Dear, dear friends and the Church
of God in Gadsden, it's so good to be with you. But I feel very
humble now because I heard such good, indeed great lectures here
on how the English Bible came to be. And those talks were absolutely
excellent and worthy of any great professor. And so I feel like
a little schoolboy now standing here and wondering why on earth
have they taken me from Germany to come here when they've such
good men here. But then I think, well, the Lord
is doing me a favour. I'm learning here to grow in
grace and in the knowledge of the truth. And I feel very much
united with you in the faith. And I can tell you truly, Gadsden
in three days has become very much my home from home. Well, my theme today is John
Wycliffe. He lived 1320 to 1384 and I call
him, as everybody else does, the star of the Reformation. But you will soon find I disagree
with several scholars on Wycliffe because they say he was the star
who went up in the night and then the dawn came afterwards
150 to 200 years afterwards in the
great English Reformation. Well, my Wycliffe is not just
the beginning of the Reformation he wasn't there just at the start
getting ready in the starting blocks he was there at the finish
spreading out his arms as he went through the tape because
there was never a time in England when England was so reformed
as under the great ministry of John Wycliffe. So I introduce
John Wycliffe as a thorough going reformer. He was elected by God
to continue the work of Englishmen Robert Greathead and Thomas Bradwardine. They were reformers before the
reformer Whitcliffe and this shows us that there was not darkness
over the face of the earth before the 16th century reformers came,
but God was continually reforming his church. And the first teaching
of the English reformers in the 16th century was that we are
not pioneers, we are continuing the work of Christ in England. Now, John Wycliffe became the
main source of inspiration outside of the Bible to great men of
the continent too, such as John Hus, Jerome of Prague and Martin
Luther himself. If John Wycliffe had not had
been, perhaps these men would not have been either. Wycliffe's
thoroughgoing reforms laid the doctrinal, exegetical and spiritual
foundation for the 15th century British and Continental Reformation. As Wycliffe was more comprehensive
in his teaching than many of his reforming successors, all
Christians should familiarise themselves with his testimony
and work. If you understand Wycliffe aright,
you understand Reformation aright. But sadly, he has become a prophet
without honour. European continentals have recorded
the lives of their major reformers in minute detail. So, sadly,
the English-speaking world of today knows more about Luther
than their own greater reformers, including John Wycliffe. Our subject was born in Spresswell,
near the former town of Old Richmond, in present-day Teesdale, not
far away from the village of Wycliffe. Now, last year I had
the privilege of speaking in Wycliffe's birthplace. And you would almost think it
was just... I was going back into time because
the village looks almost the same as it did in Wycliffe's
days. Most of the buildings are four
to six hundred years of age, standing today. And in August,
when I return to Europe, I'll be speaking at Oxford University
in Wycliffe Hall. So Wycliffe is following me all
around the world these days. Nothing is known of Wycliffe's
early education and student life. Several documents dated 1361
refer to Wycliffe as Master of Balliol, Oxford. So our first
historical evidence of a reformer refers to a man who must have
been in his early forties. We know too that Wycliffe became
Rector of Fillingham in Lincolnshire soon afterwards. However, John
Wycliffe became Warden of the newly founded Canterbury Hall
in 1665 through the intervention of Archbishop Islip. but Archbishop
Langham, Isliff's successor, deposed Wycliffe in 1367 and
put the hall in the hands of the monks. Professor Leschler,
perhaps the greatest Wycliffe scholar ever, presents a solid
case to prove that this John Wycliffe is indeed the reformer,
otherwise we would know next to nothing of this period in
Wycliffe's life. We know that by 1374 Wycliffe
had gained his Doctor of Divinity and we find him at Oxford engrossed
in deep studies and writing books. Wycliffe's major works were never
translated nor printed, and it is easier to find and consult
handwritten copies of his works in the Continental Libraries
than in Britain. It is thus thanks to Continental
scholars such as Budenzeig, Losert and Leschler, and the work of
the Imperial Library of Vienna, that English-speaking Christians
have gained knowledge of his voluminous works and the few
facts we know about Wycliffe's life. Now, how Wycliffe's opposition
to Rome began. Wycliffe commenced his reforms
by publishing a scholarly refutation of papal claims for feudatory
