Mercy Meets Misery: the Presentation of Divine Mercy in the Macaronic Sermons of MS Bodley 649

Mercy Meets Misery: The Presentation of Divine Mercy in the Macaronic Sermons of MS Bodley 649

Diana Marie Alexander

A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of St. Michael’s College and the Graduate Centre for Theological Studies of the Toronto School of Theology. In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Theology awarded by the University of St. Michael’s College.

Mercy Meets Misery: The Presentation of Divine Mercy in the Macaronic Sermons of MS Bodley 649

Diana Marie Alexander

Master of Arts in Theology

University of St. Michael’s College

2018 Abstract

The first half of the manuscript in the Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 649, is a collection of

Sermons written in England in the first quarter of the fifteenth century. These sermons provide a wealth of information in a number of areas, and have been studied especially, but not exclusively, for their linguistic and historical interest as well as the political views of the anonymous author.

References to divine mercy abound in the sermons: adjectives describing the God of mercy; metaphors for mercy; exhortations to trust in the mercy of God, to accept that mercy and to show it to others through, especially, the corporal works of mercy. This thesis begins to study the theology that underlies some of the writer’s presentation, especially the influence of Anselm of

Canterbury. The illustration of this influence is compared briefly to other presentations of mercy in these sermons.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks are due first to my community, the Religious Sisters of Mercy of Alma, Michigan, who sent me into these studies, and have supported me throughout with their understanding, encouragement, and untold hours of prayer. Thanks as well to the Sisters of Life, who generously welcomed me to pray and live with them while studying in Toronto.

Thanks and kudos to the staff of the John M. Kelly Library. Their cheerful and professional help in so many steps of this study have been invaluable. Thanks as well to all of the staff of the University of St. Michael’s College, who have answered questions and provided the necessary guidance since I arrived.

Heartfelt thanks to Dean James Ginther, who introduced me to Saint Anselm, and has guided and encouraged every step of this thesis. I have gained more from this study than can be said or written.

May God bless you.

iii

Contents

List of Abbreviations ...... vi

Introduction ...... 1

Chapter 1: The Manuscript, the Preacher and his World

1.1 The Manuscript: Physical Description and Dating ...... 7

1.2 The Preacher ...... 11

1.3 The Preacher’s World

1.3.1 The Languages ...... 13

1.3.2 The Audience ...... 14

1.3.3 Preaching in Late Medieval England ...... 14

1.3.4 Themes of Importance to the Writer ...... 17

1.3.5 Historic Events not Mentioned by the Preacher ...... 20

1.3.6 The Place of Mercy in Late Medieval England ...... 20

Chapter 2: Mercy in the Context of the Divine

2.1 Order in the Preacher’s World-view ...... 22

2.1.1. Social Structure ...... 22

2.1.2 The Order of the Human Person ...... 24

2.2 Salvation History in Sermon 17 ...... 27

2.2.1 An Ideal Order ...... 27

2.2.2 The Human Tendency to Sin ...... 29

2.2.3 The Human Inability to Overcome Sin ...... 31

2.2.4. God’s Response to Human Need ...... 34

2.2.5. The Effects of the Passion of Christ ...... 37

2.3. Other Theologies of Sin and Mercy ...... 39

2.4. Consideration of the Author’s Use of Images...... 43

2.5. The Offer of Divine Mercy Begins with God ...... 47

2.6. The Response of the Individual ...... 48

2.7. The Importance of the Sacraments ...... 49

2.8. The Importance of the Works of Mercy ...... 51

Chapter 3: The Lollard Threat

3.1. The Accusations of the Preacher ...... 53

3.2. The Work of Wycliffe ...... 53

3.3. Those Who Were Influenced by Wycliffe ...... 55

3.4. The Preacher’s View of the Lollards ...... 56

Conclusion: A Different View of Unseen Realities ...... 61

Bibliography ...... 65

Appendix: Outline of Sermon 17 ...... 69

List of Abbreviations

A Macaronic Sermon Collection A Macaronic Sermon Collection from Late Medieval England: Oxford, MS Bodley 649

Bilingualism and Preaching Macaronic Sermons: Bilingualism and Preaching in Late Medieval England

Benedictines Preaching: Evidence Benedictines and Preaching in Fifteenth-Century England: The Evidence of Two Bodleian Library Manuscripts

CDH Cur Deus Homo, translated by J. Fairweather

Cur Deus Homo In Opera Omnia, ed. F. S. Schmitt

Ecclesia Anglicana Ecclesia Anglicana: Studies in the English Church of the Later Middle Ages

Latin Sermon Collections Latin Sermon Collections from Later Medieval England

Preaching in the Age of Chaucer Preaching in the Age of Chaucer: Selected Sermons in Translation

Preaching the Pastoralia Benedictines and Preaching the Pastoralia in Late Medieval England: A Preliminary Inquiry

Popular Preaching Late Medieval Popular Preaching in Britain and Ireland: Texts, Studies, and Interpretations

Introduction

Pliny, to Valerius Maximus, says that there was a great controversy among the Romans what was the most worthy name for the highest god… Finally, one arose and, standing in a high place, drew the image of a man with an open heart, and around the heart he wrote, ‘I have compassion for the lowly.’ Afterward he drew two wings, and on one he wrote, ‘I wait,’ and on the other, ‘I forgive,’ and above his head he wrote this title, ‘The god of pity and mercy.’1

Such is one portrayal of God by the author of the macaronic sermons in the first half of the manuscript in the Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 649. The story is attributed to Pliny, but used in this sermon as a complement to narratives and commentary to present to the audience some of the many aspects of divine mercy.

This manuscript has been studied especially with regard to the political and social themes brought forth by the preacher.2 It has more recently provided the material to present the late medieval use of medicine as a metaphor, its orthodox handling of the pastoralia has been compared to that of Wycliffe, and scholars of Middle English continue to study its language.3

1 Patrick J. Horner, ed. and trans., A Macaronic Sermon Collection from Late Medieval England: Oxford, MS Bodley 649, Studies and Texts 153 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2006), Sermon 13.142-5. The sermon author attributes the story to Pliny; Horner finds it, and other versions, in the Catalogue of Romances 3:109 (no 24), 174 (no. 89), 204 (no. 36); 351. The original reads: Plinius ad Valerium Maximum refert quod erat quedam magna discordia inter Romanos quod nomen erat dignissimum summo Deo… Tandem surrexit vnus et, stans in eminenti loco, protraxit ymaginem hominis cum aperto corde, et circa cor scripsit, “Compatior miseris.” Postea protraxit duas alas, et in vna scripsit, “Expecto,” in alia, “Remitto,” et supra caput eius scripsit hunc titulum, “deus pietatis et misericordie.” All translations from MS Bodley 649 in this paper are Horner’s, unless otherwise noted, and numbers refer to the sermon and line numbers as given in the edited text.

2 See, for example, Patrick Horner, “‘The King Taught Us the Lesson’: Benedictine Support for Henry V’s Suppression of the Lollards,” Mediaeval Studies 52 (1990), 190-220; Siegfried Wenzel mentions some of these articles in the Preface to Macaronic Sermons: Bilingualism and Preaching in Late-Medieval England, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994) v., and Horner lists also Roy M. Haines, “ ‘Wilde Wittes and Wilfulness’” John Swetstock’s Attack on those ‘Poyswunmongeres,’ the Lollards,” Studies in Church History 8 (1971), 143-53. Roy M. Haines, “Church Society and Politics in the Early Fifteenth Century as Viewed from an English Pulpit,” Studies in Church History 12 (1975), 143-57. Roy M. Haines, “Our Master Mariner, Our Sovereign Lord’: A Contemporary Preacher’s View of King Henry V,” Mediaeval Studies 38 (1976), 85-96; Roy M. Haines, Ecclesia Anglicana: Studies in the English Church of the Later Middle Ages (1979; Toronto, 1989), 201-21; Patrick Horner himself has written “Benedictines and Preaching in Fifteenth-Century England: The Evidence of Two Bodleian Library Manuscripts,” Revue Benedictine 99 (1989), 313-32; these are in Horner, MS Bodley 649, 1, n. 1.

3 Virginia Langum , Medicine and the Seven Deadly Sins in Late Medieval Literature and Culture (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016). Sean Andrew Otto, “Pastoralia in John Wyclif’s Sermones: Controversial Preaching in Later Medieval England” PhD diss., University of St. Michael’s College, 2013, https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/43424/30/Otto_Sean_A_201311_PhD_thesis.pdf. Helena Halmari

1 2

Given the creativity of the author and richness of the sermons, further theological studies could be made on his understanding and presentation of sin and and of grace, his notion of the human person, his view of pastoral care of the faithful and his advice to priests. The collection provides as well a rich source of insight into late medieval theology and spirituality. At this time, there are no studies which focus on the concept of mercy as it is presented in these sermons.

Patrick J. Horner edited and translated the twenty three macaronic sermons from the first set in the manuscript, and these sermons are the primary source of this thesis. The term “macaronic” refers to written texts in which Latin and a vernacular language are both used; in these sermons, the “matrix is Latin, but its texture frequently changes to English and then back again, with both languages preserving their characteristic syntactic patterns.”4 The term was originally derogatory, and pointed to any mix of Latin with a vernacular language, but is now used to refer especially to the mix of Latin and Middle English.5 The two Latin sermons included in this first half of MS Bodley 649 have not been published, and so are not included in the material for this study.6

Here I wish to note what seems to be the two-fold intention of both the writer and the one who collected the items for this manuscript, if they were not the same person. Horner writes that “in the earlier part of the manuscript, marginalia, especially those referring to rhetorical divisions of the sermons (for example, "radix sermonis") suggest that the sermons may have served as

and Timothy Regetz, “Language Switching and Alliteration in Oxford, MS Bodley 649” in Multilingualism in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Age: Communication and Miscommunication in the Premodern World, Albrecht Classen, ed., 313-328. Fundamentals of Medieval and Early Modern Culture 17 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016).

4 Wenzel, Bilingualism and Preaching, 10. Throughout this thesis, the Middle English elements will be presented in bold when given in translation. Bracketed words, unless otherwise indicated, are Horner’s.

5 Wenzel, Bilingualism and Preaching, 2-3.

6 Wenzel lists “Sacerdos est angelus, [Malachie 2:7?]” and “Quasi flos rosarum in diebus veris…[Ecclus 50:8]” in Bilingualism and Preaching, 162-3. Patrick J. Horner, in response to my inquiry, wrote that he had not edited these Latin sermons, as his interest was only in the macaronic texts of the manuscript (private email of April 21, 2017). I have been unable to locate any editions of these Latin sermons.

3 models for preachers.”7 My thesis is based on what I see as a second intention.

In this regard, I argue that the author composed these sermons not only to be preached, but also as works for study and prayer. This conclusion is based on the fact that the sermons are for the most part quite long (twelve are over 400 lines long, and four more over 500 lines) and highly complex. They share some common themes, and some material, but these are handled in a wide variety of ways. In addition to this, most of the sermons have been written out entirely; lacunae for stories or examples occur seldom. The complexity, detail and variety of the sermons keep the reader’s attention, and their richness provide easily enough material for analysis of the preacher’s theology in a variety of areas.

As sermons are per se about the life of faith, and prayer is a part of that life, the author would have understood prayer as foundational for his audience. He teaches his audience how to pray, for example, in a personal, meditative manner that engages the whole person: “pay attention to this… print it in your heart”; “think deeply”; and “soak your heart in the water of contrition.”8 Elements of such personal prayer will be seen in some of the examples used in the second chapter of this thesis.

For the author of these 23 sermons under consideration, mercy, that is, the mercy of God and human reception of and participation in it, was a major theme. Certainly the love, or, as in the citation above, the compassion of God, are also portrayed, but not as often or vividly as mercy. This leads to the questions of why mercy receives such a prominent place, and what exactly are the theologies of mercy behind these sermons? That is, what does mercy “do” that God’s love or wisdom do not? My thesis is that the author’s understanding of the theology of mercy can be pieced together by his treatment of the concept throughout this collection, and that this understanding of mercy explains the stance he takes on some issues. Of particular note is his attitude toward the people identified as heretics and called “Lollards,” the loosely-allied groups of faithful who espoused some ideas not compatible with a few doctrines of the Church.

7 Patrick J. Horner, “Benedictines and Preaching in Fifteenth-Century England: The Evidence of Two Bodleian Library Manuscripts,” Revue Bénédictine 99 (1989), 316, n. 14.

8 attende hoc… print it in tuo corde (8:377-8); cogita intime (13.245); þorusoke tuum cor in aqua contricionis (13.247-8).

The first chapter of this thesis will provide some background to the manuscript, the identity of the author (as far as it can be established) and some relevant points of the world in which he lived – the languages, the role of preaching, and the concept of divine mercy.

The second chapter elaborates more fully the theological context of divine mercy. The atelous Sermon 17 provides the framework for the orthodox teaching on the Fall, Incarnation, and Salvation through the passion of Christ—in a word, the context of mercy—as this preacher would have been taught to understand it. An outline of this sermon (see Appendix A) shows how this text could have been an aid to those who later used this collection as a guide for composing their own sermons. Using the main points of the first part of this outline as a guide, I will add examples from sermons in the collection to show how the preacher developed these points to his listeners (and readers). I will refer especially to Anselm of Canterbury, and briefly to the Ecumenical Councils of the Church for a more thorough explanation of the theology which stands behind the sermons. As the author of these sermons represents the orthodox Church teaching of the day (as opposed to the intentionally heterodox like Wycliffe) I will also take a closer look at two of the preacher’s images and stories which warrant a closer examination to understand his way of trying to reach his audiences.

The third chapter gives a brief background to the Lollard movement with their religious and political beliefs, and their attempts to change English social structure and religious practice. Some of their thoughts were in clear opposition to the orthodox understanding of mercy, and a closer look at these beliefs, in light of the sermon writer’s understanding of divine mercy, will explain why his reaction to them was generally one of severe criticism. In the conclusion I will argue that in spite of the differences between the fifteenth and twenty-first centuries, certain points in the late-medieval world-view could fill what is sometimes perceived as a gap in the lives of many people today. This is in no way to argue that we can reconstruct another world- view throughout a post-modern society, but only to say that some insights from the past are worth the attempt at retrieval.

This collection of sermons provides many stories of sinners receiving God’s mercy, as well as dozens of images and metaphors. God is referred to as “the God of pity and mercy,”9 and “the God of mercy and might;”10 the mercies of God are spoken of as “sweet and great,”11 as “many,”12 and “deep.”13 The writer refers to Christ as the “phoenix of mercy”14 and often as the “fountain of mercy.”15 The first person of the Trinity is often referred to as the “Father of mercies;”16 mercy is portrayed, in sometimes lengthy metaphors, as a city17, a gate,18 a shield,19 a way,20 a ship,21 a rainbow,22 one of the poles of a magnet,23 and medicine.24

Sometimes justice is opposed to mercy, as in the images of a statue whose shield of mercy will protect from the stroke of the sword of justice.25 At other times mercy and justice seem to work together, and this last theology has become the focus of this thesis. Examples from these sermons are related to pertinent works of Anselm of Canterbury to throw light on the preacher’s

9 Sermons 6, 10, 12, 13, 22. 10 Sermon 19. 11 Sermon 1. 12 Sermon 13. 13 Sermon 12. 14 Sermon 1. 15 Sermons 3, 5, 8, 9, 13, 14. 16 Sermons 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 22, 24. 17 Sermon 2. 18 Sermon 2. 19 Sermons 3 and 8. 20 Sermon 11. 21 Sermon 10. 22 Sermon 5. 23 Sermon 14. 24 Sermon 12. 25 Sermons 3 and 8.

6 presentation of this theology of mercy. This study therefore notes the varied references to mercy but expounds in detail only the theology based on Anselm’s presentation of mercy and justice. Anselm’s influence provides the clearest explanation for the preacher’s attitude toward the Lollards.

Chapter 1 The Manuscript, the Preacher and his World 1 The Manuscript: Physical Description and Dating

These sermons, as so many from the Middle Ages, are anonymous. From external evidence (the handwriting and appearance of the ink and parchment) and from internal evidence (the structure of the sermons, praise for the Benedictines and identification with “possessioners,” mention of Henry V as the reigning king) it is clear that all were composed by the same author, writing in early 15th century England, and who was perhaps, as most scholars accept, a Benedictine.1

The sermons can be dated by a few specific references: the author refers in Sermon 6, the first to reference any historical event, to the victory in Agincourt, which took place on 25 October 1415 when Henry V and his small army defeated the much greater French army. He mentions first “the heavenly soldier who lives blessedly, our liege lord the king,” and later says of him, “unless he had been safely armed with the arms of grace, he was likely to have died on the field or been captured in war at Agincourt.”2 Moreover, in the same sermon, he mentions the death of Lollards, “especially their captain who recently was burned.”3 This places the sermon after December 14, 1417, when Sir John Oldcastle, a leading personality among the Lollards, was executed for treason and heresy.4 The latest historical event given is found in the last sermon of the collection. In Sermon 25 the preacher reports briefly, without details, that the Duke of Clarence died; this took place in the Battle of Baugé on 22 March 1421.5 This places the

1 Horner, A Macaronic Sermon Collection, 3.

2 Iste celestis miles est qui celice viuit, ligius dominus noster rex” (6:70) and Fuisset triset inter rebelles dominos et Lollardos qui insurrexerunt contra ipsum, nisi armatus fuisset armis gracie aureis. He was shaply to ha be ded in campo aut capi ad bellum de Agyncourt nisi secure fuisset armatuis armis gracie. (6.79-82). For the dating of the Battle of Agincourt, see John Matusiak, Henry V, Routledge Historical Biographies, ed. Robert Pearce (London: Routledge, 2013) 148-49.

3 Nostrum scutum multum eleuatur, fides multum roboratur per mortem Lollardorum et specialiter capitanei ipsorum qui tarde erat combustus. (6:269-72).

4 Maureen Jurkowski, “Henry V’s Suppression of the Oldcastle Revolt,” in Henry V: New Interpretations, ed. Gwilym Dodd (Woodbridge, Suffolk: York Medieval Press, 2013), 121-22.

5 Go no ferther than the sad story of the noteworthy prince, the Duke of Clarence -- may God bless his

7 8 collection between the years of 1417 and 1421, at least before the death of Henry V on 14 August 1422, and may indicate that they were bound in chronological order of writing, in so far as the purpose of the compiler allowed.6

The writer of the sermons is identified as Benedictine partly on the basis of the physical evidence of the manuscript as well as statements made in the sermons. Horner has argued this case most thoroughly in his 1998 article, “Benedictines and Preaching in Fifteenth-Century England: The Evidence of Two Manuscripts.” Some highlights from this and other works are presented here.

The manuscript is described briefly by Siegfried Wenzel as two sets of sermons, “written in one column by one hand of the early fifteenth century, most likely at Oxford.” 7 The physical appearance of this manuscript, its orange-tinted parchment, the “metallic, dark-brown ink,” and “flourishes used to decorate initials” are similar to other manuscripts of the time produced at Oxford. 8

In his description of the manuscript, Patrick Horner writes that the first set of twenty five sermons is “clearly a homogeneous group, marked by an intense hatred of the Lollards and by fervent patriotism… The second part consists of twenty sermons largely de sanctis together with several narrationes and miscellaneous notes which might be useful for preachers.” 9 Wenzel identifies further signs that they are the production of one author, listing “the repeated use of the same topics and major images, characteristic phrasing, favorite quotations, and blocks of

soul…he perished in the dangers of the enemies and passed out of the world....go no ferþer quam ad lamentabilem historiam insignis principis ducis Clarencis, cuius anime propicietur Deus….periculis hostium periit et transiuit e mundo (25:144-151). For the date of the Duke’s death, see Craig Taylor, “Henry V, Flower of Chivalry,” in Henry V: New Interpretations, ed. Gwilym Dodd (Woodbridge, Suffolk: York Medieval Press, 2013), 231.

