel_ MS. 57, fol.\n4, b., where it is entitled, \u201c_Versus Gylde de Prophetia Aquile_.\u201d\nIt will suffice to quote from this Prophecy the Lines where _Sextus_ is\nmentioned.\n    _~Sextus Hybernensis~ milleno milite cinctus,_\n      _Hostibus expulsis castra relicta petet,_\n    _Menia subversa vix antrix apta ferarum_\n      _Pinget et eiectus bubo necabit apem._\nIbid.\n\u00fee witt is our kyng wi\u00fe his children.\n\u201c_The witt_,\u201d i. e. the Meaning; alluding probably to the Interpretation\ngiven of this part of the Prophecy by _Alanus de Insulis_, who supposes\nthe then reigning King Henry II. and his Sons to be intended; his Words\n_~Henricus~ qui nunc in ~Anglia~ regnat, quinque filios suscepit ex\nRegina conjuge sua, quorum unus mortuus est, quatuor vero supersunt.\nHabuit et sextum ex concubina, qui clericus est, magn\u00e6, ut aiunt,\njuxta \u00e6tatem, probitatis. Hic itaque vel sextus dicetur Henrici Regis\nfilius, si mortuus ille quem habuit ex Regina inter alios computetur,\nvel quintus, si soli superstites a propheta numerantur, et alius adhuc\nexpectandus, quem hic ~Sextum~ appellat. Possumus tamen sextum istum\nintelligere, qui in ~Anglia~ regnaturus sit post quatuor istos, et alium\nquintum quicunque ille sit, hoc est sive istorum frater, sive non, de\nquo dicitur quod ~Hyberni\u00e6~ sit m\u00e6nia subversurus, excisurus nemora, et\nin planitiem mutaturus diversas portiones, id est regna diversa, non est\nenim unum regnum, sed plura, ad unum regnum reducturus, ejusque coronam,\nassumpta feritate et fortitudine leonina, suo capite impositurus._\nIbid. line 9.\nSibille acordi\u00fe herto.\nThe Verses of \u201cSibille\u201d here quoted are to be found in a large Collection\nof other Prophecies of the same character, in a Manuscript[92] of the\nfourteenth Century, preserved in the Library of _Trinity College,\nDublin_. The Editor is also enabled, through the Kindness of Mr.\n_Holmes_, to give here a complete Copy of them from the _Cotton MS.\nClaud._ B. vii., collated with the _Arundel_ MS. 57, fol. In this latter\nMS. which is written, as Mr. _Holmes_ conjectures, in a Hand of about the\nYear 1350, and also in the _Dublin_ MS. the Line _Terr\u00e6 motus, &c._ comes\nimmediately before the Line _Millenis ducentenis_. The other various\nReadings are given in the Margin; A. denoting the _Arundel_, and D. the\n_Dublin_ Manuscript.\n\u201c_SYBILLA de eventibus regnorum et eorum Regum ante finem mundi._\u201d[93]\n    _~Gallorum~ lenitas ~Germanos~ iustificabit,_\n    _~Itali\u00e6~ gravitas ~Gallos~ confusa necabit._\n    _Succumbet ~Gallus~[94], ~Aquil\u00e6~ victricia[95] signa_\n    _Mundus adorabit,[96] erit urbs sub[97] presule digna._\n    _Millenis ducentenis nonaginta sub annis,_\n    _Et tribus[98] adiunctis, consurget aquila grandis._\n    _Terr\u00e6 motus erunt, quos[99] non procul[100] auguror esse._\n    _~Constantine~ cades, et equi de marmore facti,_\n    _Et lapis erectus, et multa palatia ~Rome~._\n    _Papa cito moritur, ~Cesar~ regnabit ubique,_\n    _Sub quo tunc vana cessabit gloria[101] cleri._\n    _Anno millesimo C.ter vicesimo v. dabit ether_\n    _Blada vina fractus fiet pro principe luctus;_\n    _Una columpna cadet, qu\u00e6 terram schismate tradet,_\n    _Gens periet subito, ~Petro~ testante perito._\nThe last four Verses occur only in the _Dublin_ MS., and seem to contain\nan Allusion to the Prophetical Doctrines of _Peter John_, or rather of\nhis Followers. The Date intended is probably 1325, taking \u201c_C.ter_\u201d\nfor CCC; and that this Year was one of the Eras fixed by the _Beguins_\nfor the