tribute from England based on promises made by traitor King
John. You youngsters will be familiar
with the Robin Hood tales and they feature that evil King John
and those stories don't exaggerate his wickedness. From then on
Wycliffe became the anti-papal party's spokesman. He then became
either a member of parliament or a parliamentary advisor on
ecclesiastical matters. And in 1374 Edward III sent him
to Bruges in Belgium to take part in an Anglo-French peace
conference led by his son John of Gaunt. Wycliffe's duties were
to convince the Avignon Pope, at that time the Pope was in
France and not in Rome, he had to convince the Pope's commissaries
that their employer had no legal claim on either England or the
English Church. The Pope decided to admit nothing
and demand nothing. So the conference ended, practically
speaking, with the Pope still making claims on England and
the English refusing them, both sides tacitly agreeing to a status
quo. Two gains for the English were
that the Curia promised not to challenge the rights of ministers
appointed by the English Church. and they also agreed that the
income of foreign cardinals holding sinecure posts in England should
be taxed to finance the restoration of the church buildings in England,
which they had allowed to fall into ruins. At the beginning
of Edward III's reign, the Pope's income from English churches
was five times greater than English royal taxes accrued by the King. This was chiefly because there
was as yet no real legal separation between France and England. We were one nation, or they were
one nation, I should say. And the French clergy owned vast
properties in England. It was the combined efforts of
Thomas Bradward Dean, followed by John Wycliffe and the King,
assisted by his son John and the English Parliament to correct
such a balance in the favour of the English people. Chiefly
because of Wycliffe's influence in persuading Parliament to prevent
foreign church ownership in England, the 1376 Parliament was called
the Good Parliament. King Edward died in June 1377
leaving behind him a country and church more reformed than
after Henry VIII's death. Shortly before Edward's death
the Avignon Papacy was re-established in Rome and the Roman court made
further claims on England Whitcliffe was declared the papacy's greatest
enemy and the English bishops were urged to stop him preaching
against Rome now, early attempts to discredit
Whitcliffe Whitcliffe was appointed rector of Lutterworth, Leicestershire
in 1374 and resigned all other posts now, believing that it
was wrong for a minister to be a pluralist, to have several
parishes just because of the money involved. In 1377 he was
summoned before Convocation. Convocation is the Church of
England court. The charges brought against him
were entirely political, so the Duke of Lancaster, John of Gaunt,
decided to accompany Wycliffe as his advisor. William Courtenay,
Bishop of London, heir of a rival noble line to John of Gaunt,
and the instigator behind Wycliffe's summons, strove in vain to have
John banned from attending the convention. Before Wycliffe was
asked a single question, a great brawl ensued between Courtenay,
his followers, and John of Gaunt. The Convocation ended without
Wycliffe being questioned at all, so he could go a free man. Failing in his efforts to discredit
Wycliffe at Convocation, Courtenay persuaded the Pope to produce
five papal bulls against Wycliffe. That was far more than Luther
got. Three bulls authorised Archbishop Sudbury and Bishop Kirtany to
arrest Wycliffe and drag him before the Pope. One was sent
to the terminally ill King and one sent to Oxford University.
Because of the strong English opposition, Kirtany had to do
seven months scheming and planning before he dared publish the bulls. The King's death made his bull
void and Parliament was in no mood to tolerate papal criticism
of ever popular John Wycliffe. The only problem the University
had at Oxford was whether to formally acknowledge the bull,
then ignore it, or reject it with total contempt. They did
the latter. Wycliffe was called to Lambeth to answer further charges. Sudbury and Courtenay dropped
all mention of imprisonment and merely invited Wycliffe to Lambeth,
that was the seat of the Archbishop, concerning 19 articles allegedly
culled from Wycliffe's works, condemning foreign intervention
in English affairs. I say allegedly culled because
they were pure invention. Wycliffe turned up well prepared
but the hearing was interrupted because members of the court
and the citizens of London ridiculed the bishops for questioning the
integrity of a man so loved and honoured. Wycliffe easily dealt
with the Pope's accusation that he was a revolutionary in his
politics as he was a chief advisor of both the Court and Parliament
and obviously stood for King, England and the English Church.