6 For the date of the death of the king, see Matusiak, Henry V, 234.

7 Siegfried Wenzel, Bilingualism and Preaching, 160. For Wenzel’s more thorough treatment of this manuscript and its relation to other Benedictine manuscripts of the period, see 49-60.

8 Horner, “Benedictine Preaching: Evidence,” 316.

9 Ibid.

9 identical verbal material.”10 This manuscript containing both a homogeneous group and a miscellaneous collection Wenzel labels a “mixed collection.” 11

The macaronic sermons of this manuscript were written for the most part to be given during the season of Lent. The first eleven sermons are for the Sundays in Lent, as the incipit is taken from the Gospel or one of the readings. They are in order according to week, that is, the first two are for the first Sunday of Lent, the next three are for the second Sunday in Lent, etc. Sermons 12 through 15 are on the Passion. Sermons 16 and 17, each less than 200 lines, are catechetical, as is Sermon 18, although given its theme of sin as sickness and Christ as physician, it is well suited to Lent; Sermon 19, is catechetical; Sermon 22 is again for Lent, Sermon 23 is for the funeral or memorial day of the Knight Lord John D.; Sermon 24 is on the occasion of the Assumption of the Virgin and stresses the need for humility and almsgiving; and Sermon 25 seems to be for the occasion of the King setting out on a journey.

Internal evidence, especially the preacher’s self-identification with “possessioners” (in Sermons 6 and 24) could point to his Benedictine ties. After describing how the Lollards had attacked “the poor friars,” he writes that they then turned to “the possessioners… to seize our possessions. Beyond their strength they worked to seize our livelihood.”12 These statements are repeated in Sermon 24:

First they hurled many vicious words at the poor friars, they belittled and reproved their poverty and the order which the Church approves, and from which [came] many excellent clergy, many holy priests, and men of virtuous life… Afterwards they cast a tunnel under the tower of the possessioners, they dug deep for the treasure of the Church. They suggested to the temporal lords the means to take away our livelihood. They worked beyond their strength to snatch our possessions.13

10 Wenzel, Bilingualism and Preaching, 50, n 57.

11 Siegfried Wenzel, Latin Sermon Collections from Later Medieval England. (Oxford: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 84.

12Primo isti Lollardi sagittauerunt plura praua verba ad pauperes fratres…Deinde þay castonn a myne…ad capiendum nostras possessiones. Ultra vires laborabant ad rapiendum nostrum victum (6:54-55;57- 60).

13 Primo sagittarunt plura praua verba ad pauperes fratres, deprauabant et reprobabant eorum pauperiem et ordinem quam Ecclesiam approbat, et de quo plures excellentes clerici, plures perfecti sacerdotes, et virtuosi viuentes… Postea þai cast a myne ad turrim possessionatorum, foderunt alte pro thesauro Ecclesie. Fecerunt media ad dominos temporales ad auferendum nostrum victum. Vltra vires laborabant ad rapiendum nostras possessiones (24:52-5; 56-9).

The author’s praise of the Benedictines is taken by some as further indication of his membership in the order: “In every order once they were living perfectly, but the great number of the saints who lived and died under the banner of St. Benedict makes it apparent to all how much virtue and perfection was once in our old oppressed religion.”14

It is unusual, but not unheard-of, that a Benedictine would preach and even address the issue of the care of souls as we find in these macaronic sermons. In his article “Benedictines and Preaching the Pastoralia in Late Medieval England: A Preliminary Inquiry,” Patrick Horner addresses the question of monastic preaching to lay audiences.15 He gives as evidence of Benedictine preaching the Ars praedicandi of Ranulf Higden, the preaching of Thomas Brunton, John Sheppy and Robert Rypon, and the manuscripts from Worcester Cathedral MS F.10 and F.126, which, Horner writes, have been “long held to be of Benedictine provenance.” He then includes as Benedictine, with these collections, MS Bodley 649 and MS Laud misc. 706.16

The late fourteenth century also saw an increase of Benedictines involved in the cura animarum. Although this was traditionally not part of the Benedictine withdrawal from the world, Eugene Crook and Margaret Jennings note that the Black Death had depleted the number of priests who could minister to the laity, and “the corresponding decline in monastic discipline permitted further burgeoning of this new phenomenon in English ecclesial life: the monk-pastor.”17 The Speculum Curatorum by the above-mentioned Ranulph Higden witnesses to the need for materials for these monk-pastors. “There were religious, political and social reasons for the extramural activities of the monks: discipline was eroding, royal taxation was on the increase, and the flight of many parish priests to the urban centers left literally hundreds of rural benefices

14 In quolibet ordine quondam erant perfecte viuentes, set multitudo sanctorum qui vixerunt et moriebantur sub vexillo Sancti Benedicti enarrant aperte ad oculum. 25.211-13.

15 Patrick J. Horner, “Benedictines and Preaching the Pastoralia in Late Medieval England: A Preliminary Inquiry,” in Medieval Monastic Preaching, 279-92. Ed. Carolyn Muessig (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 1998).

16 Horner, “Preaching the Pastoralia,” 280-1.

17 Eugene Crook, Margaret Jennings, C.S.J., “Grading Sin: A Medieval English Benedictine in the Cura Animarum,” American Benedictine Review 31 (1980), 336-7.

11 vacant.”18 Working on the theory that the author was Benedictine, a few names have been suggested as possible identifications of the preacher.

2 The Preacher

Patrick Horner notes that the sermons have been attributed to John Swetstock, whose name was once legible on folio 8 and is abbreviated on folio 48.19 But this manuscript shares four sermons with the manuscript Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Laud misc. 706, which belonged to John Paunteley, a Benedictine monk of St. Peter’s, Gloucester.20 Siegfried Wenzel and Horner both note that this could point to Paunteley as the author of both sets.21 More circumstantial evidence for the Benedictine origins of the preacher is available in the relation of MS Bodley 649 to other manuscripts of Benedictine origins, which Wenzel has detailed in his Macaronic Sermons.22

Alan Fletcher, who agrees that the author of the sermons in the first set of MS Bodley 649 was Benedictine, notes that in addition to the sermons common to MS Bodley 649 and MS Laud misc. 706, this latter manuscript is further connected to the manuscript now in Worcester, Cathedral Library, MS F.10. Both contain the sermon Ascendit aurora, ascendit aurora, and he suggests that this is “evidence...for some kind of network for the circulation and exchange of sermons...amongst the English Benedictines in the late Middle Ages.”23

Fletcher argues more specifically that the author of these sermons is Hugh Legat, “an eminent Benedictine preacher active at St Albans and elsewhere in the early fifteenth century.”24 He

18 Crook and Jennings, “Grading Sin,” 345.

19 Horner, A Macaronic Sermon Collection, 4.

20 “Iesus” (Matt 15:21); “Pontifex introiuit in sancta” (Heb. 9:11); “Exiuit de templo” (John 8:59); “Vestiuit pontificem” (Leviticus 8:7); Horner, A Macaronic Sermon Collection, 5.

21 Wenzel, Bilingualism and Preaching, 53. Horner, A Macaronic Sermon Collection, 6.

22 Wenzel, Bilingualism and Preaching, 49-60.

23 Alan J. Fletcher, Late Medieval Popular Preaching in Britain and Ireland: Texts, Studies, and Interpretations, Sermo: Studies on Patristic, Medieval, and Reformation Sermons and Preaching, Vol. 5 (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2009), 69.

24 Fletcher, Popular Preaching, 71.

12 compares the style of the first sermon from this manuscript, Nunc dies salutis, with a sermon, known to be Legat’s work, in Worcester, Cathedral Library, MS F.10: Accipiant repromissionem vocati. He finds that very strong resemblances to the first sermon in Bodley 649 can be classed in four categories: theme, organization, shared locutions, and “shared sources of the less common kind.”25 Then, leaning on Siegfried Wenzel’s conclusion that all of the sermons in the first half of Bodley 649 are by the same author, Fletcher attributes this entire set of sermons to Legat.26 The most convincing evidence, which Fletcher does not bring forward, is also the most difficult to demonstrate, but in fact the Middle English-Latin sermon of Hugh Legat sounds like the macaronic sermons of Bodley 649. When Legat switches to Latin and then back to Middle English, it leaves the same impression, with respect to grammar and style, as the Bodley macaronic sermons. If Hugh Legat is not the author of these macaronic sermons, then we have to posit an excellent Pseudo-Legat. But the evidence is not conclusive, and the author may have come from another religious community.

The name “possessioners,” refers to any religious house supported by an endowment, so this applies also to the Augustinian Canons.27 If the author was a canon, his praise of the Benedictines would be in the same category of his praise of the poor friars, as esteem for fellow- religious, and defense of those unjustly attacked by the Lollards. In addition, the copying and binding of the manuscripts at Oxford does not rule out authorship by a possessioner from another location. As the evidence is subjective and conjectural, I will continue to refer to the author as “preacher,” “writer,” or “author.”

3 The Preacher’s World 3.1 The Languages

These sermons are primarily in Latin, with the Middle English appearing throughout. The Latin, as will be seen in examples below, is very simple, even where the Middle English is not interwoven into its structure. The Middle English in the sermons are identified as the work of “a

25 Fletcher, Popular Preaching, 73, n. 23.

26 Ibid., 71-75.

27 David Knowles, The Religious Orders in England, Vol II: The End of the Middle Ages (Cambridge: University Press, 1957), 65.

Benedictine author who was familiar with national events, London based, but with roots in the south-west Midlands.”28

The mixing of Latin and one or more vernacular languages was not uncommon in the middle ages, especially in sermon writing, poetry, law, and letter writing.29 Fletcher cites from the Paston letters to show one example of writing in mixed languages. The friar John Brackley wrote letters to two of the Paston men, some of which letters were in a mix of Middle English and Latin. The latter language he used especially for spiritual matters, quotes from Sacred Scripture, and closing formulae, but also as sentence markers, using “Cui ego” and “Et ille,” to mark the beginning of quotations.30

At the same time, macaronics appear in the works of lawyers, who by the 15th century were often writing in a mix of languages, mostly Latin and French, but also with English sometimes added to the other two. Latin and English were also mixed in the teaching of the former to students whose language at home was English.31 All of this is to say that what can strike the modern reader as an impossible confusion of languages was found in a variety of contexts, with a variety of recipients and audiences. Whether sermons were indeed delivered in the languages in which they were written is not proven, but I agree with Siegfried Wenzel, that the simple Latin of these sermons was “very much a living idiom,” and not only an accident of the writer.32 In this case, the mix of Middle English with Latin would have been no more difficult at that time than the mix today of any two languages for those who speak them fluently.

28 Helen Barr, “‘This Holy Time’: Present Sense in the Digby Lyrics,” in After Arundel: Religious Writing in Fifteenth-Century England, Medieval Church Studies 21, Vincent Gillespie and Kantik Ghosh, eds. (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), 308. This finding is reported in a section where she compares the Middle English of MS Bodley 649 to the language of the lyrics contained in another manuscript in the Bodleian Library, MS Digby 102.

29 Fletcher, Popular Preaching, 50-54.

30 Ibid., 50-51.

31 Ibid., 54-57.

32 Wenzel, Bilingualism and Preaching, 127-9.

3.2 The Audience The audience of the sermons is mixed. The preacher addresses Reverendi domini,33 sometimes simply Domini,34 sometimes curates or those who have the cure of souls, “you curates”35, or “you…who have the cure of souls.”36 He may have been addressing young monks or students when he spoke to “you…who will govern the consciences of others, who will teach other privately or publicly in sermon or confession,”37 and offered his advice on what to say or teach. Other times he addresses the laity, saying, “Let each man and woman pay heed to this,” and he modifies his advice, “if you are married.”38 But the preacher includes all of these groups of people in his use of the vocative, plural or singular: “miserable ones” or, “you miserable sinner.”39 If he gathered all of these sermons together in order to hand them on to others, he and his intended recipients would have kept in mind that they were directed toward mixed audiences. This would in fact have made it a most useful collection, as it answers so many needs of a preacher.

3.3 Preaching in Late Medieval England

In order better to understand the sermons themselves, it is necessary to consider the place of preaching in the culture of late-medieval England. After this, the main concerns of the writer of the macaronic sermons in MS Bodley 649 will be presented, as well as some issues and events not mentioned by him, and the understanding of mercy in the wider medieval culture.

Preaching played a role in medieval culture which today is filled by a combination of newspapers and journals, telephone, television and internet. Siegfried Wenzel writes that in Europe, before printed sources were available, preaching was for most people “the main, and for

33 Sermons 1:124 and 10:1.

34 Sermons 2:267, 3:37 and 4:295.

35 Vos curati (3:38).

36 qui...habetis curam animarum (7:220).

37 qui reges aliorum consciencias, qui docebis alios priuatim uel aperte in sermone uel confessione (10:168-9).

38 Quilibet vir et mulier attendat ad hoc (8:375); si sis in matrimonio (4.315-16).

39 vos miseri (10:576); tu, miser peccator (1:233).

15 many people the only, locus from which they would hear the dominant worldview expounded,” and at the same time hear subjects as different as “natural phenomena and amusing stories.”40Alan Fletcher describes preaching “by the late Middle Ages” as “a familiar and culturally central phenomenon.”41 For people in all levels of society, “their social, cultural, religious and intellectual formation came through oral media.”42

At the time the sermons of MS Bodley 649 were composed, preaching took place on many more types of occasions than we see today. We are accustomed to associate sermons primarily with Sunday religious observance, and perhaps funerals and weddings, in those traditions which have a sermon or homily and not only eulogies and toasts. The late middle ages saw preaching to wide, mixed audiences on public occasions as well as to more restricted audiences on exclusive occasions. The former include the bishops preaching “in their cathedrals”, while the latter occasions might have included “special processions, parliamentary sermons, and sermons at St. Paul’s Cross,” as well as on the “enclosure of a nun, or the introduction of a new university lecturer.”43 Not least of the occasions for preaching were to promote a crusade or to celebrate military victory.44

Medieval sermons were expected to have a purpose and effect, and not merely to entertain. Beverly Mayne Kienzle writes that “when the medieval preacher transformed the audience...the visible, even dramatic and active results of the sermon’s performance range from conversion to exorcism...to group actions such as the burning of vanities or the tragic burning of persons deemed unacceptable outsiders.”45 Those who preached for the crusades hoped for, and often

40 Siegfried Wenzel, Preaching in the Age of Chaucer: Selected Sermons in Translation (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2008), ix.

41 Fletcher, Popular Preaching, 13.

42 Augustine Thompson,, “From Texts to Preaching: Retrieving the Medieval Sermon as Event,” in Preacher, Sermon and Audience in the Middle Ages, Carolyn Muessig, ed., New History of the Sermon, 3, (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 22.

43 Wenzel, Latin Sermon Collections, 227-28, and Wenzel, Preaching in the Age of Chaucer, xiii.

44 Wenzel, Latin Sermon Collections, 306.

45 Beverly Mayne Kienzle, “Medieval Sermons and their Performance: Theory and Record,” in Preacher, Sermon and Audience in the Middle Ages, Carolyn Muessig, ed. (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 116.

16 achieved, the results of winning recruits. On other occasions, heretics were converted, and some preachers, Bernardino da Siena and Robert da Lecce for example, brought peace to cities through their preaching. Kienzle reports that the effects reached even governments, citing the “statutes on gambling, usury and sumptuary laws” enacted in Siena in 1425 after Bernardino preached in that city.46

Lent was a significant time for preaching, the purpose of which was to prepare the faithful to receive the sacraments of Confession in preparation for Holy Communion during Easter, as had been decreed in Canon 21 of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. The author of these sermons should have been familiar, moreover, with instructions which governed preaching in England. In the year 1281 instructions from Archbishop Pecham’s Council of Lambeth on the matter of preaching were put into force. This council stipulated that pastors must preach four times per year, handing on “the fourteen articles of the faith, the ten commandments, the two commandments of charity, the seven works of mercy, the seven capital sins and their progeny, the seven cardinal virtues and the seven sacraments of grace.”47 This introduction is followed by details of what should be included in each of these elements, “lest anyone should excuse himself because of ignorance.”48 Then, in 1409 the constitutions of Bishop Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury, became law for English preachers. These constitutions had been passed in the Provincial Council of 1407, and regulated more carefully the practice of preaching. Helen Leith Spencer notes that “Arundel's attempts to proscribe heretical preaching required him to legislate, not merely on who should preach, but, to some extent, on what they should preach about. Or rather on what not to preach about. Again, many of the principles were not new, but in the past had not been everywhere observed.”49 Thus, some preachers required the approval of the diocesan, and were limited to preach only on the catechism or doctrines already approved by the

46 Kienzle, “Medieval Sermons and their Performance,” 116-119.

47 … 14 fidei articulos, decem mandata decalogi, duo precept evangelii, scilicet, gemine caritatis, septem etiam opera misericordie, septem peccata capitalia, cum sua progenie, septem virtutes principales, ac septem gratie sacramenta. F.M. Powicke and C.R. Cheney, eds, Councils & Synods: with other Documents Relating to the English Church (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964-1981), 900.

48 Councils & Synods., 900-5.

49 H. Leith Spencer, English preaching in the late Middle Ages [electronic resource] (Oxford [England]: Clarendon Press, 1993), 174-5.

Church.50 This was in response to the growing work of the Lollards, who were vocal in their dissatisfaction with the Church, and heretical in some of their beliefs.

Preaching often took place out of doors, in a place which could hold the crowds and conduce to the projection of sound. Owst writes that outdoor stations specifically for preaching were located in churchyards -- in fact, in the cemeteries -- and were made of wood for temporary occasions, or stone as permanent pulpits.51

The writer of the sermons in MS Bodley 649 has shaped his sermons in the “modern” or “scholastic” style. 52 Siegfried Wenzel, in his Latin Sermon Collections from Later Medieval England, gives an overview of the basic style of sermon writing at that time, which usually begins with a quotation from scripture, which is then elaborated upon in a series of divisions. The “essential elements” are “thema, division, and developed principals,” to which may be added a “protheme or antethema” which serve as an introduction and may lead to a prayer for the assembly and for the preacher himself.53The sermons in this collection follow that basic pattern even, as Horner has pointed out, sometimes to a very high degree of complexity.54 One feature of the medieval sermon, the use of stories and images as aids to memory and explanation, will be seen in action more completely in the sections which analyze the preacher’s understanding and presentation of the concept of mercy. He chose a variety of images to impress the imagination and memory of his audience in order to draw them to choose what will keep themselves and their realm in order.

3.4 Themes of Importance to the Writer

The preacher is interested above all in the spiritual and temporal welfare of his audience, whom

50 Spencer, English preaching in the late Middle Ages, 174-5. To see the actual complexity involved at the time in interpreting and applying these constitutions, and its effect on preaching and preachers, see especially 165- 80.