Revelation of Antichrist, appears from the _Liber Sententiarum\nInquisitionis Tholosan\u00e6_, published by Limborch[102]; for Example\n_Petrus Moresii_, a Beguin, _receptus ad tercium ordinem Sancti Francisci\nconjugatus_, was examined by the Inquisitors on the 8th of April, 1322,\nand declares, _Credidit et credebat firmiter, tempore quo captus fuit,\nquod Antichristus esset venturus, et consumpmaturus cursum suum, infra\nannum quo computabitur incarnacio Domini M.CCC.XXV._\nThe Verses, as quoted by our Author, are very corrupt in the Original MS.\nThe Editor has therefore ventured to alter \u201c_viccus_\u201d into \u201c_victricia_;\u201d\n\u201c_urbis_\u201d into \u201c_urbs_,\u201d and \u201c_tessabit_\u201d into \u201c_cessabit_.\u201d\nIbid. last line.\nelispirid.\nThis Word is very probably corrupt, although _Lewis_, who appears to have\nreceived from _Dublin_ a Transcript of this Tract, or copious Extracts,\ndoes not seem to have considered it so, for he has inserted the Word\nin his _Glossary_, and quotes for it only the Authority of the Passage\nbefore us; he says[103],\n\u201c_Elispired_, perhaps for _expired_. _Secular power of the Hooly Goost\nexpired_, alluding to the secular Power the Popes have. For having\nquoted four Verses of _Sibille_, one of which is: _Papa cito moritur,\nC\u00e6sar regnabit ubique_, _Wiclif_ adds, _thei that treten this Verse of\n~Sibille~, alle that I have seen, accorden in this, that secular power of\nthe Hooly Goost elispired._\u201d\nPAGE xxxiv. line 13.\n\u00fee wordis of Josue 2. c\u1d52. \u00fee \u00feridde.\nThe Editor is unable to explain this Reference.\nIbid. line 17.\n\u00fee Mayster of Scholys rehersi\u00fe.\n_Peter Comestor_, Chancellor of the Cathedral of Paris in 1164, and\nAuthor of the _Historia Scholastica_, is the Person here called _Master\nof Schools_. The Passage referred to occurs in the _Hist. Schol._ on\nthe third Book of Kings, _cap. viii._ (not _cap. v._ as quoted by our\nAuthor), and is as follows[104]:\u2014\n_Fabulantur ~Iudei~ ad eruderandos lapidei celerius habuisse ~Salomonem~\nsanguinem vermiculi qui ~Tamir~ dicitur: quo aspersa marmora facile\nsecabantur, quem invenit hoc modo. \u00b6 Erat ~Salomoni~ strutio habens\npullum, et inclusus est pullus sub vase vitreo. Quem cum videret strutio,\nsed habere nequiret: de deserto tulit vermiculum: cuius sanguine liniuit\nvitrum, et fractum est._\nThe same Story with the very same mystical Application of it which is\nmade by our Author, is given by _Peter Berchorius_ in his _Reductorium\nmorale_, who quotes from _Gervase_ of _Tilbury_. This latter Writer, as\nwe learn from _Berchorius_, took the Story from _Peter Comestor_, and\nbeing an Englishman, was most probably the immediate Source from which\nthe Author of the Tract before us derived it, especially as _Gervase_\nwrote upwards of a Century before _Berchorius_, who died in 1362. The\nEditor has not had an Opportunity of consulting the Work of _Gervase_ of\n_Tilbury_, but it is probable that _Berchorius_ has done little more than\nextract his Words.[105]\n_De struthione mirabile quid ponit ~Geruasius~, et videtur accipere de\nHistoria Scholastica. Dicunt ~Iud\u00e6i~ (ut ait) quod cum ~Salomon~ templum\n\u00e6dificaret, ut lapides citius sculperentur, inclusit pullum struthionis\nin vase vitreo, quem cum struthio habere nequiret, ad desertum iuit, et\nexinde vermem qui ~Thamus~ dicitur, apportauit, cuius sanguine vitrum\nliniuit; fractoque statim vitro, pullum recuperauit. Quo agnito ~Salomon~\nde sanguine illorum vermium lapides templi fecit liniri, et sic faciliter\npotuerunt imprimi vel