He also stated firmly that as Rome was in open error no Christian
person or country was bound to follow her. Concerning the Pope's
alleged keys the spiritual keys and the earthly keys, Wycliffe
argued that such keys, be they what they may, could only be
used within the gospel and not to enrich the papal treasury. Also Wycliffe added that any
clergyman in England must be accountable before the law in
England and no man is above that law. Concerning the Pope's practice
of excommunicating rich people so that he could take over their
property, Wycliffe argued that excommunication had merely to
do with God's matters and not with people's temporal goods. As Wycliffe had scripture, canonical
law, and the law of the land behind him, and was more than
matched for his accusers Sudbury and Kirtany, then they had to
retreat. To save face, they merely told
Wycliffe that he must not include the 19 articles in his sermons
and lectures, as they would offend the laity. This did not bother
the reformer at all. He had never set up the Articles
in the first place and they had been invented by his enemies. Now, a comparison between Wycliffe
and Luther and people might giggle here and say what is the use
of comparing a dwarf to a giant? The dwarf being Wycliffe and
Luther being the giant. I am of an entirely different
opinion. With nothing to fear from either
England or Rome Wycliffe continued his pastoral duties preaching
industriously and training evangelists. From now on Wycliffe was at the
forefront of our reformers as he began to rid the French Roman
preaching traditions in England of all that was unbiblical. He also taught his followers
to ignore the highfalutin language of the philosopher or the preaching
in rhyme that was so common in his day and speak, as Luther
argued a century and a half later, the plain language of the people. Indeed, there are many parallels
between Wycliffe and Luther. The Germans' initial protest
was against the fundraising perversions of Tetzel, who through vain promises
of indulgences enriched the treasuries of Rome. Wycliffe dealt with
the wiles of Arnold Garnier, who was far more dangerous in
England than in Germany. Garnier was the papal nuncio
and receiver who travelled throughout England amassing huge sums from
indulgences and the like which he transported to Rome. Wycliffe
charged him with perjury as he had taken an oath before the
king to respect the financial rights of crown and country,
yet exported monies which belonged to the English state, people
and church. Like Luther too, Wycliffe gained
the backing of a powerful nobleman and was able to influence the
lawmakers. In this Wycliffe was far more
successful than Luther as the entire people of England represented
by court, parliament, universities and the majority of the clergy
took Wycliffe's side on the issue of redresses against Rome. Luther never won even a third
of the Germans for his cause. Wycliffe as Luther witnessed
a peasant's revolt and, as in the case of Luther, he was given
the blame for being its author. Sadly too, the English revolt
became a most bloody affair and the 100,000 man strong peasants
army removed many heads, including that of Archbishop Sudbury, Wycliffe's
greatest enemy. He was then the Chancellor of
the Kingdom. However, Luther interfered deeply
and personally in the German revolt. Now on one side, now
on the other. Wycliffe condemned the English
revolt without losing his standing with the common people. Similar
to Luther's case is the aftermath of Wycliffe's life. Luther's
theology was watered down by his successors who put church
order before doctrine. This is what happened to Wycliffe's
reformed legacy. Luther's reformation sparked
off the counter-reformation on the continent, just as Wycliffe's
reformation sparked off a counter-reformation under Archbishop Courtenay. In many ways Wycliffe's reforms
were greater than Luther's. The German never really attempted
to reform the ancient German church founded by British missionaries,
but opted out and established a new and rival denomination. Wycliffe stood his ground in
the ancient church Remember, the Roman Catholic Church sought
to gain influence over the English Church first in the 7th century whereas the English Church dated
from the end of the 1st century. So, Rome was very late in Britain
and they never gained fully the upper hand. So, Wycliffe was
only throwing out the rubbish that had come later into the
Church of England. Now, Wycliffe and itinerant preaching. Wycliffe also revived the sending
out of itinerant preachers according to the biblical pattern of the
Seventy. This kind of preaching had been
taken over by the Franciscan and Dominican monks and had become
mere storytelling to titivate the fancy and line their own
pockets with money. Great Head, the predecessor of
Wycliffe, had welcomed the friars because they preached where there
were no established churches. But Wycliffe detested them as
by his day they had become fat, mean and worldly, begging in
rags amongst the people but living like lords in fine garments in
