Late Middle Ages
Oxford / Lutterworth, England
Realism
Declared a heretic after his death
Also: John Wyclif
⭐ His influence was indirect, but very deep. His teaching reached Prague in Bohemia, where Hus built on it a lasting movement before Protestantism; and, as Olson puts it, in the end Luther stood on the shoulders of Hus and Wycliffe. ⚠ His English followers were called the Lollards, a society of poor lay preachers who, Olson notes, helped bring about the English Reformation. His work of Bible translation bore fruit in his followers' hands, who published the first English Bible, the Wycliffe Bible; the largest Bible translation organization in the world today is named after him. ⚠ A modern biographer's verdict (it is a verdict, not a fact of history, and we say clearly whose it is): Wycliffe's onslaught, this biographer judges, was so effective, and dealt the corruption of the church such a deadly blow, that it spared the reformers of the 16th century the trouble of doing it again.
Below: first his own position, then the church’s verdict — kept separate. A rejected opinion keeps equal weight here.
His own position
⭐⭐ The thing most worth remembering about him on this thread is that he reached the same conclusion as Ockham by the opposite method. Ockham was a nominalist; Wycliffe, as Olson calls him, was an ardent realist, who on the question of universals went back to the Platonic Christian tradition of the early church and of Augustine, and stood on the same side as Anselm. Olson states it plainly: although they reached many of the same conclusions about the church, Wycliffe and Ockham were very far apart in their basic philosophical and theological method; like Ockham, Wycliffe believed that the papacy was corrupt and that the church should be governed by the people of God through their representatives, not by orders from a hierarchy of clergy. ⚠ This tells the reader one thing: this conclusion about the church is not the property of any one metaphysics.
⭐ And his most important step on the line of authority was to move the standard to Scripture. Olson records that papal infallibility was not formally proclaimed before the 19th century, but in practice the words and acts of medieval popes were treated as absolute authority — and Wycliffe rejected all of this completely; in his view, Olson says, even the pope had to keep a standard drawn wholly from the teaching of Scripture. After 1380 he began to call the pope the Antichrist. He also urged that the whole Bible be translated into the language the people used, so that all Christians could read and study it for themselves (⚠ this step belongs also to the thread on Scripture and Tradition).
⚠ His language was anything but polite, and we record it as it is. As Olson gives his words: so the wicked pope is an antichrist and a devil, for he is at once falsehood itself and the father of lies. He called the begging friars of his own country adulterers of the word of God, wearing the cloaks of harlots and colored habits. From 1378 he denounced the Great Schism of the Western church (when, as Olson puts it, first two men and then three declared themselves pope), and he carried the fight to transubstantiation and other main Catholic doctrines.
⭐Scripture and Tradition — moving the standard to Scripture, and putting Scripture into people's hands. His step on the line of authority (even the pope must keep a standard drawn wholly from the teaching of Scripture) has a necessary next step on this thread: he urged that the whole Bible be translated into the language the people used, so that, as Olson puts it, all Christians could read and study the Bible for themselves.
⚠ Please take these two steps together: if the standard is Scripture, but only the clergy can read Scripture, then in practice the standard is Scripture still means the standard is the clergy. ⭐ So translation was not a good deed on the side; it was a necessary condition of the claim itself.
⚠ His efforts bore fruit in his followers: they published the first English Bible, the Wycliffe Bible; the largest Bible translation organization in the world today is named after him. And after his death his bones were dug up and burned (see the field on the church's verdict) — please remember these two things together, as the two ends of one and the same thing.
The church’s verdict
⚠ We record what was done to him in life and after his death separately, because they are not the same thing. In life: in 1377 the pope, at the request of his Oxford colleagues, condemned him on 18 errors, and he was ordered to appear before the English bishops — he escaped a showdown because the king's mother strongly supported him. Later, because of his radical teaching, he was driven out of the University of Oxford and went back to Lutterworth as parish priest; on the last day of 1384 he suffered a heart attack while leading worship, and died. ⭐ After his death: in 1415 the Council of Constance condemned him as a heretic and formally excommunicated him; in 1428 the bishop of Lincoln had his remains dug up, burned, and scattered in the River Swift. ⚠ We record this section as it is, without comment — that a man's bones had to be dug up and burned forty-four years after his death says by itself what this thread was fighting over.
⚠Why this field is shorter than his position field. Because in his lifetime he was almost never formally judged. The condemnation of 1377 came to nothing because the king's mother protected him; after that he was driven out of Oxford and went home to serve as a pastor until he died of illness — he fell in his own pulpit, not at the stake. ⭐ The real verdicts all came after his death: thirty-one years later a council declared him a heretic and excommunicated him, and forty-four years later his remains were dug up and burned. We keep this imbalance and do not smooth it over — the imbalance is itself part of the history.
⚠ And the cost fell on the living: his followers, the Lollards, were, as Olson puts it, a society of poor lay preachers; and after his teaching reached Bohemia, Hus was tied to the stake and burned at the same Council of Constance. ⭐ That is: the council that condemned Wycliffe himself also burned the man who carried on his work.
What was at stake for salvation
Like Ockham, what he shook was not one doctrine or another but who has the right to rule on doctrine. If the standard is Scripture, and even the pope must stand under that standard, then salvation no longer depends on communion with a particular bishop — the exact opposite of Cyprian's system.
Principal works
-
On the Church
On the Church
-
On the Power of the Pope
On the Power of the Pope
-
On the Truth of Holy Scripture
On the Truth of the Holy Scriptures; ⚠ belongs to the thread on Scripture and Tradition
-
On Divine Lordship
On Divine Lordship
-
On Civil Lordship
On Civil Lordship
-
On the Pastoral Office
On the Pastoral Office
Threads he belongs to
Ecclesiology and Authority
Dispute Counterclaim ⭐⭐ He was a realist and Ockham a nominalist — opposite methods, and almost the same conclusion about the church. That conclusion is not the property of any one metaphysics.
Scripture and Tradition
Dispute Counterclaim ⭐ 若标准是圣经而圣经只有神职人员读得到，那「标准在圣经」实际仍等于「标准在神职人员」——所以翻译是那个主张的必要条件。