51 Owst, Preaching in Medieval England: An Introduction to Sermon Manuscripts of the Period c. 1350- 1450. (Cambridge: University Press, 1926) 196-99.

52 This style is also called the “university” sermon. Horner, A Macaronic Sermon Collection, 1.

53 Siegfried Wenzel, Latin Sermon Collections, 11-12. I follow his use of the name “scholastic.”

54 Horner, A Macaronic Sermon Collection 11-13.

18 he understands to be all the estates of the English people, as distinct from the French, or even the bordering nations of the Scots or the Welsh. Andrea Ruddick argues that the existence and development of English national identity, and the idea of the “English Church” was established in the century before these sermons were written.55 At a time when the popes had long worked for peace between nations, but those nations continued to seek peace each according to its own terms, the local churches must have experienced tension on all sides. Heirarchy chosen from the native clergy, if they were allied to temporal lords, could be in a position to help keep the peace, and keep endowments within the realm; at the same time they would also need to protect the Church from manipulation by secular lords.56 Haines points to the military victories of King Henry V as the centre of the patriotism of the writer of these sermons, noting that this was not particular to this sermon writer.57

To promote the spiritual welfare of the English, the writer of the sermons in this manuscript explains orthodox doctrine and exhorts his people to live a holy life and receive the sacraments in the proper frame of mind; their temporal welfare he addresses by painting a picture of earlier wealth and peace, compared to the present condition which he describes as feeble and weak, without the aid of Christ, in danger of perishing.58 Better days will be granted to them, he says, repeatedly, if each of the estates lives well according to its duty: the nobles or knights in protecting, the clergy in holy living, and the commons in working, and all in living a good moral life.59 The welfare of the state therefore depends upon the moral life of the people. The temporal

55 Andrea Ruddick, “National Sentiment and Religious Vocabulary in Fourteenth-Century England,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 60:1, Jan 2009. See especially p. 3 for the “overlap between religion and politics” and p. 5 regarding “ecclesia Anglicana.”

56 Roy Martin Haines, Ecclesia Anglicana: Studies in the English Church of the Later Middle Ages, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989), 223-225.

57 Ibid., 209-11.

58 He is dramatic in his presentation:”The ship of our kingdom is feeble and impotent. Because of our sin and evil life Christ has withdrawn his grace from us, he does not defend us from enemies as he used to. Riches and plentiful food fail quickly, as you know, and there is so much anguish and tribulation on every side that truly we are on the point of perishing and going all to wrack.”...nauis nostri regni is febul and impotens. Christus pro peccato et mala vita retraxit graciam suam a nobis, non defendit nos ab inimicis vt solebat. Diuicie et copia victualium deficiunt fast, vt noscis, et tanta est angustia and tribulacion ex omni parte quod vere sumus in puncto pereundi and go al to wrake (4:324-326).

59 His division of the estates in the realm does not always follow the expected three-fold structure. In Sermon 1, for example, as Aaron and Hur, who should support the Church, he names secular and spiritual powers:

19 welfare of the people of the realm is not a side-issue for the preacher – he passionately speaks about the prosperity and peace which he sees as the outcome of right faith and good conduct. This connection of faithfulness and prosperity will be shown in Chapter Two. As an example of this relation, he points to the piety and goodness of the reigning liege lord.

King Henry V is mentioned a number of times, and in glowing terms. He is described in Sermon 6, for example, as “a heavenly soldier, clothed in white, armed with golden arms, and brandishing a lance in hand,” sent by God to save the kingdom.60 The King early in his reign had taken measures against the Lollards, which is one reason why he is so revered by this preacher. Henry V’s military successes in France gave the English at this point in the Hundred Years War a tremendous advantage and this must have resulted in increased national pride on all levels of society.61 In his sermons, the preacher presents the successes especially as the result of prayer.

The importance of the Sacraments in this preacher’s estimation, especially the Eucharist and Confession, are to be expected in Lenten sermons. The Lollards had made public accusations against the Church, and the preacher defends the Church against some of these, although not all. Since the Lollards have a particular place in these sermons, as they had in early fifteenth-century England, the third part of this thesis deals more specifically with the writer’s approach to dealing with them. The preacher’s opposition to the heretic group is more clearly understood after a consideration of his world-view and his theology of divine mercy.

temporalitas et spiritualitas (1:101); ie prelati, curati, et alii viri ecclesiastici (1:45-46) and domini temporales, milites, et diuites communes” (1:50). In Sermon 4, describing the state as a ship made of three parts we have clerus - - prelati, rectores, et presbiteri, et alii ministri Ecclesie Sancte…; baronia -- rex cum proceribus; et...communitas -- artifices et mercatores, operarii et agricultores (4:165-167). In Sermon 6, dividing the estates according to the four winged creatures in Ezekiel, he names summos clericos, contemplatiuos, domini, and artifices et operarii (6:305- 311).

60 But the God of pity and mercy, seeing the sobbing and sorrows, the tears and prayers of the Church, as a great comfort to all of us sent to us a heavenly soldier, clothed in white, armed with golden arms, and brandishing a lance in hand. This is the heavenly soldier who lives blessedly, our liege lord the king, whom God sent to us in defense of the Church and the salvation of the whole realm. Set Deus pietatis et misericordie, videns singultus et dolores, lacrimas et preces Ecclesie, in grande confortamen omnium nostrum misit nobis celestem militem, albis indutum, armis aureis armatum, et lanceam in manu vibrantem. Iste celestis miles est qui celice viuit, ligius dominus noster rex, quem Deus misit nobis in defensionem Ecclesie et saluacionem tocius regni (6:67-71).

61 Haines, Ecclesia Anglicana, 210.

3.5 Historic Events not Mentioned by the Preacher

One remarkable point with respect to the author’s commentary on his times is that some of the problems and events of the day receive little or no mention in these sermons. For instance, the preacher does not refer at all to the Council of Constance, although as we have seen above in the dating of the sermons, it highly unlikely that news of its conclusion had not reached England by this time. This Council, which concluded in 1417, resolved the schism in the western Church which had begun in 1378 and had divided the loyalties of all Christian nations between rival popes and Avignonese popes. The schism itself is likewise not mentioned, and one can only speculate about possible motivations for this. Most obvious is that when he was attempting to defend the Church and the popes against charges of corruption and infidelity, mention of the schism would have focused attention on a weakness most difficult to explain and support.

Another difficult issue of the day was indulgences, which are mentioned, but only in passing. Rather than providing an explanation or defence for the place of indulgences in the life of faith, he only notes their connection with “pilgrimages and visits to holy places” as objects of the Lollards’ attacks.62

3.6 The Place of Mercy in Late Medieval England

One last note about the world in which the sermon author lived is that the constant reference to divine mercy which pervades the sermons is not unique to this preacher. The concept of the mercy of God filled the imagination and thought of the medieval world and suffused the culture. Ellen M. Ross provides an excellent introduction to the presentation of this theme in her 1997 book, The Grief of God: Images of the Suffering Jesus in Late Medieval England.63 Contrasting the religious feeling of the medieval world with that of her own time, which was more often focused on the Resurrection, she writes:

62 The other high means of mercy and salvation are indulgences which commonly are given for pilgrimages and visits to holy places. This they also despise. Aliud summum medium misericordie et saluacionis sunt indulgencie que communiter conceduntur in peregrinacionibus et visitacionibus locorum sacrorum. Istud eciam despiciunt. (6:245-7).

63 Ellen M. Ross, The Grief of God: Images of the Suffering Jesus in Late Medieval England. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997).

...it was not Jesus Christ’s rising from the dead that this culture found so remarkable; it was the miracle that God became embodied in order to suffer on behalf of humanity that captivated the imagination of medieval Christians. God bled and wept and suffered on the cross to draw persons to Godself;… to manifest the boundless mercy of divine compassion.64

Beyond the notion that God would become Man was the understanding that God suffered and died for those who in no way deserved such love. The events of Good Friday, and the crucifixion in particular, were the central images presenting this fact as the image of mercy, to the minds and hearts of all believers. Ross describes how the image of mercy was presented in sermons and spiritual literature, in painting and sculpture, in Psalters and church frescoes, and even in organizing the hours of the Psalter around the suffering of Christ.65 The point is not suffering per se, but that God suffered out of love, to redeem sinful humankind. For the faithful at that time, the focus on God’s mercy was “not about the justice of God as such,” but about “how mercy is experienced in lives of believers.”66 This experience involved both intellect and will, as the faithful “perceived Jesus’ suffering and the deeply emotional and empathetic experiencing of that suffering to be at the heart of the meaning of human life.”67

The crucified Saviour, God and Man, who died for love of sinful humankind, is the ultimate expression of God’s mercy. The writer of the sermons in Bodley 649, then, prepared his audience to be mindful of this and to be ready to accept and act on this mercy.

64 Ibid., 137.

65 Ibid., 44-5 for the place of mercy in the Book of Hours.

66 Ibid., 16.

67 Ibid., 41.

Chapter Two Mercy in the Context of the Divine

As indicated above in the Introduction, the structure of this presentation will be based in part on Sermon 17, which functions as the preacher’s outline of salvation history. Much of what the writer understood of the human person, creation, the Fall –the realities and events of his worldview that lead to a discussion of mercy – are contained in this sermon. The exception, which must precede the others, is a consideration of how he presents order as a God-given reality.

1 Order in the Preacher’s World-view 1.1 Social Structure

In the first place, the very structure of each sermon reflects the medieval grasp of the importance of order, and the use of it in the scholastic, or modern sermon. Appendix A is an outline of Sermon 17, which shows the careful and detailed control the author had over his subject. This attention to making order reflects his understanding that by doing so he reflects and participates in an order created by God.

One of the most important visible signs of order for the writer of this sermon is the division of society into its proper estates. In Sermon 15, in a lengthy metaphor, he compares the kingdom of England to a temple: the walls are the commons, the clergy and knights are pillars, the roof represents the saints in heaven, the windows are preachers, and the doors are bishops. It is important to note that his idea of the Church, while it is English, it is not limited to a place in this world, but includes those outside of this world’s time and space, the Saints in heaven.1 With this world-view as his foundation, he is accustomed to think and speak of unseen realities and relationships, not in these words, but as a part of life needing no explanation. In another image, he describes the kingdom as a ship, of which the forecastle is the clergy (prelates, religious and

1 He says he is describing here “the special temple and dwelling place that Christ the son of God on high has here on earth…the multitude and congregation of the faithful English.” Speciale templum et habitacio quod Christus filius Dei superni habet hic in terris est multitudo et congregacio fidelium Angligenarum (15:10-11). His complete exposition of the metaphor is 15:15-61.

22 23 priests); the hindcastle are the king and nobles; and “the body of the ship is the commons: the merchants, artisans and workmen.”2

Another example of this is found in his use of the heavenly bodies as a metaphor for the structure of society. The sun, he says, quoting Plato’s Timaeus, “controls the course of all the other planets,” it represents the “prelates, curates and men of the Church” who must live holy lives and “give light to all the others by their good example and by their preaching of the word of God. And just as the material sun sets the boundaries of the other planets, so they themselves must do.”3 The writer is emphasizing here that the clergy have a place of leadership in society, a leadership which should be exercised both in word and in example.

Another image is of a tree, which he uses as an image both of the Christian faith, and of the Church. “In its high branches the birds of the sky lived, that is, the clerics and curates…But all the earthly animals rested under the tree as a sign that all the lay unlettered ones should hold themselves down below.”4 At this point the preacher names this as order, and notes how it is now upset. “While this order was preserved among us, the Christian faith was in great prosperity, the tree of our belief was filled with beautiful leaves. But now, sad to say, this order is changed and overturned,” as clerks teach heresy and mix themselves in the world, and “some lay people speak out and have climbed all too high.”5 In this place we see how the preacher presents the overstepping of boundaries, and this will be one of his constant complaints against the Lollards in particular, and an image for all who upset the social order.

2 Antecastellum huius nauis est clerus: prelati, religiosi et sacerdotes; postcastellum est baronia: rex cum proceribus; corpus nauis est communitas: mercatores, artifices et laborarii” (25:47-9).

3 Plato in Thimeo dicit quod regulat cursus omnium aliorum planetarum, racionabiliter possum huic comparare prelatos, curatos, et men Ecclesie, qui pre omnibus aliis statibus most schyne in firmamento Ecclesie in holy lyuynge, in contemplacione Dei versus seipsos et prebere lumen omnibus aliis per bonum exemplum et predicacionem verbi Dei. Et sicut materialis sol mensurat metas aliarum planetarum, sic debent ipsi facere (7.150- 5).

4 In altis ramis residebant volucres celi, idest clerici et curati… Set omnia terrestria animalia quieuerunt sub arbore in signum quod omnes seculares illiterati tenerent se deorsum (3.20-3).

5 Dum ordo iste seruabatur inter nos, Christiana fides erat in magna prosperitate, arbor nostre credulitatis erat pulcre florata. Set iam, quod dolendum est, ordo iste mutatur euertiturque; aues celi volauerunt ad terram, animalia terrestria han clymbe vp on hy. Nostri clerici et curati qui sunt verum speculum populo sane doctrine et bone vite volauerunt deorsum; quidam docent hereses et errores, quidam dant se nimium mundanis occupacionibus, plus ponderant perdicionem solidi quam anime. Sicut quidam dicunt laici and a clymbin al to hye” (3.25-32).

Ghosh Kantik has shown the difficulty of the writer’s position in dealing with literate laity, who overstep their bounds and involve themselves in theological speculation, and the clerks who, in spite of their education, are not upholding the orthodox faith. 6 In telling the faithful that for their own good they should not meddle with what is above them, but trust it to those educated, the sermon writer was trying to chart a safe course for all. When some of those clergy themselves went too far, it was difficult for the preacher to prove that this was still the best procedure.

1.2 The Order of the Human Person

The preacher also reminds his audience that the human person was created with an intrinsic order. In Sermon 7, for example, he gives a metaphor for the Fall and the human person together. He compares the human intellect to the crystalline heaven. “It received the light of original justice from the highest heaven, from God’s high majesty. That majesty enlightened the heaven of man’s soul so completely that the higher part of reason burned strongly in contemplation of God, and the lower part obeyed the higher, the body the soul; all things were at one in unity and harmony.”7 The human person was originally created so that the intellect, will and body worked together, in harmony, in good order. A person so perfectly ordered would never find, for example, anger or desire overwhelming the intellect, but responses out of these passions would be moderated by prudent thought and self-control. In Sermon 1 the writer describes the first person, “created in the pleasing day of original justice,” as “safe and healthy in every way. No grief troubled him, no illness weakened him, all others obeyed him. He was so well off that his glory could not be diminished.”8 The preacher is making a connection between the sinless, ontological justice of human nature, and the good order of the world in which the first humans lived.

6 Ghosh Kantik, “Magisterial Authority, Heresy and Lay Questioning in Early Fifteenth-Century Oxford,” Revue de l’histoire des religions, 231, no. 2 (2014), 293-311.

7 Illa [anima humana] recepit lumen originalis iusticie a summo celo, fro Goddis hye maieste. Quem adeo perfecte illuminabat celum anime humane quod superior pars racionis ardebat uiriliter in contemplacione Dei et inferior obediebat superiori, corpus anime; omnia fuerant vnita in vnitate et concordia (7.358-61). (Bracketed material mine.)

8 Quando humanum genus erat primo conditum in iocundo die originalis iusticie, sol omnis consolacionis, Deus ipse, refulsit adeo splendide super eum nutriciis radiis sue gracie quod erat saluum et sanum in omni parte. Nullus meror eum molestauit, nulla infirmitas eum grauauit, omnia alia sibi obediebant. Adeo bene erat sibi quod sua gloria non potuit redimi (1:154-8).

Although Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) is never mentioned by name or title in this manuscript, there are a number of echoes of his theology here. Almost four hundred years before the author of the sermons in MS Bodley 649 was active, Anselm wrote that “since our first parents were created just and entirely sinless, the origin of human nature must have been just.”9 This is not a juridical sense of right and wrong, but a word to describe the being of the human person as rightly ordered. Right ordering entails the ability to function and live properly and fully. Anselm distinguishes between the justice of human nature (which all humans share) and the justice of the individual person, the former of which affects all humans, while personal justice refers to the individual state. “Because the whole of human nature was contained in Adam and Eve, and nothing of it existed outside them, [when they sinned] the whole of human nature was weakened and corrupted,” he writes.10 In this context, then, his definition of sin as “injustice” can be understood. He names this weakened state “injustice,” because “all sin is injustice.”11

By “human nature” these authors understand that which makes a person a human being, instead of, say, a horse. Rocks, plants and animals all have a nature, which governs their organization so that they exist as or develop into what they are. Things that can be seen to be alike are so because of the nature that unites them and distinguishes them from other things. Thus every human being shares the same nature, and this is a true sharing, a source of union, in something not visible, but real.

The question is, then, what follows from sharing in human nature? For Anselm, several things. First, the well-ordered person is, by the right use of the powers of reason and will, giving honour to God. He first clarifies that when God is honoured by creatures, nothing changes or affects the deity, who does not change. Language about God’s honour or mercy is expressing the human

9 Anselm of Canterbury, “Virgin Conception and Original Sin,” trans. Camilla McNab, in The Major Works, ed. Brian Davies and G. R. Evans , Oxford World’s Classics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), Chapter 1, 359. (This and subsequent citations from this volume will be to the book, where applicable, and/or chapter of the work by Anselm, followed by the page number in this collection.) With regard to the wording here, Janet Fairweather, in her translation of Cur Deus Homo in this same collection, translates “iustus” as “righteous”, noting that it is “also equivalent to ‘just.’” 315, n. 26.

10 Anselm, “On the Virgin Conception and Original Sin,” II, 360.

11 Ibid., III.361-2.

26 perception of how God treats creation, and how God’s creatures act toward the creator. “Nothing can be added to, or subtracted from the honour of God, in so far as it relates to God himself. For this same honour is, in relation to him, inherently incorruptible and in no way capable of change.”12

But Anselm articulates a vision of profound depth in human nature, with consequences to living according to, or against, the given nature.

When any creature whatever maintains, either by natural instinct or in response to reason, the station in life which belongs to it and has been, as it were, taught to it, this creature is said to be obeying God and honouring him. This is most of all in the case of a rational being, to whom it has been given to understand what is right. When such a being desires what is right, he is honouring God, not because he is bestowing anything upon God, but because he is voluntarily subordinating himself to his will and governance, maintaining his own proper station in life within the natural universe, and, to the best of his ability, maintaining the beauty of the universe itself. But when a rational being does not wish for what is right, he dishonours God, with regard to himself, since he is not willingly subordinating himself to God’s governance, and is disturbing, as far as he is able, the order and beauty of the universe.13

The point of this is that Adam’s nature is also humanity’s, and because Adam and Eve, understood as the parents of all human beings, sinned, all humans have some share in their inherited guilt and tendency to choose what is not in accord with reason or their best interests. Anselm sees this as “disturbing…the order and beauty of the universe.” The vision of a deep connection between all created things, which can be affected by human choice, explains why bad harvests would be seen not just as punishment from the hand of God for sinners’ faults, but the reaction of creation to reason and choice badly used.