their abbey-cum-palaces. Wycliffe's method of sending
out preachers was not without due regard to their abilities,
soundness and church calling. The modern criticism that Wycliffe
sent out uneducated tub-thumpers is quite false. William Thorpe
demonstrated clearly, he was a contemporary, that the cradle
of the preaching schools was Oxford University. Like Wesley
in his holy club, Wycliffe sent out students and masters to visit
the sick, clothe the poor and preach the good tidings. Unlike
Wesley, however, Wycliffe stressed gospel preaching and the doctrines
of grace rather than the high church, mystical, do-goodism
of Wesley's holy club days. In his tract of academic degrees,
however, Wycliffe argues that the sending out of suitable non-college
trained preachers is in keeping with the practice of the Church
of England. Now, Wycliffe and the English
Bible. Wycliffe taught that evangelism should start with the Word of
God. and strove with great success to provide his people with the
scriptures in English and with sound commentaries. Much of the
Bible had been translated into Old Anglo-Saxon and was used
by the common people until well into the 12th century. But by
1375 it was no longer understood by the populace. Anglo-Norman
versions had replaced Anglo-Saxon but this was now only understood
by the nobility and learned. Middle English, still preserved
in the Yorkshire morality place, Middle English is still spoken
in the north of England, became the common language until well
into the 15th century and then remained in local dialects. The
fact that the English of Wycliffe's day had no Bible in their mother
tongue is chiefly because there was no English tongue to put
the Bible into. This partly explains the popularity
of the Vulgate. The Vulgate in England, at last,
it was more widespread than all the different Anglo-Saxon and
Middle English dialects. Here again we can compare Wycliffe
with Luther. The latter put the Bible into
his local Meissen dialect which influenced modern High German. Wycliffe and his school put the
Bible into the developing Middle High English and helped to create
thus modern Standard English. I shall comment on this further
tomorrow. the point that interests me the
most, Wycliffe's doctrines. Wycliffe's doctrinal contribution
to the evangelical cause is so vast and comprehensive that it
can only be summarized here in a most unsatisfactory, selective
way. First and foremost, the authority
of scripture. Scripture is intrinsically related
to divine authority and is the sole, unconditional and binding
rule of the Church and the individual's walk with God. The Scriptures
are the will, testament and testimony of God and cannot be broken, as God and His Word are inseparably
one. The Word is a Spirit-filled,
Christ-authored action of the Father in salvation and condemnation. It is a Word that never returns
to God void. When God's Word speaks, God speaks. Wycliffe is thus far more reformed
in his doctrine than either Luther, Zwingli and Calvin. who placed
one passage of scripture above another, seeing degrees in inspiration. The whole Bible for Wycliffe
is Christ's law, i.e. the standard by which Christ
exists, which reveals Christ's own nature. To be ignorant of
God's Word is to be ignorant of Christ, in whom alone there
is salvation. Wycliffe concludes from this
that the scriptures are all sufficient in matters of faith and order
and universal in their application in that God governs his world
in accordance with his word. Modern pseudo-reformed critics
tell us that Wycliffe does not distinguish between law and gospel
radically enough. This is to misunderstand the
reformer The Mosaic Law gives us the standard that the evangelical
law, this is Wycliffe's expression, is the rule by which Christ fulfils
the law on our behalf, which is the gospel. I personally follow
Wycliffe fully here and have been recently denounced by the
Banner of Truth Trust magazine for taking this position. but this is the reformed position. Our standard is the Ten Commandments,
yes, but not only the Ten Commandments, the whole Bible is our standard
and the whole Bible, the whole Gospel is Christ's law for us. Now, the being of God, Here again Wycliffe helps us
in the modern debate concerning God's infinite acts. It belongs
to God's infinity that he is omniscient, omnipotent and immutable. God's will and power are thus
evident in all he does. All that pertains to creation
and the new creation is the product of his act. from eternity. Wycliffe thus argues that all
that ever was and will be is in God's omniscience. God never makes a beginning or
end of willing or knowing. Thus all the blessings of salvation
are activated from eternity. Leschler argues that Wycliffe
is weak on the timing of justification. But for Wycliffe, all the blessings
of salvation are part of God's immutable will and are beyond
timing. What God knows and wills is. Thus eternity is not a characteristic
parallel with God, it is the measure of the Godhead. the nature
of the very being of God. Eternity is because God is. And that's the beginning and