sculpi. Idem ver\u00f2 ~Geruasius~ dicit ~Rom\u00e6~ in\nquodam antiquo palatio fialam liquore lacteo plenam, esse inuentam,\nquo liniti lapides facillim\u00e8 sculpebantur. Talis vermis videtur fuisse\n~Christus~. Pullus enim Struthionis, i. homo (qui erat per creationem\npullus, et filius Dei Patris) fuerat incarceratus, et carceri culp\u00e6 et\np\u0153n\u00e6, a mundi principio destinatus. Struthio ergo, i. Deus Pater, a\ndeserto paradisi, vermem, i. Christum hominem factum, adduxit, et ipsum\nper passionem occidit, vel occidi permisit, et sic cum isto sanguine\nportas carceris infernalis fregit, et pullum suum hominem liberavit._\nZac. 9. _Tu autem in sanguine testamenti tui eduxisti vinctos tuos de\nlacu. Igitur quicunque voluerit lapidem, quicunque cor suum durum et\nlapideum, per contritionem scindere, et per conversationem sculpere\ndecreuerit, adhibeat sanguinem huius vermis, i. dominic\u00e6 passionis\nmemoriam, et liquorem lacteum memori\u00e6 su\u00e6 benedict\u00e6, et sic nunquam\nerit ita durum aut obstinatum, quin recipiat contritionis scissuram,\net correctionis sculpturam._ Ezech. 36. _Auferam cor lapideum de carne\nvestra, et dabo vobis cor carneum._\nThe same Story occurs in some Copies of the _Gesta Romanorum_[106], where\nthe Artifice by which the Worm \u201c_thumare_,\u201d (as it is there called,) was\ndetected, is ascribed to the Emperor _Diocletian_ of _Rome_. See _Swan\u2019s_\nTranslation of the _Gesta Romanorum_, vol. 1. Introd. p. lxiv.\nThe Name of the Worm, to which the marvellous Property of breaking Stones\nis ascribed, is corruptly given by the foregoing Authorities. It is\ncalled by the Jews, not _tamir_, or _thamus_, but _schamir_ (\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05e8), and\nfrequent Allusions to it occur in the Rabbinical Writers. The original\nStory is to be found in the _Talmud_, and seems intended to explain what\nwe read 1 Kings, vi. 7, that _neither Hammer nor Axe nor any Tool of\nIron_ was heard in the Temple of _Solomon_ while it was in building. The\nfollowing[107] is an abridged Account of the original Legend: _Solomon_,\nwhen about to build the Temple, perceived by his Wisdom, that it would\nbe more acceptable to GOD, if built of Stones upon which no Tool of\nIron had ever been raised. Whereupon he inquired of the Rabbis how\nthis was to be effected.\u2014They told him that he must procure the Worm\n_Schamir_, by the Help of which _Moses_ had cut the Stones of the High\nPriest\u2019s Breastplate. _Solomon_ then inquired where this Worm was to be\nfound. The Rabbis confessed their Ignorance, but advised him to summon\ncertain Devils, and compel them, by Torments, to make the Discovery;\nthis was done, and the Devils answered, that _Aschmedai_, the King of\nthe Devils, alone, could tell where the Worm _Schamir_ was to be found.\nAccordingly, _Benaiah_, Son of _Jehoiada_, was sent with a Chain on\nwhich the Name of GOD was inscribed, to bind _Aschmedai_, and bring him\nbefore _Solomon_. It took some Time to capture _Aschmedai_, and a long\nAccount is given of the Difficulties of the Undertaking. At Length,\non the third Day, he is brought to _Solomon_, who asks him for the\n_Schamir_. _Aschmedai_ answers, It is not in my Keeping; but _Sara-Dima_\n(the Angel that presides over the Sea) has it, and he will entrust it\nonly to the Wild-Hen (\u05ea\u05e8\u05e0\u05d2\u05d5\u05dc\u05d0), from whom he exacts an Oath for its safe\nReturn. _Solomon_ asked what the Wild-Hen did with the _Schamir_; the\nD\u00e6mon answered, She brings the Worm to the Rocky Mountains, destitute\nof Grass and Verdure, and