In Sermon 3 the preacher writes about how God created humankind with the ability to reason. “God himself ‘crowned’ our forefather ‘in glory and honor’ as the prophet said… And that he might conduct himself discreetly in his rule he gave him reason and rational discretion and such high wisdom that, as doctors say, he would never have fallen except by his own foolishness.”14

12 Anselm, CDH I.15, 288.

13 Ibid.

14 Imperator celi et terre, Deus ipse, ‘coronauit’ nostrum prothopatrem ‘gloria et honore,’ sicut propheta ait, … Et quod discrete se haberet in suo regimine dedit sibi racionem et racionalem discrecionem et tam altam

This underlines again the original order of the human person, and the fact that humans were created with the ability to reason and to choose. Anselm stressed this in Cur Deus Homo, in speaking of human nature. As seen in the excerpt given above, the human person acting rationally will, by so acting, honour God, and by so doing may attain the creature’s own happiness. “The reason why it is rational is in order that it may distinguish between right and wrong, and between the greater good and the lesser good.”15 In order to distinguish and choose correctly, it was created just, or righteous, and this was in order “that it might be made happy by rejoicing in the highest good, that is, in God.”16 Through all of this a strong sense of purpose drives Anselm’s reasoning – purpose and fulfillment. As it would not have been fitting for God to create beings with a desire for union with the deity, and not make that union possible, humanity has been created “in order that some day it may attain to what it loves and chooses.”17

2 Salvation History in Sermon 17 2.1 An Ideal Order

Turning to Sermon 17 we here begin to consider the basic structure of how the preacher views salvation history. This sermon contains, unlike the majority of his sermons, no protheme no prayer, and no conclusion. At this point it is impossible to say whether this was the preacher’s work or that of the one who compiled this collection, but in fact this sermon presents, in 51 lines, a thorough outline of the background to mercy—that is, the explanation of why every person needs divine mercy, and how it is given. This is followed by catechesis, sketched in lines 52 through 141, on the Trinity and Christ, and how to live devoutly, in preparation for death,.

sapienciam quod, sicut doctores dicunt, nisi fuisset propria stulticia numquam cecidisset (3.77-82). It is noteworthy that this writer consistently does not blame Eve or woman, but human nature itself, or, as here, “man” or our “forefather.”

15 Anselm, CDH II.1, 315.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid., II.1, 316.

The author begins with the Ciceronian definition of justice (here ascribed only to “doctors”), as “the virtue returning to each one what is his.”18 This is first of all a use of the word “justice” drawn from the sphere of law to teach about the moral life of the human person, not the explanation given above by Anselm. But the two are related. The sermon author clarifies who “each one” signifies: God, “you”, and “your neighbor.” It is important to note that this definition of justice pertains only to human beings. God owes nothing to humans, and humankind of itself does not deserve any good gift from God. But from the human side of the relationship with God, as created beings, humans owe God, themselves, and others something. The further division clarifies what is due to each of these: to God adoration is due, to oneself self self-governance is owed, and one owes the neighbor assistance. These divisions are further modified with an adverb specific to the individual things owed, the theological virtue by which each is debt is fulfilled, and an English modifier reflecting the necessity of this to the individual while at the same time acting as an aid to memory:

Since therefore there are three, God, you, and neighbor, and if we will be just it is necessary to return to each of these what is his, first, you will adore your God with the required faith which is needful; second, you will rule yourself virtuously with hope which is speedful; and third, you will assist your neighbor compassionately with charity which is meedful [meritorious].19

In this introduction the writer has presented, in a most orderly fashion, his way to think right and know that one is acting in a just way in each of these three categories, according to his world- view. The author’s own structure reflects and imparts the order that he has been taught to see as desirable and necessary in the universe and in the moral life. First to note is that to God “adoration” is due, which is in accord with Anselm’s “honour” of God. Other possible choices would have been “obedience,” or “service,” for example, which do not have the same tone of worship and reverence. The instruction to “rule yourself virtuously,” carries a more serious impact after consideration of Anselm’s view that to act unvirtuously, against human nature, has such serious consequences for all of creation.

18 Secundum doctores, iusticia est virtus reddens vnicuique quod suum est (17.4). His use of the second person singular in what follows emphasizes that each individual is responsible to practice this justice.

19 Ex quo igitur tria sunt, Deus, tu, et proximi, et si erimus iusti oportet reddere cuilibet istorum quod suum est, primo, adorabis Deum tuum debite cum fide que est nedful; secundo, regulabis teipsum virtuose cum spe que est spedful; et tercio, releuabis tuum proximum misericorditer cum caritate que est medfull (17.5-8).

2.2 The Human Tendency to Sin

The preacher begins by presenting in short form one metaphor to explain how all people have a tendency to sin. All such images and stories in these sermons look to the account of the sin (often called the Fall) of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, as found in the book of Genesis, Chapter Three. The metaphors for salvation in other sermons will depend on different metaphors for sin. Here, for example, the metaphor is of disobedience to God’s law; in Sermon 9 the author uses a combination of images: the faithful are wandering on pilgrimage, they owe a debt they cannot pay, and they have lost their “endless heritage.”20 The many images for sin provide opportunities for the audience to recognize something of their own experience, and to imagine and look forward to healing or rescue from the sinful state.

In Sermon 17 the writer uses the metaphor of a court of law, in which the accused is convicted of treason and sentenced to death; the preacher then appeals to his audience to imagine the debt they would feel to the benefactor who acted as mediator to obtain pardon. “If any of you were impeached of treason against the king, convicted of this in front of him, and sentenced to death, whoever would be willing to mediate for you, to gain for you your pardon and save your life, you would be bound to him inasmuch as he valued your life and always obliged out of debt to return him reverence and honor.”21 Having prepared his audience to imagine the situation, he applies it to every person by referring to the guilt inherited from the Fall. “For our purpose: human nature was impeached in paradise of treason against the King of kings and Lord of lords,” he writes.22 It is typical of the author’s attention to detail that he does not just say “Adam” was found guilty, but “human nature.”

20…our savior Jesus has gone out into the worldly desert by the path of mercy and pity to be our guide and to lead us in our woeful pilgrimage. Our savior Jesus has gone across the sea of painful bitterness by the path of love and charity to pay and requite our ancestor’s debt. And our savior Jesus has gone into the mountain of heavenly holiness by the path of justice and equity to bring us once more to our endless heritage. ...noster saluator Iesus abiit in mundiale desertum per viam misericordie and pite to be oure gide and wissoun vs in oure woful peregrinacione. Noster saluator Iesus abiit trans mare penalis bitturnes per viam amoris et charite to payen and qwytous with oure auncetris damage. Et noster saluator Iesus abiit in montem celestis sanctitatis per viam iusticie et equitatis to bringe vs iterum to oure endles heritage (9:83-6).

21 Si aliquis vestrum esset appechit of treson regi, conuictus de hoc coram isto, et adiucatus morti, quiscumque vellet mediare pro te, adquirere tibi þi pardoun and saue tuam vitam, tenereris sibi quantum valeret tua vita et semper obligareris ex debito reddere sibi reuerenciam et honorem (17.12-15).

22 Ad propositum: humana natura fuit appechit in paradiso of treson regi regum et domino dominancium omnipotenti Deo (17.15-17).

The first sin is portrayed as desiring “to have made himself like God and to have had knowledge by himself to rule all the stars of heaven.”23 Although the vocabulary differs, the thought follows Anselm’s De Casu Diaboli. Anselm has titled its Fourth Chapter, “Quomodo ille peccavit et voluit esse similis deo.”24 The preacher often underlines that the first sin, and all since, was brought about with free choice—here he expresses it as being “convicted by his own conscience.”25 Free choice is understood as one of the elements of human dignity, and the preacher constantly underlines that sin and the acceptance of God’s mercy are both the choice of the individual, as will be seen below.

Again in sermon 17, the writer underlines the loss incurred from sin: here what is lost is “the palace of the highest king, delightful paradise” and the result is that human nature entered “the dark prison of this sorrowful world.”26 Referring to this “loss” is another way to articulate the perception that the human person was made for something greater than this life, but no longer achieves it, or is thwarted in the search for it. In Anselm of Canterbury’s dialogue Cur Deus Homo, the author speaks to his student of “your love and your yearning…to reach the state of being for which you were created; your grief because you are not yet there and your fear that you may not arrive at it.”27 The preacher’s reference to the “dark prison of this sorrowful world” may sound like an echo of the language in Cur Deus Homo, offered as the question of unbelievers: “in what captivity, or in what prison or in whose power were you held?” but it is too common an image to claim it is a direct borrowing.28

23.pro tanto quod cupiuit assimilasse se Deo et habuisse scienciam a se ad regulandum omnes stellas terre (17.17-18).

24 S. Anselmi Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi, “De Casu Diaboli,” in Opera Omnia, Volumen Primum, Franciscus Salesius Schmitt, 1938) 240.

25 Super isto puncto fuit conuictus per propriam conscienciam (17.18-19).

26 sicut traditor expulsus fuit a palacio summi regis, delicius paradise, in derke carcerem istius wofull word [sic] (17.19-20).

27Anselm CDH, I.20, 303.

28 Ibid., I.6, 270.

2.3 Humanity’s Inability to Overcome Sin

The next step reminds the audience that human nature has no power to save itself, nor to right the relationship with God. In Sermon 17 he writes,

This sin had been so grave in the sight of God that no creature on earth or in heaven could pacify the anger of God towards man nor make sufficient amends for human sin: not beasts, for in them there is no merit or reward, virtue or vice, for they lack reason, discretion, and free will; not men, for all were traitors to themselves, all were in the same damnation. Not angels, for human sin was infinite in evil, but an angel’s virtue is finite.29

Anselm also considered the same elements and gave three explanations of why this first sin was “so grave.” The first can be seen in light of God’s purpose in creating humankind, willing rational creatures to be supremely happy.30 Sin is a thwarting, or loss, or destruction of that divine purpose. In addition to this, in sinning at the devil’s instigation Adam insulted God – because he did it only through persuasion, “not under forcible compulsion.”31 So in order to reconcile with God, humanity should first reverse the act and overcome the devil (otherwise it is not seemly for God to effect reconciliation). Humankind must be “cleared of the charge” of having given in to the temptation of the devil.32 Yet another reason, more closely associated with the first, was that Adam also took what belonged to God, i.e., what God planned to do with humanity.33 The sin of the first parent one might say, “stole” the good future.

The writer of Sermon 17 has listed three ways in which it was impossible to effect reconciliation with God. The first was “beasts,” which are found inadequate as they lack “reason, discretion, and free will,” and therefore cannot merit anything. Leo Donald Davis explains that one of the

29 Istud peccatum fuerat adeo graue in conspectu Dei quod nulla creatura in terra nec in celo potuit pacificare iram Dei erga hominem, nec facere sufficientem syth pro humano peccato: bestie non, quia in eis non est meritum nec premium, virtus nec vicium, quia carent racione, discrecione, et libertate voluntatis; homines non, quia omnes fuerunt sibi traditores, omnes fuerunt in vna dampnacione; angeli non, quia humanum peccatum fuit infinitum in malicia, angeli autem virtus finita (17.22-28).

30 Anselm, CDH I.21, 305-6

31Ibid., I.22, 307.

32 Cp. Anselm, CDH, I.22, 307-08.

33 Ibid., I.23, 308.

32 insights of Gregory of Nazianzen in this regard was that Christ redeemed only those beings whose nature he shared. At the First Council of Constantinople, Gregory’s idea was “if the whole of Adam fell, then the Redeemer must be united to the whole nature of Adam in order to save it wholly.”34 The author of these sermons was careful to note that every human capacity, such as the ability to choose, was assumed by Christ in the Incarnation and exercised by him in his life, passion, death and resurrection. What Christ did and suffered was for the sake of remaking humanity. Christ became like humans in all things except sin, so that all things human could be renewed by his taking them on and, as in the case of free choice, using them properly, only for the good.35 The author of Sermon 17 was taking the situation from the other side: beasts have nothing in common with humans that would enable them to renew or stand in the place of fallen humanity.

In the same way, no mere man was able to save humanity, although many, he says, attempted it. In Sermon 10, the preacher says that “Moses…was never able to lead them to heaven; David… perished, Solomon was overturned…And so in ancient times all kings one after the other.”36 In Sermon 17, his language is more like Anselm’s. The Archbishop suggested several ideas as possible means of paying for sin, but rejected them all. Prayer and fasting are not worthy as they are already owed to God, and to make up for sin, one must offer more than is already due. “What are you giving God that you do not owe him,” asks Anselm, “seeing that it is your obligation to give him…all that you are and all that you have and all that you are capable of?”37 And having given in to the devil’s promptings, humankind is now too weak to overcome the devil.38 The argument is that “Man… neither ought nor can receive from God what God planned to give him, unless man returns to God all that he has taken away from him… if a man were victorious,” that

34 Leo Donald Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology (Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1987), 106.

35 “from these sinners…he took nature without corruption of sin.” Ex istis peccatoribus…sumpsit naturam sine corupcione peccati (13.105-6).

36 Et adhuc plures temptarunt. Moyses…numquam potuit eos perducere ad portum celi…Dauid…periit… Salamon…was ouerturned… et ita in antiquo tempore omnes reges seriatim. (10:111-22).

37 Anselm, CDH I.20, 304.

38 Ibid., I.22, 308.

33 victory would reverse the fall of all. “But a man who is a sinner is in no way capable of doing this, for one sinner cannot make another sinner righteous.”39

Whereas the author of Sermon 17 said simply that an angel could not redeem humans, given that the sin was “infinite in evil, but an angel’s virtue is finite,” Anselm’s argument goes further, saying that if some person or an angel should redeem humankind, then humankind would be bondslave of that person or angel. But humanity was created to be the bondslave only of God, and to be “equal to the good angels,” and so transfer of that bond to another was not fitting, as angels are under God as much as humans.40

The same thing that makes sin so terrible is at the same time the reason why humankind must be redeemed. This has to do with God’s purpose in creating, a purpose which Anselm describes not only as good, but as “beautiful” and “fitting.” “If it is recognized that God has made nothing more precious than rational nature, whose intended purpose is that it should rejoice in him, it is totally foreign to him to allow any rational type of creature to perish utterly.”41 In the section preceeding this statement, he has spoken of “restoration” and being “reconstituted as the sort of being he would have been if he had not sinned.”42 He points here a return to the original justice with which humankind was created, a state of order, harmony and beauty.

The reasons cited above make it clear that humankind cannot save itself – the sermon author has stated it very briefly, and it follows from the argument above that only God is capable of effecting this restoration of humankind in order that its purpose may be fulfilled.

All this has been the catechesis of the preacher that leads up to the presentation of mercy. It is all based on the theology of the day, the orthodox teaching about human nature, sin, and the impossibility of self-wrought redemption. Anselm also explained that God would not simply reconcile humans by means of God’s omnipotence, because that would have meant God did not

39 Ibid., I.23, 309.

40 Ibid., I.5, 270.

41 Ibid., II.4, 317.

42 Anselm, CDH, II.3, 316.

34 take seriously the rules of creation. The forgiveness of sin for which no satisfaction was made would be “unregulated”; in addition, “if a sin is forgiven without punishment…the position of sinner and non-sinner before God will be similar—and this does not befit God. And, “if…sin is neither paid for nor punished, it is subject to no law….Therefore, sinfulness is in a position of greater freedom, if it is forgiven through mercy alone, than righteousness—and this seems extremely unfitting.”43

But humanity had to be saved because not to save humans would be to lose what God had created to be good, and that would be a loss not fitting with the goodness of creation. Alister E. McGrath explains Anselm’s understanding of salvation saying that “it is… necessary that the moral rectitude of the created order be restored, as its present state is unjust. Because whatever is unjust contradicts God’s nature, it is impossible for God to permit this state of affairs to continue.”44

2.4 God’s Response to Human Need

The response of God to the fall of humanity from its state of original justice follows in the preacher’s presentation in Sermon 17, with the basic teaching about the Incarnation. “Finally, the all-knowing son, the second person of the Trinity, having compassion on human misery, inasmuch as he failed not only by his own consent but by the deception of the devil, compassionately descended from heaven and put on the mortal flesh of our weakness.”45 The second person of the Trinity, in uniting himself with humanity, drew humanity into a new contact with divinity. Now all humans have something in common with Christ, the most important thing: human nature. Although here the preacher states that it was the “mortal flesh” that he assumed, this is not to assume that it was flesh only. In Sermon 6, for example, he portrays Christ as a knight, clothed in white, with golden weapons. “The white robe or tunic was

43 Ibid., I.12, 284.

44 A.E. McGrath, “Rectitude: The Moral Foundation of Anselm of Canterbury’s Soteriology,” Downside Review 99, no. 334 (January 1981), 210.

45 Tandem filius omnisciens, secunda persona in Trinitate, habens compassionem super miseria humana, pro tanto quod peccauit non solum proprio assensu set decepcione diaboli, misericorditer descendit de celo et induit mortalem carnem nostre fragilitatis (17:31-34). Interestingly, here the preacher takes the opposite view from Anselm. For the latter, the fact that humankind fell because of the coercion, but not the force of the devil is a reason for blame; in Sermon 17 it is presented as a reason of greater compassion on God’s part. (See CDH, I.22)

35 the purest body which he assumed from the glorious Virgin pure from every stain of sin and misery. The golden arms were his splendid godhead which is so strong that it cannot or could not ever be pierced…it did not suffer pain or passion, sorrow or harm.”46 Human nature and the divine are united in the person of Christ, who is at once divine and human. The point is that since human beings are obliged to, but incapable of, making amends for sin, and that God has the power to effect reconciliation, but no need to do so, the person reconciling God and humankind had to have the nature of each. The Incarnation of Christ makes this possible. Having followed this line of thought, the preacher shows how this person will effect reconciliation by a form of mediation.

Sermon 17 now moves to the description of Christ’s entering the world “as a good mediator, a good love-day maker,47 not with pride or haughtiness, but with lowly speech and humble prayer humbly he came into the world.”48 The most important word here is “mediator,” because Christ is the means of bringing the two parties into agreement—that is, he is the one who enables a new relationship between God and humanity. Christ does this because of who he is (God and man) and what he did while on earth, and what he continues to do from heaven for humankind. Having reminded his audience of who Christ is, the writer turns next to what Christ did while on earth to effect reconciliation.

The preacher lists the sufferings of Christ, from his hunger and thirst to his passion, and notes that “all this was prayer.”49 The purpose of Christ’s deeds and suffering was “to obtain grace for

46 Alba vestis seu tunica erat mundissimum corpus quod assumpsit de gloriosa Virgine purum ab omni macula peccati et miserie. (6.19)

47 An arbitrator, or mediator. The love-day itself was the day appointed for enemies or litigants to meet for arbitration or reconciliation. Middle English Dictionary, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/m/mec/med- idx?type=id&id=MED26252. Accessed Sept. 1, 2017.

48 ...sicut bonus mediator, a god loue day maker, <...> superbia aut iactantia, set loulich speche et humili prece humiliter venit in mundum (17.34-6).

49 Here he suffered hunger and thirst, poverty and sickness, slaps and beatings, spit and derision, reproof and disrespect from the treacherous Jews. And all this was prayer, for, as doctors say on the text of the Apostle, “pray without ceasing,” whatever man does in this world without mortal sin are prayers. Hic sustinuit esuriem et sitim, pouerte and seknes, alapas et betinge, sputa et derisus, repreue et despectum a perfidis Iudeis. Et totum hoc fuit preces, quia, vt doctores dicunt super isto textu Apostoli, “sine intermissione orate,” quicquid homo facit in hoc mundo sine peccato mortali preces sunt (17.36-40).