end of the eternal story. That seems a bit silly, doesn't
it? I'll erase that because eternity has no beginning and end. But
you know what I mean, it's the beginning and the end of this
truth. Eternity is because God is and
there's no debate about it. Now, creation and the new creation. Wycliffe combated the Roman and
later Armenian and Fulbright view that creation and the new
creation were arbitrary, i.e. God could have organized everything
quite differently. But God's acts, says Wycliffe,
are necessitated by God's nature. God made the world as it is because
it fulfilled God's perfect will. This will also necessitates making,
giving and loving. And this is how the world and
man came to be created. Because God is omniscient, omnipotent
and immutable, He acts as He is. It would be a denial of His
own nature to draw distinction between His own necessity and
His own sovereign pleasure. There was none other good enough
to pay the price of sin but the Son. So there was no other way
to pay it but the way God chose as the way. God never denies
himself and never needs a plan B. What he wills is and could
be no other. as it is in accordance with His
sovereign pleasure and His holiness and justice. To argue that God
might have chosen, for instance, the Old Testament sacrifices
to save us and not His Son, as Fuller intentionally argues,
would be to say that God does not hold to the best of ways,
which is thus the only way. Indeed, it suggests that God
could have denied his Son. It would be to argue that John
3.16's message is just an unnecessary alternative. God, if he would
have liked, could have saved us any other way, but that wouldn't
have been our God. It would be to submit God to
our method of idle speculation and alternative thinking produced
by the fallibility of our own nature. It would be to expect
God to work along Wesleyan arbitrary lines of chance. God's plan for
his elect must take its necessary course because what God decrees
in eternity exists. as an external fact. Sorry, I'm
tripping up over my own words again. Must exist as an eternal
fact. In eternity there is no distinction
between God's determination and the event He determines. The one of necessity accompanies
the other. The whole trouble I have with
the banner of truth is because I believe that God acts from
eternity. And they say God acts from time. But where ever could God act
but in the eternity in which he dwells. And God is not a product
of time. Wycliffe's Romanist enemies criticised
him for making God's sovereignty absolute in salvation from eternity,
thus ignoring human agency. You have a redemption, they told
him, which is accomplished but not applied. They believe, as
many modern reformed people, in election by reception. They say there are no decrees
in eternity, everything happens in time should the sinner wish
it. Rubbish. Wycliffe showed that
his critics were separating the inseparable. Christ is everywhere
in the midst of his church and sticks closer than a brother.
He is the Bishop of our souls and eternal priest and He it
is who empowers us by His Spirit to move to Him and be found in
Him and in Him have their being. Christ thus draws all His elect
to Himself and gives them the wherewithal to repent of their
sins and own Christ as Saviour. Application and reception are
thus both essential parts of the all-embracing accomplishment
of the salvation of the elect. Wycliffe insisted that this does
not mean that there is any source of salvation in man's own will,
but that even his reception of Christ is derived from Christ's
saving promptings. Even the personal consciousness
of a sinner that Christ has saved him is given him by his Saviour. So dear friends, I think you
will notice that I do not believe in such a legal thing as duty,
faith. The sinner is lost. He knows
nothing of faith until Christ gives him it. Wycliffe believed
that repentance itself was a product of Christ's application of salvation
and that this was the initialising of the work of sanctification
in the sinner's life. This work of sanctification in
man, according to Wycliffe, is also part and parcel of his walk
in faith. He thus argued that faith is
not merely head knowledge of Christ, but a state of feeling
or moral activity in which the believer is prompted by his love
for Christ, founded on Christ's love for him, to forsake his
old selfish sinful ways and serve Christ. Thus Wycliffe sees no
systematic distinction between repentance, conversion, sanctification,
faith and good works. never was a reformer more comprehensive
in his insistence on the wholeness of salvation. Leschler believes
that Wycliffe thus denied salvation by faith alone, but Wycliffe
would answer that there is no such thing as faith alone in
the sense that it contrasts with other aspects of salvation. Faith
compromises the whole of being in Christ and all that this produces
in the elect. Thus the sinner is justified
by the entire salvation which is given the sinner and which
embodies his faith. Now briefly, the church. Wycliffe