by its means she breaks down their Rocks;\nshe then carries up the Seeds of Trees, and thus the Mountains, once\nBarren, become covered with Woods. Having obtained this Information,\n_Solomon_ sought out the Nest of the Wild-Hen, and enclosed it, with her\nYoung Ones, in a Covering of transparent Crystal. The Wild-Hen, on her\nReturn, seeing her Nest and Young Ones, but finding herself unable to\nenter it, flew away, and soon after returned with the Worm _Schamir_;\nwhereupon _Solomon\u2019s_ Servants, who had been lying in Wait for her, set\nup a great Shout, which so terrified her, that she dropped the Worm,\nand thus _Solomon_ obtained Possession of it. The Wild-Hen, however,\nflew away, and hanged herself, for having lost the Worm, and broken her\nOath. See _Eisenmenger_, _Entdecktes Judenthum_ Theil, I. p. 350. _Johan.\nChristoph. Wagenseilii Sota_, p. 1072, and _Buxtorfii Lexicon Chald. et\nTalmud._ _in voce_ \u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05e8.\nPAGE xxxv. line 1.\naftir \u00fee talis of iewis of Salamon.\nThat is, \u201creherseth, after, or according to, the Tales or Legends of the\n_Jews_, concerning _Solomon_.\u201d\nIbid. line 8.\n\u00dee glass to barst.\n_To_, perhaps for \u201cal to,\u201d _statim_, _penitus_. Thus in our _English_\nVersion of the Bible, (Judg. ix. 53.) \u201cAnd a certain Woman cast a Piece\nof a Millstone upon _Abimelech\u2019s_ Head, and al to brake his Skull.\u201d\nIbid. line 14.\n\u00fee on & twenty Salme. 2i.\nThe Editor is not sure that he has rightly deciphered the Letters\nrepresented by \u201c2i;\u201d he once thought they were \u201cxi,\u201d but this seemed\ninexplicable, and he now believes them to be an Attempt of a very\nignorant Transcriber to represent in _Arabic_ Numerals the Number of the\nPsalm referred to.\nPAGE xxxvi. line 15.\nPoul writi\u00fe to \u00fee romayns.\nThis Reference belongs to what goes before, not to what follows. _Mr.\nVaughan_, in his _Life of Wycliffe_[108], not perceiving this, has\naltered the Text to make the Sense perfect, and quotes the Passage thus:\n\u201cSo, when we were sinful, and the Children of Wrath, God\u2019s Son came out\nof Heaven, and praying His Father for His Enemies, He died for us. Then\nmuch rather shall we be saved, now we are made righteous through His\nBlood. St. Paul writeth to the _Romans_, that _Jesus_ should pray for us,\nand that He went into Heaven to appear in the Presence of God for us. The\nsame also he writeth to the _Hebrews_, the which Presence may He grant us\nto behold, who liveth and reigneth without End.\u2014Amen.\u201d\nMr. _Vaughan_, however, does not tell his Readers what Passage of\nthe Epistle to the _Romans_, occurring, also, in the Epistle to the\n_Hebrews_, he supposes our Author to have quoted. There exists, in Fact,\nno such Passage; nor does the Text stand in Need of any Emendation.\nThe References, in both Cases, come after the Passages quoted; and this\nremoves all the Difficulty which Mr. _Vaughan_ appears to have found in\nthe Reading of the original Manuscript.\nFINIS.\n[Illustration]\nFOOTNOTES\n[1] Milner, Hist. of the Church, vol. iv. p. 121. Lond. 1819.\n[3] The Hist. of the Life of _John Wiclif_, D.D. By _John Lewis_, M.A.\n[4] Memoirs of _Wiclif_. By the Rev. _H. H. Baber_, M.A. 4to. Lond. 1810.\n[5] The Life of _John de Wycliffe_, D.D. By _Robert Vaughan_. Lond. 1831.\n[6] The Life of _Wiclif_. By _Chas. W. Le Bas_, M.A. Lond. 1832.\n[7] Appendix ad Histor. Litterar. Cl. V. _Gul. Cave._ vol. ii. p. 63.\nFol. Oxon. 1743.\n[8] See _Page_ xxxi.