36 us from his Father and to reconcile man to his mercy.”50 This is followed, however, with the statement that “Christ finally seeing that prayers could not best pacify the anger of God without further satisfaction, nor in this way could he be pacified suitably nor man be saved except through his own death, on Good Friday he willingly (voluntarie) climbed the tree of life, the holy cross, and died for mankind.”51

The adjective voluntarie brings forward another element that the preacher is ever careful to include: the death Christ suffered was his own free gift. This is again to clarify that Christ had and used his will, and was not subject to the devil. Anselm emphasized that Christ chose to die, not “under the compulsion of obedience,” but through choosing to save humankind through dying, which was God the Father’s will. Anselm emphasizes that it was not that Christ was powerless and therefore died, but that, being omnipotent, he died voluntarily because this was the only way to save humankind.52

In addition to this, if Christ had not freely chosen to suffer, it would follow that the human ability to choose would not have been redeemed. The preacher shows, as Anselm did, that Christ also took on all the circumstances of human life. “When Christ endured with kindly patience the sufferings—injuries and insults and death on the cross along with robbers—which were inflicted on him because of the righteousness which, as we have said earlier, he was obediently maintaining, he set an example to mankind, the purpose of which was that people should not turn aside, without the provocation of any perceptible discomforts, from the righteousness which they owe to God.”53 Only in Christ’s life and passion was the debt of human nature, to be subject to God’s will, finally fulfilled.

50 ...continauit triginta annis et plus optinere pro nobis a suo Patre graciam et reconciliare hominem sue misericordie (17.40-2).

51 Set tandem videns Christus quod optime preces non potuerunt pacificare iram Patris sine alia satisfaccione, nec isto modo potuit pacificari conuenienter, nec homo saluari sicut per suam mortem, in die Parasceues voluntarie ascendit lignum vite, sanctam crucem, et moriebatur pro humano genere (17.42-6).

52 Anselm, CDH, I.8-10, 276-81. This last assertion is further developed in the chapters 11-25 of Book I.

53 Ibid., II.18, 349.

2.5 The Effects of the Passion of Christ

In Sermon 17 the preacher writes, “in his pitiful dying he [Christ] cried out so wholeheartedly for mercy for mankind…and finally for complete grace and mercy he poured out for you the blood of his heart and offered it to his Father. By which sacrifice the almighty Father was so greatly pleased that he forgave your offense and the death that you deserved, and gave you a patent of eternal life.”54 The author here is echoing some of the points that can be found in Anselm: “Christ of his own accord gave to his Father what he was never going to lose as a matter of necessity [his life], and he paid on behalf of sinners, a debt which he did not owe [his death]…. Nevertheless, he gave his life, so precious; no, his very self; he gave his person—think of it—in all its greatness, in an act of his own, supremely great, volition.”55

The preacher emphasizes here the purpose of the Incarnation and suffering of Christ: “for mercy for mankind,” even “for complete grace and mercy…the almighty Father...forgave your offense and the death that you deserved, and gave you a patent of eternal life.” Here the preacher is linking “mercy” not only with grace in general, but specifically with the forgiveness of the sin and of the penalty for the sin, and with the giving of a patent of eternal life. It is not the case that God the Father was pleased in a human sense by the suffering of Christ, but that in suffering, Christ was remaking the disorder created by human sin, and this return to order is described, in human terms, as “pleasing” to the Father.

So mercy effects three things: the forgiveness of the offence itself and also of the penalty of death for sin, and then the gift of eternal life.56 As death was the penalty for the sin for which human nature was convicted, through the death of Christ, God and man, mercy revokes the penalty of death, and reinstates the promise of eternal bliss.

54 Et in suo pitous deyinge clamauit ita cordialiter pro misericordia humano generi quod sudauit aquam et sanguinem, vene rumpebantur et corde cordis, et tandem pro finali gracia et misericordia tibi effudit sanguinem sui cordis et optulit suo Patri. Quo sacrificio omnipotens Pater fuit adeo alte placatus quod remisit tuam offensam et mortem quam merebaris, et concessit tibi a patent eterne vite (17.46-51).

55 Anselm, CDH, II.18, 349.

56 From this point the preacher uses the image of the patent to present the seven articles of faith pertaining to the divinity and humanity of Christ.

This way of thinking is present in the sermon author’s consideration in Sermon 22 of justice in the context of the crucifixion of Christ:

“The crucifixion can be well likened to a mirror, a concave mirror. … So it was in the passion and on the cross of the Lord that the Lord of all the world was tortured by grooms, that the highest and just judge should be arraigned as a felon, that the author of life, the innocent one, should be damned to death. This appeared wrong and unjust, in this manner the order of justice appeared to be upside down in this. And nevertheless what appeared unjust to us was just, for there was evil in us, in us there was sin. Where we were worthy to be judged to death and eternally damned, he out of mercy took our quarrel on himself and suffered temporal death willingly to save us from perpetual death.”57

The writer is playing with two senses of “justice” in this excerpt. In the first place he is referring to the Gospel narratives in which Christ is condemned to death by a court of law in what is, to the reader, clearly a miscarriage of justice. Then the preacher brings in the reality the sin of humanity, which is the proper object of the death sentence. Christ, “out of mercy,” through his passion, suffered death on behalf of humanity, and restored the possibility of eternal life.

The above has shown the preacher’s understanding of who Christ is and what he did while on earth; the next is to consider what the sermon writer sees as Christ’s continuing work. In Sermon 13 the preacher offers a Scriptural presentation of salvation and its purpose: [Christ] “willingly in this time of his passion went to the cross and suffered bitter death, the bitterest death that anyone suffered, to bring you again to blessedness. And that all would be forgiven and full union be made between God and man, he entered [then he cites Hebrews 9:24] ‘into heaven itself that he might appear now before the face of God for us.’”58 The author uses the present tense, vt appareat nunc vultui Dei pro nobis, saying that Christ is in heaven, “the true propitiator…who continually prays for us.”59 This means that Christ continues to exercise his role as mediator

57 Crucifixus potest bene assimulari speculo et hoc speculo concauo. ...Ita fuit in passione et in cruce Domini quod Dominus tocius mundi torqueretur a ribaldis, quod summus et iustus iudex schuld be areynyd sicut a pheloun, quod auctor vite, vnus innocens, dampnaretur morti. Apparuit hic wronge and vnriȝtful, isto modo ordo iusticie in isto apparuit euersus. Et tamen quod apparuit iniustum pro nobis fuit iustum, quia in nobis erat malum, in nobis erat peccatum. Vbi fuimus digni ad iudicari morti et perhennitur dampnari, ipse ex misericordia capit nostrum querel super se et sustulit temporalem mortem voluntarie ad saluandum nos a perpetua morte.” (22:330; 332-40).

58 Voluntarie hoc passionis tempore adiuit crucem et paciebatur acerbam mortem, acerbissimam mortem quam aliquis sustinuit, to bringe þe iterum ad beatitudinem. Et quod tota dimitteretur et plena vnio fieret inter Deum et hominem, introiuit…“in ipsum celum vt appareat nunc vultui Dei pro nobis” (13.403-9).

59 vbi est verum propiciatorium, Christus, qui continue exorat pro nobis (13.412-13).

39 between God the Father and humankind. The reason humans still need the mediatory work of Christ is that they continue to sin, and through Christ’s work especially in the Sacrament of Penance the faithful are again and again restored to union with God. (The role of the Sacraments will be further discussed below.)

The important result is that this establishes “full union...between God and man.” Here the preacher is making clear that the mercy of God has restored the relationship between God and humanity. The word “again” in the phrase “to bring you again to blessedness,” expresses this belief that original justice is restored by divine mercy. Mercy is not just a feeling or attitude, but the action of establishing justice, which is desirable in that it is not punishment, but the restoration of what was originally the divine intention for human flourishing.

3 Other Theologies of Sin and Mercy

This hopeful theology of mercy and justice, however, is not the only presentation of salvation in these sermons. This idea is reflected in an image of the “ship of mercy” in Sermon 10. “Seek mercy with the purpose of changing and God will show you compassion and mercy. But because mercy and justice cannot be separated, neither one can be far away from the other according to Augustine. Therefore the hindcastle of the ship is divine justice which follows and accompanies mercy, and which will be shown particularly in the terrifying judgment.”60 Later in this same sermon, the author cautions his listeners not to presume in mercy and forget that judgment will condemn them if they have not truly sought to mend their ways. “Fix justice and mercy before your eyes, do not take one and leave the other…So fear justice that you do not despair. So confide in mercy that you do not presume.”61 Here he seems to be mixing two images of justice and mercy, bringing in an image of justice as the expression of a judgment to be feared, in order to teach the faithful not to presume.

60 Pete misericordiam cum proposito emendandi et Deus vult tui compati et miseri. Set quia misericordia et iusticia nequeunt separari, neutra potest alteri abesse secundum Augustinum. Ideo þe hyndecastel nauis erit iusticia diuina que sequitur et concomitatur misericordiam, et que monstrabitur precipue in tremendo iudicio (10:149-51).

61 Fige iusticiam et misericordiam ante oculos tuos, ne capias vnam et relinquas aliam…Time sic iusticiam quod non desperes. Confide sic in misericordia quod non presumas (10.578-82).

At times the author prefers to use the metaphor of redemption as rescue from slavery to the devil. The sermon author writes, for example, of “our forefather,” [Adam] that “he handed himself over to the devil, himself and all his posterity. And to put the fiend in full possession he wrote a bond of his slavery and sealed it forthwith with the seal of mortal sin. By this bill the devil [gained control] over the whole human race, no one evaded it, birth outside of marriage does not change it.”62 In Sermon 17 the response of God is portrayed as beginning with “the son, the second person of the Trinity, having compassion on human misery, inasmuch as he [Adam, the first man] failed not only by his own consent but by the deception of the devil, compassionately descended from heaven and put on the mortal flesh of our weakness.”63 This image, of humankind as helplessly in the control of the devil, can easily stand behind language of “redemption,” if not for the preacher, then for his audience. The assumption in such an image is that Christ redeemed us by “paying humanity’s bill” to the devil and buying freedom.

Anselm, however, in his Cur Deus Homo had considered closely the use of the word “redemption” as a metaphor for the salvation of humans by Christ. The context of this discussion, as shown above, is placed in his consideration of why it was necessary for the second Person of the Trinity to become incarnate. Anselm’s careful expression and description of the salvific work of Christ is important in that it maintains awareness of the omnipotence of God. Anselm made clear that God is all-powerful and in no way “owed” the devil anything so that it would have been necessary for God to “buy” back humanity. In Cur Deus Homo I.7 he considers the text from Colossians 2:14, which refers to the “‘bond of the decree’ which the Apostle says was against us and was annulled by the death of Christ.”64 Anselm accepts this image of a “decree” which Christ “annulled,” but argues that it was a decree of God, rather than of the devil. “For it was decreed by the just judgement of God and, as it were, confirmed by a bond, in order

62 Deus… “coronauit” nostrum prothopatrem... Set...reddidit seipsum diabolo pro se et omnibus posteris. Et ad ponendum þe fende in ful possessioun scripsit obligacionem sue seruitutis et sigillauit forthwithe sigillo mortalis peccati. Titulo istius demon <...> super totum genus humanum, nullus euasit, natiuitas extra matrimonium non mutat (3.78-90). (Bracketed interpolation by Horner.] There is no explanation in this text of who suggested, or why, that those born outside of marriage should have been safe from thraldom.

63 Tandem filius omnisciens, secunda persona in Trinitate, habens compassionem super miseria humana, pro tanto quod peccauit non solum proprio assensu set decepcione diaboli, misericorditer descendit de celo et induit mortalem carnem nostre fragilitatis (17.31-4).

64 Anselm, CDH, I.7, 273.

41 that man, having sinned of his own free will, would not be able, through his own efforts, to avoid either sin or the punishment for sin.”65 He repeats this at II.19: “Certainly God did not owe the devil anything but punishment, nor did man owe him anything but retribution—to defeat in return him by whom he had been defeated. But, whatever was demanded from man, his debt was to God, not to the devil.”66

In spite of the appearance of the language cited above from Sermon 3, the author of these sermons is often careful to use language which cannot imply that Christ “paid” the devil. In Sermon 7, for example, in a Christian reading of the signs of the zodiac, he writes that Christ ascended into heaven with his divinity and humanity united, … and in this going up he carved the sign of Libra, the sign of the scales, the article of his joyful ascension, for in it he weighed, before his Father, the unbridled lust of Adam against the bitter pains he suffered and the merit of his passion. This was a great event, for in virtue of this he balanced off all the evil of sin and opened the gates of heaven for mankind with his great suffering.67

This certainly reflects more the Anselmian understanding of salvation than the idea of ransoming humankind from the devil’s grip. The image of the scale is a purely physical portrayal which balances sin and Christ’s freely-offered suffering.

There are a few clues in the sermons to explain why the author chose to use the language of being “owned” by the devil, or to use the word “redemption,” in spite of Anselm’s clear presentation of the omnipotence of God. One is that the Scriptural use of the words “bought” and “redeemed” makes them familiar and authoritative. These words are found in the writings of both Paul and Peter. In Galatians 3:13 and Hebrews 9:15 the redemption was from slavery to the law; in Galatians 4:5 slavery was to the elements of the world and redemption from the law; in

65 Anselm, CDH, I.7, 274.

66 Ibid., II.19, 354.

67 Ascendit in celum cum deitate et humanitate vnitis… and in þis styynge vp sculpsit signum libre, þe signe of þe weyt, articulum of his ioyful ascencion, quia in ista contra inordinatum lust of Adam is gilte he weyyt coram Patre suo acerbas penas quas sustinuit et meritum sue passionis. Fuit causa magna quod per virtutem istius he paysid vp omnem maliciam peccati et aperuit celi ianuas toto humano generi with gret trauail (7:201-7).

Titus 2:14 the reference is to iniquity. 68 The Scriptural metaphor would have come easily to mind for the preacher.

Perhaps a more poignant reason would be that at that time it was an established part of war to take prisoners and demand ransom of the family for them. The purchase of freedom would have been work known to many in its various details of negotiation and payment. What could easily happen on the field of battle and afterwards—capture, prison, and eventual release—was in Scripture and the language of redemption placed on the level of eternity. The metaphor of being bound or enslaved is likewise intelligible to those who recognize daily, apparently insuperable situations of injustice or personal helplessness. The promise of divine help is vividly meaningful and appealing, as the preacher and his audience understood that Christ gave access to eternal bliss instead of eternal prison.

In fact, at the end of II.20 in Cur Deus Homo Anselm himself uses the word “redeem.” Speaking of the mercy of God, he asks, “What, indeed, can be conceived of more merciful than that God the Father should say to a sinner condemned to eternal torments and lacking any means of redeeming himself, ‘Take my only-begotten Son and give him on your behalf’, and that the Son himself should say, ‘Take me and redeem yourself.’”69 Anselm is using the imperative redime, trusting that his readers will understand it to refer not to payment to the devil, but to presenting, in and through Christ, what humanity owes in terms of praise and obedience to the Father.

For Anselm, Christ gives the gift of his suffering to the sinner, who is invited to offer it to the Father. This gift is given with love to the Father, who accepts it on behalf of the sinner offering it. “What also could be juster than that the one to whom is given a reward greater than any debt should absolve all debt, if it is presented with the feeling that is due?”70 Here Anselm distinguishes between the language of theology and the language of the heart, and seems to

68 These verses all use forms of redimere. Other verses, 1 Corinthians 6:20 and 7:23 and 2 Peter 2:1, use forms of emere and do not specify from what the believers were bought.

69 Anselm, CDH, II.20, 354. The Latin reads: Nempe quid misericordius intelligi valet, quam cum peccatori tormentis aeternis damnato et unde se redimat non habenti deus pater dicit: accipe unigenitum meum et da pro te: et ipse filius: tolle me et redime te? Anselm, Cur Deus Homo in Opera Omnia, Vol. 2, Franciscus Salesius Schmitt, ed. (Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1946), 131-2.

70 Anselm, CDH, II.20, 354

43 indicate that both are important. In Cur Deus Homo II.18 in an explanation of how it is that Christ offered himself to the Father, Anselm says that Christ, as God, offered himself

to his own honour as well as to the Father and the Holy Spirit; that is, he offered up his humanity to his divinity, the one selfsame divinity which belongs to the three persons;…[but for the sake of clarity] let us say, as customary usage has it, that the Son voluntarily offered himself to the Father… Moreover, through the naming of Father and Son, a feeling of immense pious devotion is aroused in the hearts of listeners, since the Son is said in this way to be making supplication to the Father on our behalf.71

The author of the Sermons in MS Bodley 649 used the words “redeemed” or “bought” especially in his stories and exhortations, which are often placed at the end of a sermon, where their message would be more easily and impressively communicated. In Sermon 5, for example, the author relates the words of a holy man, who speaks of the bleeding wounds of Christ as a “stream of mercy.” “This stream of mercy never dries up, the gates of grace are always open. Jesus who bought you dearly (care te emit) is ready to show you mercy.”72 In Sermon 10 the preacher places in the mouth of Christ fervent appeals to the young, the middle-aged and the elderly; to the latter he says, “With my blood I washed your heart, by my death I bought you dearly (emi te care), as a sign of mercy my wounds bleed; whatever you have done do not despair, in every misery, call to me and I will help in all your need.”73 The preacher’s use of the language of redemption would have provided his listeners with the opportunity to apply the words to their own lives, understanding personally the implications and experience of new freedom and hopes for heaven through God’s forgiveness of sin.

4 Considerations of the Author’s use of Images

At one point, the sermon author uses as an explanation of the Incarnation a story which could be considered to be of dubious quality. Beginning with a story of a man besieged by deadly enemies, he applies the story to Christ and humankind, saying that

71 Anselm, CDH, II.18, 351-2.

72 Iste riuulus misericordie nunquam est aridus, porte gracie semper sunt aperte. Iesus qui care te emit est presto dare tibi misericordiam (5:345-6).

73 Seni sic clamitat, "With my blode laui cor tuum, mea morte emi te care, in signum misericordie vulnera mea blede; quidcumque feceris ne desperes, in omni miseria, clama ad me et ego iuuabo in al þi nede." (10.540-43).

lest the devil recognize him, he [Christ] put on new garb and disguised himself as once the servant of Panapio did...his faithful servant out of pity and compassion towards his lord exchanged clothes with him, urged him to leave through the backdoor, willingly met the enemies of his master, and allowed himself to be killed to save the life of his lord. By this lord who was in honor for a while and soon after was placed in exile and would have been killed, I understand the human race.74

A few lines later he explains that “Christ the king of glory, who for us became a servant and for our love took the form of a slave… put on the single coat of your nature and went willingly among his enemies.”75 While it is clear that the point of the story is the voluntary death of Christ in place of doomed humanity, the image of the Second Person of the Trinity putting on clothes, as a metaphor for the Incarnation, has to be used with care, as clothes can be donned and removed any number of times, and are not an integral part of the person. Marcia Colish clarifies the understanding of the Incarnation is “the human nature made up of body and soul, united to each other and to the Word at the moment of His conception, and not separated from His divinity thereafter.”76 On the other hand, the preacher’s version echoes the great Christ-hymn in Philipians, 2:6-11, which says Christ “emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness, and being found in human form” (Phil. 2:7, NRSV).77 The sermon writer lived in a society which marked social rank in part through dress, and the writer himself was very aware of this. In Sermon 2, for example, he complains that “you will see priests just like laymen in their pleated and pinched togas, ready to shoot an evil word at you if you raise any objection to this.”78

74 Et ne diabolus eum agnosceret, induit nouum apparatum et disgisid seipsum sicut fecit olim Panapionis seruus. Valerius, De rebus memorabilibus libro VI, refert quod cum venerabilis dominus Panapio erat in exilio positus et feroces milites eius inimici venissent in eandem villam vbi erat ad eum occidendum, suus fidelis seruus ex pietate et compassione erga suum dominum mutauit suum habitum, cogit eum exire per posticum, voluntarie adiuit inimicos magistri sui, et paciebatur seipsum occidi ad vitam saluandum sui domini. Per istum dominum qui fuit a qwile in honore et statim post erat in exilio positus et fuisset occisus, intelligo genus humanum (14:102-10).