sincerely believed and taught that the church built on the
foundation of grace was nothing else but the whole number of
the elect. Sadly, much denominational thinking
of today defines the true marks of the Church in terms of Church
order, hierarchy, discipline and ordinances. The Church's
centre for Wycliffe is the incorporation in the body of Christ as Christ's
Bride. The Church's seat is in eternity. Thus the Church as seen in the
world is only a temporary manifestation of the permanent inheritance
of the saints which is reserved in heaven for them. Church membership is therefore
election to grace. The idea of the Roman Catholic
Church that salvation came by being part of the organization
and hierarchy of the visible institutionalized church was
anathema to Wycliffe. There is a priesthood in the
true church, Wycliffe argued, but this is the priesthood of
all believers with Christ as the church's high priest. So, we must remember here, though,
that Rome wasn't organised as it is today. There were actually
two popes who were arguing the one against the other, which
made it much easier for Wycliffe and his followers to show what
a mix-up Rome was. So now in the days of the two
popes there came renewed opposition. England had two enemies, not
one. The rival claims to the papacy of Urban VI and Clement
VII and the beheading of Archbishop and Chancellor Sudbury by the
peasant mobs in 1381 brought great unrest in England's church. Wycliffe's old adversary William
Courtenay became Sudbury's successor. Gaunt immediately forced the
Papist to resign his chancellorship. The enraged Archbishop sided
with Pope Urban and now made it his major task to condemn
Wycliffe and curb his influence in church and country. Ignoring
Parliament and Oxford, he schemed to win over the young, weak and
rather paranoid Richard too, for his plans Edward died, but
Anne of Bohemia, the King's wife, was an ardent supporter of Wycliffe. and though Richard humoured the
Archbishop in bringing out patents and statutes against Wycliffe,
he found no support in his wife's vast influence and no support
in Parliament either, and none at the universities. Wycliffe
was still one of the most respected and protected men in the country,
so Courtenay developed a long-term strategy. he would discredit
Whitefield's doctrines, curb the activities of his itinerants,
and then strike at isolated Wycliffe. This proved difficult. The real
distinction between the papacy and the English Church was concerned
with papist politics, and doctrinal distinctions did not play the
same part for the Romanists as they did in the days of Bloody
Mary. This is illustrated by Kirtany,
who, when he had found a document from Wycliffe's pen that he thought
proved that Wycliffe had recanted, it was found to contain nothing
but the Bible truths Wycliffe had preached all along. With
all his faults, Kirtany was no bonner or gardener. Bonner and
Gardiner were the two bloody bishops under Mary. He had merely chosen the wrong
side in his efforts to govern England and her church. Nicholas
Hereford realized which way the doctrinal winds were blowing
and strove to nip the cancerous growth in the bud by visiting
Urban VI to tell him about Wycliffe's doctrines and methods of training
preachers. 200 years later the Pope would
have sentenced Hereford to death on the spot, but Urban merely
imprisoned the dauntless English reformer. But now we see how
Rome was still so very weak in those days. He was released by
Roman citizens who, tired of their pontiff, stormed the papal
prison in 1385. They refused to obey their own
Pope. So the Roman Catholic Church
was in rebellion against the Pope. Hereford quickly returned
to England to take up Wycliffe's mantle. Meanwhile Wycliffe continued
his ministry in Lutterworth and published a vast number of tracts
and sermons outlining the evangelical faith. Though his writings were
now condemned by the ecclesiastical authorities the miracle is that
no one dared to interfere with his person or his parish. In 1382 Wycliffe received a paralytical
stroke which put an end to his active ministry and he died as
a result of a further stroke two years later. We have sadly
no famous last words of the saint who was so badly paralyzed that
he could not even move his tongue. The British nation must look
back on the 14th century with a laughing and a crying eye. The joy is engendered by knowing
that there was perhaps never a man of God who was able to
clean up the visible church, as did Wycliffe. The crying eye
indicates the sorrow and shame Britain must feel to know that
her country of today is in many respects more under the power
of an apostate Rome than ever she was in Wycliffe's days. Once again, Rome is one of England's
greatest landowners and millions of pounds leave the islands yearly
to promote papal superstition, papal private armies and the
papal political stranglehold on the nations and their media. May God send England another
Wycliffe. And may he be one who delights
in visiting America very often too. Amen. Thank you very much for listening.