\n[9] _Vaughan\u2019s_ Life of _Wycliffe_. Vol. i. p. 255. Note. _2nd Edit._\n[10] _Bal\u00e6us_, De Script. Brytanni\u00e6. _Cent._ vi. p. 453.\n[11] _Lewis_, Life of _Wiclif_, p. 195.\n[14] See _Nichols\u2019_ Autographs, _Plate 44_. No. 5.\n[15] British Magazine, _vol._ vii. p. 532, and p. 690. _Vol._ viii. p.\n[17] Joachim.\n[19] Bernard.\n[20] Joachim.\n[21] Eusebi.\n[22] Bede.\n[23] Haymound.\n[24] Joachim.\n[25] Bede.\n[26] Joachim.\n[28] Antecrist.\n[29] Bede.\n[30] Joachim.\n[31] Nota.\n[32] Joachim.\n[33] Joachim.\n[34] Carnotensis, in Polycratico.\n[36] Merlyn Ambrose.\n[37] Sibille.\n[38] Mayster of Scholys.\n[43] _Ryley_, Placita Parliam. p. 379.\n[44] _Statutes of the Realm_, Vol. i. _Lond._ 1810, p. 150.\n[45] _Ibid._ p. 316. _Gibson\u2019s_ Codex, p. 65. _2nd Edit._\n[46] _Glossarium_, in voc.\n[47] _Coke_: Part i. lib. ii. c. 12, sect. 215.\n[48] _Statutes of the Realm_, vol. ii. p. 70, 71. _Lond._ 1816.\n[50] See _Gibson_, Codex, Tit. xxxv. p. 824. _Godolphin_, Repertorium, c.\nxxx. _Ayliffe_, Parergon, p. 63.\n[51] Stat. 25, _Hen._ VIII. c. 21. _Gibson\u2019s_ Codex, p. 87.\n[52] Vit. _Joach._ c. v. _Acta Sanctorum, Maii_ tom. vii. p. 103.\n[55] See the _Beguin_ Confessions in the _Liber Sententiar. Inquis.\nTolos._ pp. 298, 303, published by _Limborch. Hist. Inquisit._\n[56] _Tract. de Antichristo_, fol. 48, b.\n[57] See p. xxvii, _et seq._\n[58] _Fox\u2019s_ Acts and Monuments, vol. i. p. 545. _Lond._ fol. 1684.\n[59] _Opp. S. Bernardi._ Ed. Bened. p. 1396. C. tom. iv.\n[60] In Cant. Serm. xxxiii. s. 15.\n[62] _Wallisii_ Gram. Anglic. p. 86. _Lond._ 8vo. 1765.\n[65] Opp. B. _Hieronymi_. tom. viii. Ed. _Vallarsii_.\n[66] Sacr\u00e6 Hist. lib. ii. p. 95, 12mo. Amstel. 1695.\n[67] Catech. vi. 14.\n[68] _Library of the Fathers_, (vol. ii. Transl.) 8vo. _Oxford_, 1838, p.\n[69] Matt. xviii. 19.\n[72] Sibyllina Oracula ex vett. Codd. Aucta, &c. a Joh. Ops. Brettanno,\n[73] _Statutes of the Realm_, vol. i. p. 316.\n[74] _Gibson\u2019s_ Codex, p. 65.\n[75] B. _Hieron._ in Matt. xxi. 12, 13, tom. vii. Ed. _Vallarsii_, 4to.\n[78] See _Boccacio_ Decameron, _Giorn_, 1\u1d50\u1d43.\n[79] _Caxton\u2019s Chronicle_, fol. Lond. 1528, fol. c.xxiii.a.\n[80] Fol. cxxiii. d.\n[83] _D\u2019Achery_, Spicileg. tom. iii. p. 109, sq.\n[85] De event. _Angli\u00e6_. (Apud x. Script.) Col. 2580.\n[86] See p. xxxi.\n[87] _Galf. Monmuthen_. lib. vii. c. 3, ap. _Rer. Brittan. Scriptores._\n[88] _Cod._ MS. _in Bibl._ Coll. SS. Trin. Dubl. _Cl._ B. _Tab._ 2, _No._\n[89] Vid. _Contin. altera Chronici_ Gul. de Nangis, _ap._ Dacherii\n_Spicil._ t. iii. 104, _where this Prophecy is attributed to_ Johannes de\nMuis.\n[90] _Cod._ MS. _in Bibl._ Coll. SS. Trin. Dubl. _Class._ E. _Tab._ 5,\n_No._ 10, fol. xliii.\n[91] _Prophetia Anglicana_ vii. Libris explanationum _Alani de Insulis_.\nFrancof. 1603. 12\u1d50\u1d52. lib. iii. p. 91.\n[92] _Cod. MS. in Biblioth._ Coll. SS. Trin. Dublin. Class. E. Tab. 5,\n[93] _Deest titul. in Cod. Dublin._\n[94] _Gallus_ succumbet. A. D.\n[95] Victoria. D.\n[96] Abhorrebit. D.\n[98] Aliis. D.\n[99] Erit, quem. A.\n[101] Cessabunt gaudia. D.\n[102] Limborch. _Hist. Inquisit._ ad fin. p. 303.\n[103] Hist. of the Life of _Wiclif._ Oxf. 1820. (_Table of obsolete\nWords_; in voc.)\n[104] _Petri Comestoris_ Hist. Schol. 8\u1d52. Florent. 1526. _fol._ cxvii.\n[105] Berchorii _Red. Mor._ lib. xiv. c. 60. n. 4. p. 658. fol. Venet.\n[106] _Gesta Romanorum_, &c. translated from the Latin by the Rev.\n_Charles Swan_. 2 vols. 12\u1d52. _London_, 1824.\n[107] _Talmud Babyl._ Tract. _Gittin._ fol. 68. col. 1, 2.", "source_dataset": "gutenberg", "source_dataset_detailed": "gutenberg -  The last age of the church\n"}
]