75 Set Christus rex glorie, qui pro nobis becam seruus et pro nostro amore cepit formam serui...induit þe single cote tue nature et iuit voluntarie inter suos inimicos… (14.116-20).

76 Marcia Colish, “Christological Nihilianism in the Second Half of the Twelfth Century,” Recherche de theologie ancienne et medievale 63 (1996), 146.

77 sed semetipsum exinanivit, formam servi accipiens, in similitudinem hominum factus, et habitu inventus ut homo. Phil 2:7, Vulgata, Clementine.

78 Videbis…sacerdotes prankyt, pinchet in togis suis sicut seculares, parati sagittare ad te sermonem malignum si velis aliquid cum hoc. (2.223-4).

In Sermon 9 he writes that when humankind was lost and wandering in sin, “this gracious Lord, having compassion on human misery, has gone from the glory of his Father by the path of mercy and pity into this woeful desert. He dressed himself in a pilgrim’s habit, he united our mortal nature to his to guide us and to lead us back to the right path.”79 In a society even more conscious of social strata than today’s, the image of God becoming a lowly servant, or slave, out of love for humankind, must have been very meaningful. The preacher is also careful to say Christ “put on the single coat of your nature,” emphasizing that he was not disguised as a human, but truly human, and a slave at that. In Sermon 9 he immediately adds to the image “united our mortal nature to his” in order not to leave the impression of mere disguise, but union of natures. Moreover in this image he calls Christ “the King of glory” and “this gracious Lord,” which contrasts the splendor of the divinity not only with humanity, but the lowliness of a slave, or pilgrim. These would have been vivid images for his audience, who would be touched by the contrast between rightful, heavenly splendor and earthly lowliness.

Another image which at first appears problematic is the preacher’s use of a story about the salvation of spirits who fell with the fall of the angels. The story claims that the Bishop of Lincoln once saw a number of birds, so merry that “he doubted that they were all birds.”80 Upon questioning, they confess that they “are spirits who sinned against God and fell with Lucifer,” and have come to ask whether they can be saved. He tests their willingness to suffer, and assured of that, he says that if they “confess and seek forgiveness and mercy” they will surely be saved.81

79 Iste graciosus Dominus, habens compassionem humane miserie, abiit a sui Patris gloria per viam misericordie et pietatis into þis woful desert. Induit se peregrino habitu, vniuit nostrum mortalem naturam sue to wisse vs et reducere nos ad viam rectam (9:135-8).

80 There was a certain large number of spirits just as this great cleric saw in the likeness of birds abiding in his garden. There they sang so merrily and made so much mirth and melody in their notes it was a joy to hear. This clerk was astounded, and for the great mirth that they made he doubted that they were all birds. Quidam magnus numerus spiritus sicut iste magnus clericus vidit in specie volucrum bidin in eius orto. Ibi cantauerunt so mirilich and madin so much mirth and melodi in her notis it was a ioy to heren. Iste clericus fuit al attonitus, and for þe passinge myrth quem fecerunt suspicatur quod omnes fuerunt volucres (18:171-5).

81 He approached and spoke to them in this way, “I conjure you by the power of Christ that you tell me what you are, why you make such melody, and why you have come to this place.” “Surely,” said one, “we are spirits who sinned against God and fell with Lucifer. We make all this melody in the hope of being saved, and since you are the greatest clerk of the world we come to know from you whether we can be saved or not.” “What pain are you willing to suffer for salvation?” Truly,” said one, “if a pillar were raised from the earth into heaven and studded with sharp razors as much as it could be, we would be willing to pass along its edge to be saved on the day of judgment.” “Truly,” the clerk said, “Confess and seek forgiveness and mercy, and I will place my soul as a pledge that you will be saved.” Transiuit et loquebatur ad ipsos isto modo, “Coniuro vos in virtute Christi quod

The preacher then draws the conclusion that “since the sin of angels is graver than human sin— for their knowledge is greater—, and they themselves are able to be saved if they seek mercy, do not doubt of your salvation if you seek mercy.”82 The confidence in being granted salvation by seeking mercy is not misplaced, but using the salvation of fallen spirits as part of his argument is problematic. The idea can be traced to Origen, from his De Principiis, but it was condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 (the second to meet in Constantinople).83 The preacher attributes this story to Grosseteste, but if the Bishop of Lincoln wrote or said it, manuscript proof has gone missing.84

To cite once more the Archbishop of Canterbury, he shows in Cur Deus Homo II.21 that it is impossible for the devil to be reconciled, listing briefly a number of logical reasons for this, and concluding, “I do not say this on the supposition that the value of the death of Christ does not outweigh in its magnitude all the sins of mankind and of the angels, but because unalterable logic opposes the granting of relief to the fallen angels.”85

This is the conclusion he reaches in this late work, but in his “Third Prayer to St. Mary,” written some twenty years earlier, before 1072, Anselm expressed the opposite opinion.86 In this prayer,

dicatis michi quid sitis, quare facitis tantam melodiam, and querto venistis huc.” “Certe,” dixit vnus, “sumus spiritus qui peccauimus contra Deum et cecidimus with Lucifer. Totam melodiam facimus quod speramus saluari, et ex quo tu es maximus clericus mundi venimus scire a te vtrum possumus saluari uel non.” “Quid peyne velitis sustinere pro saluacione?” “Vere,” dixit vnus, “si esset columpna erecta a terra in celum and prikkid as ful of scharp rasors as one potest esse, per aliud vellemus transire on þe acuciem in diem iudicii saluari.” “Vere,” dixit clericus, “confiteamini et petatis indulgenciam et misericordiam, et pono animam meam in plegge quod saluabimini” (18:175-85).

82 Ecce, domini, attende ex quo angelorum peccatum quod est grauius humano peccato, vt doctores dicunt—quia cognitio maior—, et ipsi possunt saluari si petant veniam, non dubites tu de saluacione si petas misericordiam (18:185-8).

83 Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, 246.

84 Horner states: “I have found nothing linking this anecdote with devils singing as birds or appearing to Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln.” A Macaronic Sermon Collection, 445, note to 175-185.

85 Anselm, CDH, II.21, 355.

86 For the dating of these works, see R.W. Southern, Foreword to The Prayers and Meditations of St Anselm, trans. Benedicta Ward (Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1973), 12, 14.

47 which exquisitely expresses the effects of the Incarnation, he rejoices that “by you [Mary] the elements are renewed, hell is redeemed, demons are trampled down and men are saved, even the fallen angels are restored to their place.”87 There was a time in which Anselm thought the fallen angels could be restored, and looked forward to it with hope.

Perhaps the writer of the sermons in MS Bodley 649 experienced a similar ambivalence, and for two quite different reasons. First of all, the writer knows that not all in his congregation are able to follow the sometimes difficult and subtle turns of a philosophical argument, and the preacher seems to wish to persuade or draw his listeners by any means appropriate to the abilities of his listeners. This story may have been offered as one more encouragement for his audience to hope for and seek forgiveness for their own sins.

Secondly, the preacher himself may have been drawn to hope in the salvation of fallen angels. If the goodness and purpose of creation, and the merits of the passion of Christ were constantly matter for the author’s meditation and preaching, as they appear throughout these sermons, they do carry a weight that leads to hope for the salvation of all creation. Perhaps he had read this prayer by Anselm, which contains and transmits a sense of joyful hope.

The last essential element of the preacher’s theology of salvation is the necessity of a personal response to God’s offer of mercy. In Sermon 17, after showing humanity’s need for salvation, and its gift to humankind through Christ, the preacher exhorts his audience to trust in God’ mercy and turn from sin.

5 The Offer of Divine Mercy Begins with God

In Sermon 10 the preacher says:

the God of pity and mercy, Christ Jesus…follows his fruit, the human race, wherever they go in the sea of sin. Even if you abandon your God, he does not abandon you. Even if you are false to him and unfaithful, his friendship endures. Even if you flee, he follows to succor you through mercy in your every misery. Sink you never so deep in the sea of

87 Anselm, Prayers and Meditations, 119-120. The Latin reads, O femina… per quam elementa renovantur, inferna remediantur, daemones conculcantur, homines salvantur, angeli redintegrantur! Anselm, Opera Omnia. Vol. 3, 21.

sin, no matter how much you have sinned, God does not abandon you, but continually follows you with pity and upports you with mercy.88

God’s compassion for humans is shown most often in the dramatic stories of death-bed visitations. In these stories Christ appears to dying sinners and offers his mercy in the form of forgiveness for their sins, which brings them again into relationship with him. In Sermon 9, for example, Christ appears to a sinner who has fallen into despair and says, “You poor ingrate. All these pains I suffered for you, I redeemed you by the blood of my heart. Do you believe that I would abandon you when I redeemed you with so much suffering? Do not despair of your salvation. Grace is available, seek mercy and have it.”89

6 The Response of the Individual

From God’s “side,” mercy is offered, but not given as a matter of course. The person has the right and the duty to accept or reject the offer, and the choice is truly left to the individual. Saint Anselm deals with this in Cur Deus Homo. There the question is asked why God does not simply give mercy to sinners—that is, forgive sins without requiring sorrow and conversion on the part of the sinner. As seen above, (p. 37) Anselm points out that this would make God’s commandments meaningless. There would be no point in trying to live a virtuous life if virtue and sin were rewarded equally.

Underlying the emphasis on personal free choice is a theology which posits a real relationship between God and human beings. This means not only that God’s actions and will determine circumstances to which the human person must respond, but that the person’s choices have an “impact” on God, or “consequences” for the Divine Persons. Free choice places the relationship of each soul and God on a level of great dignity, and thus the choice on the part of the individual is emphasized; the ability to choose is understood as a gift to humanity from a loving God. This preacher especially mentions that every person has the ability to choose. “He [Christ] tied you to

88 Intelligo Deum pietatis et misericordie, Christum Iesum, qui sequitur fructum suum, humanum genus, quocumque irent in mari peccati. Licet tu relinquas Deum tuum non relinquit te. Licet tu sis falsus sibi et infidelis, sua durat amicicia. Licet tu fugias, ipse sequitur ad succurrendum tibi per misericordiam in omni tua miseria. Synke ȝe neuer so depe in mari peccati, quantumcumque peccasti, Deus non relinquit te, set continue sequitur per pietatem et te supportat per misericordiam (10:471-77).

89 “Tu ingrate miser. Omnes istas penas sustinui pro te, redemi te sanguine cordis mei. Credis quod ego te derelinquerem quando cum tanto dolore redemi te. Ne desperes salute tuam. Gracia est aperta, pete misericordiam et habe” (9:429-31).

49 himself so closely through his grace that you will not fall from him unless you choose to. And even if you fall from him through mortal sin, his mercy is ready to draw you back if you will change.”90

The image used at the beginning of this thesis shows “the god of pity and mercy,” on whose wings are written, “I wait,” and “I forgive.” The audience would know that the offer of mercy has been made through Christ, who waits for their acceptance, and guarantees forgiveness. For the preacher, this response is always assumed to be within a sacramental context. The response here promoted includes making a good confession and amending one’s life by avoiding sin and practicing the works of mercy.

7 The Importance of the Sacraments

The author of the sermons in MS Bodley 649 presents the teaching of the Church regarding the necessity of receiving the sacraments. When human nature was restored to order and right relationship with God, it was still susceptible to sin. For this reason the Sacraments of the Church are of necessary to strengthen the weak person and restore the fallen. In Sermon 3 the preacher explains that the “charter of faith” is given in the Sacrament of Baptism, “for in this sacrament a contract is made between God and man—here the bond of sin is broken, here he gives you pardon, here he gives your faith and liberty.”91 But those who sinned after baptism “lost the charter of their liberty of faith and fell into slavery, so much so that unless you regain the charter before your death you will be damned eternally. … You must go to the chancery of Christ, the sacrament of penance.”92

In Sermon 5 he presents the sacrament of penance as a medicine, saying Therefore you who are corrupted by the infirmity of sin, who for a long time have lain in accursed life, take this medicine right away for the salvation of your soul. Go to your

90 Adeo te vniuit per suam graciam sibi quod non cades ab ipso nisi volueris. Et licet cadas ab ipso per peccatum mortale, presto est eius misericordia, si velis emendare, attrahere te iterum (14.51-3).

91 Si queras vbi: in sacramento baptismatis, quia in isto sacramento fit contractus inter Deum et hominem—hic obligacio peccati rumpitur, hic dat tibi manumissionem, hic dat fidem et libertatem (3.124-6).

92 …perdiderunt cartam sue libertatis fidei et ceciderunt in seruitute in tantam quod nisi rehabueris cartam ante mortem tuam eternaliter dampnaberis. … Transeas ad cancellariatum Christi, sacramentum penitencie” (3.238-40; 242-3).

spiritual doctor, your curate, to whom Jesus gave the power of healing you. Show him your sore, tell him the burden of your conscience, and do penance for it. And even if the medicine of penitence be sharp, corrosive, even if it stings you, it is for your [good]. Suffer a little, it is for your benefit… unless you take this medicine you are all but dead, unless you repent of your sins you go to hell without end. … Go to the sure practitioner Jesus, pray him for help.”93

Important here for the preacher and his audience is that Jesus gave the priest the power to absolve from sin, so that when the priest absolves, it is through the authority of Jesus. The identification of the priest in this role with Jesus is found in the last sentence, where “go to your spiritual doctor, your curate” is now “go to the sure practitioner Jesus.”

The preacher seems to have been moved by a sense of urgency in his calls to repentance. In Sermon 6 he reminds his listeners, “This vocal confession is so necessary that, if you have the opportunity for it, you cannot be saved without it. Augustine testifies to this… ‘Why,’ he says, ‘are you ashamed to confess? I am a man as you, I am a sinner as you; confess therefore man to man, sinful man to sinful man. Choose,’ he says, ‘what you wish. If you remain unconfessed, you will be damned.’”94 In Sermon 8, however, he softens his presentation, still presenting the orthodox teaching of the need for contrition. Sinners must prove themselves truly repentant by confessing their sins to a priest, or, at the very least, prayerfully accepting the mercy offered by Christ. The preacher makes it clear that praying for mercy is sufficient if there is no opportunity for confession. “Confess if you can, if you cannot, have the desire and say privately with contrite heart, ‘Lord, have mercy on me,’ and with my soul for yours, you will be saved.”95

93 Ideo vos qui corumpimini infirmitate peccati, qui diu iacuistis in execrata vita, pro saluacione vestre anime capiatis istam medicinam tempestiue. Ite ad vestrum spiritualem medicum, vestrum curatum, cui Iesus contulit potestatem sanandi te. Schew him þi sore, tel him grauamen tue consciencie, et cape penitenciam pro illo. Et licet medicina penitencie sit acuta, corrosiua, licet te pungat, est pro tuo <…>. Sustine modicum sit pro tuo meliori. … Nisi ceperis istam medicinam es nisi mortuus, nisi conteraris de tuis peccatis vadis ad infernum sine fine. … Ite ad securum practisatorem Iesum, orate eum de adiutorio (5:306-17).

94 Ista vocalis confessio est adeo necessaria quod habita oportunitate sine ista nequis saluari. Istud testatur Augustinus Super Psalmos, vbi loquitur de ista materia in hunc modum, “Quid,” inquit, “erubescis confiteri? Homo sum vt tu, peccator sum vt tu; confiteri ergo homo homini, homo peccator homini peccatori. Elige,” inquit, “quod vis. Si lates inconfessus, dampnaberis” (6:221-5). Horner notes that this quote is from Pseudo-Augustine (Belgicus), Sermones ad fratres in eremo commorantes 30 (PL 40.1289).

95 Confitere si possis, si non possis, habeas velle et dic secrete cum contrito corde, “Domine, miserere mei,” and, cum my soule for þin saluaberis (8:343-5).

The phrase, “the time of mercy,” is found in Sermon 25, a sermon apparently given on the occasion of the king’s setting out on a journey. “Since, therefore,” the preacher says, “the time of mercy lasts only a little while, each one should look to his ship.”96 From the context it is clear that only in this life can God’s mercy restore the human person to preparation for what the author sees as the goal of human life – the bliss of eternal union with a loving God. This life is the time in which to ask for and receive mercy, and to show mercy to others.

8 The Importance of the Works of Mercy

One of the necessary steps in receiving divine mercy is that one act mercifully toward others. Supposing the sinner has confessed and is trying to follow Christ, the specific ways in which mercy can be shown to others are known as the spiritual and corporal works of mercy, especially exercised in the care of the poor and sick. These specific works are based on the Gospel of Matthew, where feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, welcoming the stranger, clothing the naked, caring for the sick and visiting those in prison are equated with doing these things for Christ; not having cared for others in this way is grounds for going to hell, as not having cared for Christ.97 The preacher is matter of fact in his presentation of this teaching, while making the connection between showing mercy to others as showing mercy to Christ: “Just as he opened his heart on the cross to show you love and mercy, thus open your heart to him and give alms to the poor and do works of mercy.”98

In Sermon 2 the preacher outlines three ways for people to practice mercy: towards oneself, towards the poor, and towards one’s enemy. These ways are associated with the image of towers in the “city of mercy,” an image the preacher uses to guide the sermon. The means of exercising mercy are through the gates in the towers: confession, almsgiving, and perfect charity.99

96 Ex quo igitur tempus misericordie modicum durat, quilibet properet ad nauem (25.20-1).

97 Matthew 25: 35-36.

98 Et sicut ipse aperuit cor suum in cruce to schewe þe loue and mercy, sic aperi cor tuum sibi et da elemosinam pauperibus et fac opera misericordie (4.78-9).

99 The first tower is mercy toward s yourself…the second tower is mercy towards the poor…the third tower is mercy towards your enemy. prima turris est misericordia tui… secunda turris est misericordia pauperis… tercia turris est misericordia tui hostis…(2:96-8); In the first tower the gate is pure and open confession; in the second

When a person does what Christ did on earth, or commanded his followers to do, this is not merely a copying of actions, but through shared human nature all people are united to each other and to Christ. This union is at once an ontological reality, and something that the individual can experience and express through action. For the preacher, both forms of union are necessary.

This world, in which every element or member is bound or united to the other, is the preacher’s world. To his mind, even the past and future are bound together. All things and people have been created by God, with everthing necessary to function well: order, which reflects God’s original justice, with everything perfectly in place, and humankind, with the gift of reason and choice, ordained to govern within this order.

Even when humankind failed to rule well, and the originala order and justice were broken, God, in response to the disaster, provided the remedies to heal humankind and the situation: the sacraments of the Church, which will heal the wounds of sin, and the works of mercy by which people contribute to the healing of ills and serve God through serving their neighbors. All of this promotes the restoration of humankind and their world to the grace of God, with eternal bliss as the promised end. This is why the Lollards were seen by him to be such a menace to the realm: their good deeds and almsgiving did not make up for their attacks against the faith and social stability.

tower the gate is care and compassion; in the third tower the gate is perfect charity. porta in prima turri est pura et aperta confessio; porta in secunda turri est ruth and compassio; porta in tercia turri est caritatiua perfeccio (2:103-5).

Chapter Three: The Lollard Threat

1 The Accusations of the Preacher

The preacher is not a devotee of tolerance, nor is he at all concerned to spare the feelings of his audience nor to practice moderation in his speech. The Lollards are, he asserts, a “great army, obstinate in their evil;”1 they are the “heirs of Achan,” who stole gold during the destruction of Jericho and brought a curse on his nation. Achan’s name means “disturbance or tumult.”2 In another way, “they are like those poisonmongers who will drug a man,” mixing the poison “with sweet foods or medicines”.3 And the Lollards, according to the preacher, are not without results in their own preaching: “They blind many,” our sermon writer states flatly, “but they illuminate none…”4 In fact, the preacher is not shy of stating that things go badly in every way in the kingdom because of their influence. “Where was there such a kingdom glorious in riches and bodily strength? It was full of gold, beasts, and all the necessities for success….In that time this kingdom was in great wealth and prosperity. All Christian kingdoms honored and feared it…If you wish to know what is the cause of this [change in prosperity], surely the accursed tornado of Lollardy.”5

2 The Work of Wycliffe Sermon 6 provides the most thorough history, from the sermon writer’s perspective, of the Lollards and their beliefs. The preacher notes that the attack of the Lollards against the Church “did not go on for one or two days, but from the time of Wycliffe, who was armed in heresy in

1 Videbis grandem exercitum Lollardorum obstinatum in sua malicia (2:227-8).

2 Achor latro habet aliquos heredes viuentes, eciam, timeo, nimis plures. Achor interpretatur turbacio siue tumultus. Qui, queso, magis turbant ciuitatem Dei quam isti Lollardi (2:360-2).

3 Est de illis sicut de istis poyswunmongeres qui vult intoxicare hominem. Non dat sibi venenum per se, set miscent istud cum suauibus cibis uel medicinis (10:294-296).

4 Excecant plurimos set nullos illuminant inter ipsos (3:391-2).

5 Vbi fuit adeo gloriosum regnum in diuiciis et corporali fortitudine? Fuit plenum auro, bestiis, et omnium necessariorum ad victum...Illo tempore istud regnum fuit in gret welth et prosperitate. Omnia Christiana regna venerabantur et timebant… Si velitis agnoscere que est causa huius, certe execratus turbo Lollardrie (11:112-114; 117-18; 177-8). 53 54 every way and was the leader and commander of the devilish war.”6 He refers here to the secular priest who was active in Oxford especially from 1356 to 1381. John Wycliffe lectured first in theology, beginning in 1371, but began to gain fame, and then create alarm, through his philosophical teachings.7 His philosophy led to doctrines at variance with Church teaching and even against the structure of society as it then functioned. In fact, a letter in 1377 from Pope Gregory XI to Archbishop Sudbury and Bishop Courtenay emphasized the danger to society of Wycliffe’s ideas.8 Disendowment of religious houses had been a leading thought of Wycliffe early in his career, and the consequences for the ruling classes were quickly seen and discussed.9 This idea in particular was seen by Pope Gregory XI as a danger not only to the Church, but to the kingdom itself. If the possessioners were not protected in their right to own and manage their wealth, nothing would protect the noble class.10 Wycliffe’s emphasis on and interpretation of Sacred Scripture led him to reject vowed religious life, “special prayers…images, pilgrimages and indulgences…[and] all worldly display in the church.”11 Wycliffe rejected Church teaching regarding the Eucharist, believed that “God alone could pronounce absolution on the sins of the contrite man,” taught that only the predestined would be saved, and that the church should be subject to temporal powers; all of these opinions were condemned in 1382 at a Council at Blackfriars.12 Wycliffe left Oxford in 1381 for Lutterworth, where he died in 1384.13

6 Ista guerra non durauit per vnum uel duos dies, set a tempore Wiclif, qui fuit armatus in heresi ad omnem partem et erat dux et capitaneus diabolici belli (6:51-53).

7 Anne Hudson, ed. Introduction to Selections from English Wycliffite Writings (Cambridge: University Press 1978), 1-2.

8 M. E. Aston, “Lollardy and Sedition 1381-1431,” in Past & Present, Non. 17 (Apr., 1960), 2.

9 Ibid., 8-9.

10 Patrick Horner, “‘The King Taught Us the Lesson’: Benedictine Support for Henry V's Suppression of the Lollards,” Medieval Studies 52 (1990), 195.

11 Hudson, Introduction to English Wycliffite Writings,6.

12 Ibid.,4-5, 2.

13 Ibid., 2.

3 Those Who were Influenced by Wycliffe

The Lollards who followed him were indeed a sect, although their organization is not clear to us today; they had some doctrines, although these also varied from time to time and place to place.14 John Thompson writes that “Lollardy could be seen as a series of attitudes from which beliefs evolved rather than as a set of doctrines.”15 These attitudes can be generally described as “anti- sacertodal, anti-authoritarian, and on occasions anti-sacramental” and tending toward “scriptural fundamentalism and… a common-sense rationalism,” which tendencies, Thompson writes, “were not always compatible.”16 Their doctrine did not always reflect that of Wycliffe, but Thompson writes that “little though most of them knew of Wyclif [sic], and much though some garbled his teaching, they do seem to have looked to him as their teacher and inspiration.”17

The use of the name “Lollards” (from the Dutch for “to mumble”) for Wycliffe’s followers came into use especially after his death, although it had first been used shortly after the “Peasants’ Revolt” of 1381.18 Margaret Aston writes that nothing shows that Wycliffe or “Lollard preaching were… in any way connected with the 1381 revolt.” But in popular opinion “the conviction seems to have become established that Lollardy was associated with revolt.”19 M. D. Lambert writes that the Peasant’s Revolt was “a stroke of luck” for those against Lollards, as the belief that the Lollards were behind it “influenced authority’s reactions.”20

In 1395, eleven years after the death of Wycliffe, members of the sect openly declared their beliefs in written documents which were attached to the doors of Westminster Hall and of St.

14 Thompson, John A.F. The Later Lollards 1414-1520. (Oxford: University Press, 1965), 239.

15 Ibid., 244.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid., 240.

18 Margaret Aston, Lollards and Reformers: Images and Literacy in Late Medieval Religion, History Series 22 (London: Hambledon Press, 1984), 1. See also Hudson, Introduction to English Wycliffite Writings, 8.

19 Ibid., 6-7.

20 M. D. Lambert, Medieval Heresy: Popular Movements from Bogomil to Hus, (London: Edward Arnold Publishers, 1977), 247.

Paul’s while Parliament was in session (27 January to 15 February).21 The Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards complained, for example, against corruption in the Church, from its involvement in temporal affairs to the unchaste behaviour of priests and religious (with the conclusion that both priestly celibacy and religious vows and houses should be abolished). It saw exorcisms and blessings as witchcraft, declared that Christians should not fight in wars, that pilgrimages and the doctrine of transubstantiation both lead to idolatry, and that the practice of confession is unscriptural and blasphemous.22

Secular leaders were not swayed to the Lollard opinion, and continued to respond with their own measures. The act De heretico comburendo, allowing “the death penalty for relapsed and impenitent heretics” was passed by the king and parliament in 1401.23 The Lollards, apparently, were behind a 1410 proposal, which “came before parliament to disendow the possessioners.”24 Aston points out that the idea had been proposed “at least twice in the later fourteenth century,” but was finally defeated when the Lollards promoted the cause.25 Shortly before the writing of these sermons, the uprising against the king in 1413-1414, led by Sir John Oldcastle, who was indeed Lollard, sealed the opinion against the sect, and resulted in increased investigation and “repression of heresy.”26 These public events and opinions were the background for the preacher’s response.

4 The preacher’s View of the Lollards

The writer of the sermons of Bodley 649 knew the history of Wycliffe and the Lollards, and related what he saw as the most important points of it to his audience. His version of their attacks against friars and monks has been given above. These attacks against religious, though, are for

21 Hudson, English Wycliffite Writings, 150.

22 The Conclusions are edited in Hudson, English Wycliffite Writings, 24-29 with notes on 150-155.

23 Aston, Lollards and Reformers, 40-41.

24Lambert, Medieval Heresy, 249.

25 Aston, Lollards and Reformers, 20.

26Thompson, The Later Lollards, 220.

57 the preacher not nearly as dangerous as the Lollards’ appearance of goodness, but rejection of the Sacraments.

The preacher acknowledges that the “sect shows great holiness externally: they openly fast a great deal, they go about in simple apparel, they speak most humbly, and they appear pale.”27 He grants as well their ability to read and understand scriptures, and he says even “many of them are quite literate.”28 In addition to this, he acknowledges the good works of the Lollards. They “do many good works, many of them give great alms -- they pay their debts, they refrain from great oaths and the habit of swearing.”29 Such virtuous behaviour would have been, under normal circumstances, the cause of much rejoicing on the part of all the clergy, as these themes were often the substance of their own sermons.

But the preacher notes that good works can be made bad by an evil intention. In Sermon 2 the preacher tells his listeners, “if you do these things for vainglory and the praise of the moment, you have received your reward. You have laid the foundation poorly, this wall will be overturned.”30 He does not hesitate to ascribe evil motives to the good deeds of the Lollards, saying that “under these good works they color their false errors. They perform these works that the simple people may give greater faith and credence to their false beliefs.”31 On one hand, the writer himself is making a judgment about the motives of the leaders without acknowledging that these people might be acting with the best intentions. His own logic seems to move from the perception of a threat from the Lollard camp to the assumption that there is nothing good in any of their intentions or actions, and therefore any seeming good must be done with an ulterior, sinister motive. On the other hand, trying to see the situation from his perspective, it would have

27 Magnam sanctitatem ista secta ostendit exterius: abstinent multum in aperto, incedunt in simplici apparatu, loquntur pauperime, et pallide respiciunt (3.145-147).

28 Sciunt legere scripturas et intelligere; plures illorum sunt multi litterati (13:37-38).

29 Lollardi plura bona opera faciunt, plures ex illis dant magnam elemosinam—soluunt bene debita, abstinent se a magnis iuramentis et consuetudine iurandi (10:290-292).

30 Set si hec facis pro vana gloria et seculi commendacione, recepisti mercedem. Male capis fundamentum, iste murus vult ouerþrow (2:27-8).

31 Ista sunt bona opera in se, set sub istis bonis operibus colorant suos falsos errores. Ista opera faciunt vt simplex populus det maiorem fidem et credenciam suis falsis opinionibus” (10:292-294).

58 been very difficult to be calmly fair to all members of a group which promotes, as far as he can see, widespread upheaval in his country, in political, social, and religious spheres of activity.

The Lollard rejection of the sacraments receives, as one should expect, harsh criticism and very clear teaching of the friar. “They despise oral confession which is part of penance, they hate to hear of that, they despise that sacrament which is the necessary and safe remedy against actual sin,” he writes, and then he repeats, “Est necessarium remedium!”32

He continues in this section of Sermon 6 to name confession, pilgrimages and indulgences, and the prayers of the saints in heaven, “remedies” and “means” of mercy and salvation. This is the theological level of the sacraments; orthodox faith, which looks forward to a day of judgment, and the hope of eternal happiness with God in heaven, does not lose sight of weak mortals’ need for help, which is given through the sacraments.

“The special remedy,” he repeats, “against sin and the means of grace is the sacrament of penance as I said before.”33 Indulgences he calls “[t]he other high means of mercy and salvation,” and perhaps the rest of the sentence is to remind his audience that they are usually bound to visible acts of penance, as he explains that they “commonly are given for pilgrimages and visits to holy places.”34 He names then yet another way of receiving mercy, and that is through asking the saints in heaven, who are understood to be especially close to God, to intercede for people yet in this world who need God’s grace. “The third remedy of mercy and salvation are the prayers of the saints resting with God in heaven, through which many are

32 Despiciunt vocalem confessionem que est pars penitencie, odiunt audire de illa, vilipendunt illud sacramentum quod est necessarium remedium et securum contra actualem peccatum (6:216-219).

33 Precipuum \re/medium contra peccatum ed medium gracie est sacramentum penitencie vt predixi (6: 243-244).

34 Aliud summum medium misericordie et saluacionis sunt indulgencie que communiter conceduntur in peregrinacionibus et visitacionibus locorum sacrorum. (6:245-247).

59 saved.”35 But the Lollards, he writes, “are not willing to admit these greatest means of mercy, but deny, resist and block them.”36

In referring to mercy as “a remedy,” the preacher is using the metaphor of illness and healing for sin and forgiveness, an apt metaphor which applies a known experience to the mystery of sin. Elsewhere he points in similar words to the working of God’s mercy when he states simply, “mercy was ordained to heal the sinner.”37 He often shows this in action by stories of the conversion of great sinners. In Sermon 1, for example, he tells of “a woman” who became a murderess and prostitute and despaired of salvation. But a holy hermit speaks to her “about the sweetness and greatness of God’s mercy which overcomes all sin, which is greater than all evil. Through his holy words a spark of grace lighted on her heart, tears flowed from her eyes.”38 She confesses, and “her contrition and sorrow was so great that as soon as she had confessed, her heart burst and she fell dead among the people.”39 The next day a rose miraculously appears growing up from her grave, and the astonished citizens

found grafted on the leaves of the rose in golden letters, “Blessed be God who did not withhold his mercy from me.” The branch the rose hung on grew out of her heart, and those standing there saw clearly that the heart was divided in two. In the first part of the heart was written in golden letters, “You turned my sorrow into joy.” In the second, “And you surrounded me with gladness, Lord Jesus Christ.” In English, “Thou has turned all my mourning into mirth,” and “My Lord Jesus Christ, you crowned me in thy high heaven with endless joy and bliss.”40

35 Tercium remedium misericordie et saluacionis sunt oraciones sanctorum quiescencium cum Deo in supernis, per quas plures saluabantur (6.248-249).

36 Ex quo igitur nolunt admittere ista summa misericordie media, set contradicunt, resistunt, and forbarrid (6:255-6).

37 Ad sanandum peccatorem misericordia ordinabatur (12:280-1).

38 Tunc heremita sibi predicare cepit de suauitate et magnitudine misericordie Dei quod transcendit omne peccatum, maior est omni iniquitate (1:341-2).

39 Sua contricio et dolor erat adeo grandis quod statim post confessionem rumpebatur cor eius et corruit mortua in populo (1:346-7).

40 Episcopus, domini, et communitas civitatis… inuenerunt in rose foliis aureis insertum litteris, “Benedictus Deus qui non amouit misericordiam suam a me.” Ramus in quo pendebat rosa de eius corde processit vt illic assistentes puro cernebant intuitu, in duoque cor diuisit. In prima parte cordis scriptum erat aureis litteris, “Conuertisti planctum meum in gaudium michi.” In secunda, “Et circumdedisti me leticia, Domine Iesu Christe.”

The instruction the sermon writer underlines with this story, and those like it, is “See how great the power of confession is, see on the one hand the many sins of the woman, on the other the supreme mercy of God.”41 The mercy of God is always given to the sinner through the sacrament of confession. The quotes from the psalms, and especially the preacher’s Middle English version of them, reveal the effects worked by the mercy received: sorrow has been turned to joy and the woman herself has been received into heaven.

As the preacher sees the situation of the Lollards, the result of denying the sacraments is that they refuse God’s mercy for themselves and prevent or discourage others from receiving mercy. This means that lives wounded by sin will not receive the grace to be remade. Those who reject mercy condemn themselves to lives without the promise of healing and forgiveness in this world, and separation from what was ordained to give them the greatest happiness: eternal life with God. Eternal separation from God is hell, “where,” the preacher says, “there is mourning and woe, and endless pain, stench, darkness, and everlasting fire.”42 The situation is this simple to the sermon writer, and hence his distress at the doctrine of the Lollards.

For the individual soul, the fall into Lollardy is one step in the fall to everlasting pain in hell. Worse yet, the Lollard will bring other souls into perdition. “Many, such as Lollard heretics, wander...in faith and lead others astray with their perverse doctrine.”43 Society is affected, indeed, brought down, through the refusal of some of its members to receive or show mercy. This happens on the visible level (the losses in war for example) because it happens first on an ontological level. Because of the bond between all people in their shared humanity, the regeneration, renewal, of one contributes to the renewal of all. When one person refuses renewal,

Anglice, “þou hast turnet al my mournyng into myrthe,” and, “Domine mi Iesu Christe, corwnyd me in þi hy heuon with endless ioy and blisse” (1:352-360).

41 Quilibet peccator istam attendat historiam. Vide quanta sit confessionis virtus, respice ex vna parte multiplex mulieris peccatum, ex alia summam misericordiam Dei (1:361-3).

42 vbi est fletus, and wo, and endless peynis, fetor, tenebre, and euerlasting fire (11:365-6).

43 Plures, vt heretici Lollardi, errant vt dicitur in fide et faciunt alios errare sua peruersa doctrina. (7.216).

61 it affects the body, and all suffer the reprisals from a fall from faith. This is the idea behind his complaint that the whole country is suffering on account of the heretical Lollards quoted above (p. 43).

The preacher’s constant repetition of these means of “mercy and salvation” which the Lollards reject is not unique to Sermon 6. The Lollard threat, and their teaching against the sacraments, especially in this case penance, would have given our preacher more cause than ever to repeat the theme at every opportunity. When it comes to a matter of Lollard politics, for the writer of the sermons in this manuscript, it is not just about political opinion, but politics as they have a place in leading to heaven or hell.

Patrick Horner, as cited in the Introduction, has said that these sermons are marked by “intense hatred of Lollards.” If he meant that the author displayed a determined conviction and hope that all the Lollards should never be forgiven, this is not the case. But certainly, many comments seem to reflect that preacher thinks the Lollards have chosen irrevocably not to amend: “they are obstinate in their evil”, he says, and therefore should be attacked and burned.44 But they were a real danger; Oldcastle, after his escape, was behind an attempt against the King. This apparent mix of heresy and politics would have provoked great anxiety among those who had a care for the realm. In a time when prisons were no more secure than Oldcastle’s custody, capital punishment seemed the only way to save the country from more rebellion and chaos.

That being said, the preacher keeps the door of mercy open to the Lollards. In Sermon 23 he uses the image of a storm-battled ship as a call to conversion. To jettison cargo is to go to confession, and in a string of appeals to different classes of sinners he uses the image of “dropping anchor” exhorting his listeners to place their hope in God. “Drop anchor in God, trust completely in his mercy, be sorry and forsake your sin. Seek mercy from the heart and you will have mercy. … He is ready to succor you in every misery.”45 He includes in this exhortation, “if you have been a

44 Sint [sic] ingraciosi et in malicia obstinati…[the king should fight against them] until the Lollards still standing with all their patrons, are burned by fire as were their companions. …donec Lollardi adhuc superstites cum omnibus suis fautoribus, igni comburantur sicut eorum socii. (6:257; 274-5). (Bracketed summary mine.)

45 Iacta anchoram in Deo, confide totaliter in eius misericordia, be sori and forsake þi synne. Pete misericordiam ex corde et misericordiam habebis. (23.277-9).

62 false Lollard through your whole life, if you have believed falsely, if you have misled the people falsely, still do not despair, drop anchor and you will be saved.”46 As in other places in the sermons, the Lollards are not the only sinners addressed. Here he also promises “if you have been a false juror of the neighborhood… a thief, killed many for their goods… denied God and baptism, …sold your soul to the devil and even signed a charter for him, do not despair…He is ready to succor you in every misery.”47

In Sermon 2, the preacher mentions the necessity of showing mercy to one’s enemies, which takes the form of forgiveness: “forgive your enemy all the old anger and indignation” and “show mercy to your enemy by forgiving injuries.”48 These points are, however, not developed in the sermon, so we do not know what he might have said about the Lollards in those cases. As seen in this exhortation, and from his theology, he could not do more than encourage them to save themselves by returning to the Sacraments of the Church.

When the Lollards proposed disendowment of the religious institutes, both the preacher and his contemporaries among the nobility could see that this would endanger the stability of the social order. For the preacher, this is no mere political and social threat, but an affront to God and danger to the whole realm. In the same way, the Lollard rejection of the Sacraments would deny individuals the spiritual healing necessary for their souls, and this would in turn hinder the recovery of all of society. This is for the preacher a misuse of reason, as all of the helps of the Sacraments were ordained for the restoration and of souls and society. The deliberate rejection and destruction of the order of the realm and of the Sacraments is therefore inexplicable and indefensible for the writer of these sermons, perhaps especially as humankind was already struggling to avail itself of a second chance to recover from its fall from grace.

46 Si fuisti falsus Lollardus per totam vitam, false credidisti, false populum peruertisti, adhuc ne desperes, iacta anchoram et saluaberis (23:283-5). 47 Si fuisti falsus iurator patrie…latro, plures occidisti pro suis bonis…abnegasti Deum et baptisma, si tuam animam demoni vendidisti et cartam sibi inde sigillasti, ne desperes…Presto est ad succurrendum tibi in omni miseria (23:285-90).

48 remitte inimico…omnem veterem iram et indignacionem…misereris tui hostis iniurias remittendo (2:114-15, 116).

Conclusion: A Different Sense of Unseen Realities

With the above as background, it is possible to see more clearly how and why the Lollards drew from the preacher such strong denunciation. The writer of the sermons in the first half of MS Bodley 649 lived in a world in which the physical, social, political and religious spheres were one; the world, he believed, created out of God’s goodness, was the place in which humankind was to journey toward ultimate happiness with God in heaven forever. The journey would be marked by difficulty, but rational beings have the gifts of faith and the Sacraments, and their own reason by which to make use of these helps. The mercy of God restores union after falls on the journey, so people who turn to Christ for mercy have every reason to hope for forgiveness, and eventual restoration of that life and happiness originally intended for them by God.

This is why the preacher stressed divine mercy and not God’s wisdom or love. Divine wisdom and love are behind creation, giving it order and meaning in every detail, especially in the rational creatures. Love is God’s “attitude” toward creation, and it is what impels creation and salvation. But mercy is the action of God that recreates what is fallen, renewing it in order to fulfill the good purpose with which it was created. The preacher is accustomed to live with these notions, not as good ideas, but as a living part of his world.

The Lollards, however, understood things differently. Whereas the preacher said that sinful people were disturbing the good order, Lollards saw the order of the day itself as faulty and sinful, and thus acted to change it on many levels. For the preacher, this is treachery and sin, endangering not only the souls of the Lollards, but putting the salvation of the English people in jeopardy. United by a common human nature, the fall of one would have consequences for the rest of the body.

Given that six hundred years later so much has changed in the way people think and live, the question now is whether this manuscript still has anything to offer. Certainly, I would not recommend the sermons in MS Bodley 649 as a read for someone looking for an introduction to Christian thought and spirituality. The sermon writer took the basic tenets of the faith as a foundation and assumed that his listeners or readers knew them as well. For one unacquainted with the Scriptures and the teaching of Jesus, for example, the use of the image of a rainbow as a metaphor for the Incarnation would illumine nothing. But for someone who knows the teaching

63 64 of the divinity and humanity of Christ, the fact that the rainbow results from the mix of invisible and visible elements does not explain, but reflects and reminds viewers of the beauty and meaning of the Incarnation of God.

This thesis in itself is only a first look at one of the sources of the preacher’s understanding of mercy, and a more thorough study of the theologies of this manuscript is greatly to be encouraged. Anselm’s thought, and that of the writer of these sermons, has left the impression of a world full of purpose, promise and hope. This world-view is marked by a sense of an overarching purpose and meaning for all creation, within which there is room for each soul to find its own particular meaning and expression.

Given the great variety of themes in these sermons from MS Bodley 649, another reader could and should take away something quite different. Likewise enriching would be the study, as this thesis has presented, of one theme repeated throughout the sermons: to understand what the author means by the union of human persons with God, or how he understood grace, or being created in the image of God. Another possible study would be from the catechetical aspect, analyzing the content and method of those portions of the sermons.

This thesis cannot give an adequate impression of the sermons themselves, detailed and varied as they are. They abound with images and metaphors which reflect a different way of looking at doctrines, which have not changed since then in essence, although the mode of expression is altered. These sermons have now served as an introduction to the way Anselm worked out the meaning of redemption through Christ. In its turn, this theology, once integrated, has had its own, profound effect on my mindfulness and capacity to take joy in Sacred Scripture as well as Anselm’s Prayers and Meditations, the prayers of the Roman Catholic Mass, and in the hours of praying the psalms. The author of these sermons cannot have predicted, but he may have hoped, that they would have this effect six hundred years after the writing. They have certainly been written in such a way that the effect is contained in the sermons for those who care to study in this way.

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Anselm. Opera Omnia, Edited by Franciscus Salesius Schmitt. Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1946.

Anselm. “Why God Became Man.” Translated by Janet Fairweather. In Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works. Edited by Brian Davies and G. R. Evans, 260-356. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. “On the Virgin Conception and Original Sin.” Translated by Camilla McNab, 1998. 357-89. “On the Fall of the Devil.” Translated by Ralph McInerny, 1998. 193-232.

Anselm. The Prayers and Meditations of St. Anselm. Translated by Benedicta Ward. (Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1973).

A Macaronic Sermon Collection from Late Medieval England: Oxford, MS Bodley 649, Edited and Translated by Patrick J. Horner. Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies and Bodleian Library. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2006.

“Ignorantia sacerdotum,” in Councils & Synods: with other Documents Relating to the English Church. Edited by F.M. Powicke and C.R. Cheney. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964-1981.

Selections from English Wycliffite Writings. Edited by Anne Hudson. Cambridge: University Press, 1978).

Secondary Sources:

Middle English Dictionary, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/m/mec/med- idx?type=id&id=MED26252. Accessed Sept. 1, 2017.

Aston, Margaret. Lollards and Reformers: Images and Literacy in Late Medieval Religion. London: Hambledon Press, 1984.

———. “Lollardy and Sedition 1381-1431,” Past & Present 17, no. 1 (April, 1960) 1-44.

Barr, Helen. “‘This Holy Time’: Present Sense in the Digby Lyrics.” In After Arundel: Religious Writing in Fifteenth-Century England, edited by Vincent Gillespie and Kantik Ghosh. Medieval Church Studies 21. Turnhout: Brepols, 2011.

Colish, Marcia. “Christological Nihilianism in the Second Half of the Twelfth Century,” Recherche de theologie ancienne et medievale 63 (1996): 146-55.

Crook , Eugene, and Margaret Jennings. “Grading Sin: A Medieval English Benedictine in the

Cura Animarum,” American Benedictine Review 31 (1980): 335-45.

Davis, Leo Donald. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology. Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1987.

Fletcher , Alan J. Late Medieval Popular Preaching in Britain and Ireland: Texts, Studies, and Interpretations, Sermo: Studies on Patristic, Medieval, and Reformation Sermons and Preaching, Vol. 5. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2009.

Haines, Roy M. “‘Wilde Wittes and Wilfulness’” John Swetstock’s Attack on those ‘Poyswunmongeres,’ the Lollards,” Studies in Church History 8 (1971): 143-53.

———. “Church Society and Politics in the Early Fifteenth Century as Viewed from an English Pulpit,” Studies in Church History 12 (1975): 143-57.

———. “Our Master Mariner, Our Sovereign Lord’: A Contemporary Preacher’s View of King Henry V,” Mediaeval Studies 38 (1976): 85-96

———. Ecclesia Anglicana: Studies in the English Church of the Later Middle Ages. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989.

Halmari, Helena and Timothy Regetz, “Language Switching and Alliteration in Oxford, MS Bodley 649.” In Multilingualism in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Age: Communication and Miscommunication in the Premodern World, edited by Albrecht Classen, 313-328. Fundamentals of Medieval and Early Modern Culture 17. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016.

Horner, Patrick. “Benedictines and Preaching in Fifteenth-Century England: The Evidence of Two Bodleian Library Manuscripts.” Revue Benedictine 99 (1989): 313-32.

———. “‘The King Taught Us the Lesson’: Benedictine Support for Henry V’s Suppression of the Lollards.” Mediaeval Studies 52 (1990): 190-220.

———. “Benedictines and Preaching the Pastoralia in Late Medieval England: A Preliminary Inquiry.” In Medieval Monastic Preaching, edited by Carolyn Muessig, 279-92. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 1998.

Hudson, Anne. Introduction to Selections from English Wycliffite Writings. Cambridge: University Press, 1978.

Jurkowski, Maureen. “Henry V’s Suppression of the Oldcastle Revolt.” In Henry V: New Interpretations, edited by Gwilym Dodd, 103-130. Woodbridge, Suffolk: York Medieval Press, 2013.

Kantik, Ghosh. “Magisterial Authority, Heresy and Lay Questioning in Early Fifteenth-Century Oxford.” Revue de l’histoire des religions 231 no. 1 (2014): 293-311.

Kienzle, Beverly Mayne. “Medieval Sermons and their Performance: Theory and Record.” In Preacher, Sermon and Audience in the Middle Ages, edited by Carolyn Muessig, 89-124. Leiden: Brill, 2002.

Knowles, David. The Religious Orders in England, Vol II: The End of the Middle Ages. Cambridge: University Press, 1957.

Lambert, M. D. Medieval Heresy: Popular Movements from Bogomil to Hus. London: Edward Arnold Publishers, 1977.

Langum, Virginia. Medicine and the Seven Deadly Sins in Late Medieval Literature and Culture. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.

Matusiak, John. Henry V. Routledge Historical Biographies.Edited by Robert Pearce. London: Routledge, 2013.

McGrath, A.E. “Rectitude: The Moral Foundation of Anselm of Canterbury’s Soteriology,” Downside Review 99, no. 334 (January 1981): 204-13.

Otto, Sean Andrew. (2013). Pastoralia in John Wyclif’s Sermones: Controversial Preaching in Later Medieval England (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/43424/30/Otto_Sean_A_201311_PhD_t hesis.pdf.

Owst, G.R. Preaching in Medieval England: An Introduction to Sermon Manuscripts of the Period c. 1350-1450. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1926.

Ross, Ellen M. The Grief of God: Images of the Suffering Jesus in Late Medieval England. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Ruddick, Andrea. “National Sentiment and Religious Vocabulary in Fourteenth-Century England.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 60, no. 1 (January 2009): 1-18.

Southern, R. W. Foreword to The Prayers and meditations of St Anselm. Translated by Benedicta Ward (Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1973).

Spencer, H. Leith. English preaching in the late Middle Ages. [electronic resource] Oxford [England]: Clarendon Press, 1993. http://books1.scholarsportal.info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/viewdoc.html?id=/ebooks/ebooks 2/oso/2012-10-01/1/9780198112037

Taylor, Craig. “Henry V, Flower of Chivalry.” In Henry V: New Interpretations, edited by Gwilym Dodd, 217-48. Woodbridge, Suffolk: York Medieval Press, 2013.

Thompson, Augustine. “From Texts to Preaching: Retrieving the Medieval Sermon as Event.” In Preacher, Sermon and Audience in the Middle Ages, New History of the Sermon, 3, edited by Carolyn Muessig, 13-37. Leiden: Brill, 2002.

Thompson, John A.F. The Later Lollards 1414-1520. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965.

Wenzel, Siegfried. Macaronic Sermons: Bilingualism and Preaching in Late-Medieval England. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994.

———. Latin Sermon Collections from Later Medieval England. Oxford: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

———. Preaching in the Age of Chaucer: Selected Sermons in Translation. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2008.

Appendix

Outline of Sermon 17 Fructus iusti lignum vite, Prouerbiorum XI. The holy cross, the lively tree, / is thy fruit if righteous thou be.

1. Justice: the virtue returning to each one what is his a. God b. You c. Your neighbor 2. So what is due: a. Adore your God with required faith = needful b. Rule yourself virtuously with hope = speedful c. Assist your neighbor compassionately with charity = meedful [meritorious] 3. First: a. Anyone impeached for treason against the king, convicted, and sentenced to death,… would be bound to and always obliged out of debt to return reverence and honor to one who mediated for you to gain your pardon and save your life. b. Human nature was impeached i. In paradise ii. Of treason 1. Against King of kings and Lord of lords, almighty God iii. Desired to have made himself like God 1. And to have had knowledge by himself a. To rule all the stars of heaven iv. Convicted by his own conscience v. As traitor expelled from palace of highest king, delightful paradise vi. Into dark prison of this sorrowful world 1. Awaiting with much care and sorrow day of deliverance c. Sin was so grave that i. No creature in heaven nor on earth could pacify anger of God nor make sufficient amends 1. Not on earth a. Not beasts: i. No merit or reward, virtue or vice 1. Because they lack reason, discretion, free will b. Not men i. All were traitors to themselves ii. All in same damnation 2. Not in heaven a. Human sin is infinite in evil

b. But an angel’s virtue is finite ii. So man wept etc. seeing within him: 1. Joy of paradise lost 2. Trouble he had incurred 3. Enormity of sin which no creature could remedy iii. All-knowing son, second person of the Trinity, 1. With compassion on human misery a. Since he failed by own consent b. But also by deception of devil 2. Descended from heaven mortal flesh of our weakness a. As mediator, love-day maker i. Not with pride or haughtiness ii. But wtih lowly speech and humble prayer iii. Suffered hunger, thirst, poverty, sickness, slaps etc 1. From treacherous Jews b. All this was prayer = “pray without ceasing” i. And all that we do without mortal sin is prayer ii. 30 years and more iii. To obtain grace for us iv. From his Father v. And to reconcile man to his mercy c. But prayer could not pacify anger of God without further satisfaction nor in this way could he be pacified suitably nor man be saved except through his own death, so: i. Good Friday 1. Willingly 2. Climbed tree of life = the holy rood 3. Died for mankind. ii. In his pitiful dying he 1. Cried out so wholeheartedly for mercy for mankind a. That he sweated blood and water b. His veins burst c. And the strings of his heart 2. And for complete grace and mercy a. he poured out for you the blood of his heart b. and offered it to his Father 3. By which sacrifice the almighty Father was so greatly pleased that a. He forgave your offense b. And the death you deserved c. And gave you a patent of eternal life. iv. This patent is faith; in a patent is a two-sided imprint, of the royal king,

and of arms 1. Image of the highest king = 7 articles pertaining to godhead a. In God the Father almighty b. In Jesus Christ his son c. In the Holy Spirit d. In the creator of heaven and earth e. In the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins f. The resurrection of the body and eternal life 2. Arms = 7 articles pertaining to humanity a. Conceived of the Holy Spirit b. Born of the virgin Mary c. Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried d. Descended into hell e. Rose from the dead f. Ascended into heaven g. Will come to judge the living and the dead 3. For just as a patent is a shield and sufficient protection against all enemies, so faith, etc. v. So pay heed how…etc. pay heed how Christ the son, etc. Since there is nothing else you can do for him except to love and honor him, love him dearly with your whole heart, honor him reverently with your whole devotion, not as they do in these days 1. Some come to church and a. Scarcely take holy water and say, “Sancti, Amen” b. Take consorts, trace church up and down, talk and shout, disturb others c. Begin the pater noster, etc. 2. Not so, my lords… you should a. Look on your calendar, the cross b. Pay heed to pains he suffered for you c. Bend each knee before the cross d. With whole heart adore the good Lord i. Who redeemed you by his blood 3. But perhaps you say as Lollards teach a. Why should I genuflect to cross…of stone or tree trunk? i. Image represents pains he suffered for you on wood ii. Apostles introduced images so [you laymen] 1. could see passion of Christ 2. and meritorious life of other saints 3. and be more quickly moved to devotion 4. So do not believe Lollards a. honor images with prayers and offerings

i. this is will of God ii. as evidenced by miracles and marvels done with them b. What do you think:. “In time there will be rains as a blessing and the tree will give its fruit” Ez. 34. c. Perhaps unlettered man says, “I would pray frequently if I knew what I should seek.” i. Jerome: “enchanters of serpents do not understand words…[but] serpents are subdued…” “To the one conquering, I will give to eat of the tree.” 4. Second: Tree of life will be a marvelous strengthening fruit for you if you rule yourself by virtuous hope which is speedful. a. On pilgrimage through narrow, slippery path full of ditches, you need a staff i. All, young and old, go on this pilgrimage ii. Path is your life 1. Gregory, Homilies, “…present life…as if…path…for homeland” a. Filthy, ugly, etc i. Middle is very slippery; from 1. Health to sickness 2. wealth to woe 3. mirth to care and sorrow 4. worst: virtue to sinful and vicious life 5. Example of rich men falling… ii. End of path is death 1. You cannot evade it a. No matter who you are 2. You do not know how or when… 3. Unless you have confessed and are contrite you’ll go to hell a. For least mortal sin i. Committed in deed, word, or thought b. So take the staff of good hope i. Lest you fall into mortal sin, God forbid…the staff which is assuredly the tree, Isaiah 10 ii. Lean on this staff 1. Trust completely in the mercy of God 2. Keep in mind the goodwill and mercy he showed in passion 3. What more can he do than he did? a. Emperor of heaven and earth and lord of whole world i. He became your servant and underling ii. So poor he had no home to rest his head b. Wisdom of God i. Suffered disrespect from treacherous Jews

c. Eternal life i. Became mortal ii. Poured out blood of his heart 1. Not one drop or two, but all d. All this was to show his mercy i. And that men would more firmly love him ii. Dionysius: Christ appeared after ascension to blessed Carpus saying ‘he was prepared again to suffer to save men’ e. Since Christ redeems you so dearly i. By passion and precious blood ii. And still is ready to die for you f. Then do not doubt you will be saved i. If you will turn away from your sin ii. And seek mercy 4. Pay heed to these words a. Print them in your heart b. And if these words you hear…do not move you in whatever sin you have sinned, i. Willingly look… on wood and see the fruit of consolation and courage, etc.

The text ends here, at line 141.