"An outrider that loved venerie,

A manly man, to be an abbot able,

Full many a dainty hors he had in stable," &c.

And this is taken as a faithful portraiture of abbots in the thirteenth and fourteenth century. But let us look at one or two more authentic features of such characters. In the same century, the priory and convent of St. Swithins, at Winchester, thus recommended one of their brethren to the convent of Hyde, as a proper person to be preferred to the abbacy of the convent then vacant.

"Est enim confrater ille noster in glosanda de sacra pagina bene callens, in scriptura peritus, in capitalibus literis appingendis bonus artifex; in regula S. Benedicti instructissimus, psallendo doctissimus."

That is to say, the qualifications of an abbot were, his skill in caligraphy, and in copying and transcribing the Scriptures, his acquaintance with the rule of his order, his proficiency in sacred chanting. Here is an authentic ancient document, really valid and valuable evidence. Yet your enlightened and acute Protestants disregard such evidence and prefer the isolated and ill-considered sarcasm of a loose and licentious poet! And then they sneer at the ignorance and stupidity of the monks! Ah! there is no stupidity like the stupidity of pride!

There are many passages in Chaucer's poems which appear to point rather to the "poor priests" of Wickliffe than to the friars whom they calumniated and the clergy they slandered. Speaking of those who worked only for "lucre and covetise," Chaucer wrote:

"Elke in the same sect are set
All they that preachen for to get,
Worship, honor, and reichesse;
Then heartes are in great distresse
That folke live not holily;
But aboven all specially

Such as preachen vain glore,

And toward God have no memoree,

But fath do hypocrites trace,
And to their souls death purchase,
And outward howing holynesse
Though they be full of cursednesse ;
For oft good predication
Cometh of evil intention

To him not vaileth his preaching,
All helpe he other with his teaching,
For where they good example take
There is he with vaine glorie shake.”

He goes on to speak sarcastically of those
"Who spake full faire in their praying."

He says that whoso will find "False Semblance,"

"He must in worldly folke him seke
And certes in the cloisters eke (also)
And certainly artfullest hiding

Is underneath humblest clothing."

This hit the " poor priests" of Wickliffe, (who went about in their coarse gowns) not less than the friars in their serge habits.

The poet went on to write ;

"But natheless I will not blame

Religious folke, ne them diffame,
In what habite that ever they go:
Religion humble, and true also,
Will I not blame ne despise."

And he explains that he means the "false religious." "That willen in an habite go

And setten not their herte thereto."

This is very different from the tone of the Canterbury Tales," (which holds up all friars to derision), and it is also very different from the language of Wickliffe, who held up all friars to execration; denouncing the entire orders. Chaucer in the "Romaunt of the Roses," which we conceive to be the earlier, and, morally, the better poem,-goes on to make "False Semblance" say,

"I dwell with them that provide be,

And full of wiles and subteltie,

That worship of this world coveiten (do covet)

And go and gather great pitaunces,

And purchase there the acquaintaunces

Of men that mightie life may lead,

And faine them poor and themselves feed

With good morsels delicious,

And drunken good wine precious,

And preach us poverty and distresse,
And fishen themselves great richesse."

All this hits Wickliffe's " poor priests" not less than the friars, and appears rather to refer to the former, for it was they rather than the friars who in Chaucer's time" purchased themselves the acquaintance" of men that mighty life were leading; "and gathered great pitaunces." For instance, the arch-heretic Wickliffe took care to become king's chaplain and royal professor, and rector of a good benefice, despite all his professions about poverty; he also took care to secure the patronage and protection of John of Gaunt. And Wickliffe's" poor clerks," although he had written a tract entitled, "why poor clerks have no benefices, (professing that they refused them), showed themselves as eager as their master after good preferment, when they could get it; and although they railed at the friars indiscriminately, the experience of Chaucer led him to far more sensible and charitable conclusions;

"Habit ne maketh nor monke ne frere,

But cleane life and devotion

Maketh men of good religion,

Good herte maketh the good thought,
The clothing geveth ne reveth nought:
The good thought and the working,
That maketh the religion flowing,
There lieth the good religion,

After the right intention."

And then with equal sense and candour he makes" False Semblance" confess that he assumes his disguise in every class and rank of socity.

"Now am I knight, now chastelaine,
Now prelate and now chaplaine,
Now priest, now clerk, now friare,
Now am I mastere, now scollere,
Now monk, now canon, now baily:
Whatever mister man am I,
Now am I prince now am I page,
And can by herte every language,
Now am I Robin, now Robert ;
Now frere minor, now jacobin ;
Sometimes a woman's clothes take I,
Now am I maid, now lady.

Sometimes I am a prioresse,

And now a nonne and now an abbesse ;
What will ye turn? In every wise

Right as me best I me disguise?"

There is no railing here at any particular class; the laity not less than the clergy, the secular clergy not less than the religious, are represented as infested by the vice of hypocrisy while other passages show that the poet equally recognized in all classes the existence of genuine piety. The tone is not that of a scoffer at religion. It is rather in sorrow than in scorn that the poet alludes to wolves in sheep's clothing," and foes within the fold of the Church.

66

"Who so took a weather's skin

And wrapped a greedy wolfe therein,
If he should go with lambes white,
Weanst thou not he would them bite ?
Yes, natheless as he were wood,

He would them worry and drink the blood;
And will the rather them decieve,

For since they could not percieve,
His treachere and crueltie;

They would him folow, although he flie,
If there be wolves of such hue
Amongst these apostles new;

Thou holy Church, thou maist be waild,
Since that thy city is assailed,

Through knights of thine own table."

The allusion here to "the new apostles," can hardly be explained except by reference to Wickliffe's "poor priests," who had gone about the country preaching, as they pretended, a purer gospel. There is nothing in Chaucer's dependance on John of Gaunt inconsistent with this view; since when that prince found Wickliffe to be an impious heretic, he disowned him, and doubtless was disgusted, as Chaucer seems to have been, with his hypocrisy not less than his heresy. There is another passage in the same poem, in which there is an allusion, (as we venture to think), to Wickliffe's " poor priests;" that in which "False Semblance" assumes an aspect of one

"Whose looking was not disdeinous
Ne proud but meeke and full feesible,

About his neck he bare a Bible,
But in his sleve he gan to throng
A rasa sharpe and well liting."

And then the poet goes on to describe the union between abstinence" or false asceticism, and "wicked tongue,' or calumny.

There is, we think, great reason to infer from these and a vast number of other similar passages in the works of Chaucer and contemporary writers, that they clearly saw that it was among the assailants of the Holy See and the accusers of the clergy and the religious orders that the worst characters were to be found; that the calumniators of the brethren exemplified the vices they imputed to others; that the faithful children of the Church were those whose character was creditable and whose conduct was exemplary. Anyhow, the authorities we have cited, and the facts we have stated, surely show that in truth it was so; and that so far from disaffection to Rome resulting from a love of liberty or religion, it was ever associated with impurity, hypocrisy, and rapacity. The facts of contemporary history show, that prelates and priests most loyal to the Holy See, were most faithful to their sacred calling-most liberal, charitable, and devout. On the other hand, the opponents of the Holy See were friends of kingly tyranny or pandered to kingly rapacity-were irreligious, servile, avaricious, and impure. We find the Church ever labouring to promote religion and learning,we find under her auspices faith and intellectual enlightenment advanced, and piety and charity promoting education. We find her crippled in her holy work by a sensual sovereign and rapacious princes; and at last, by a series of hostile laws, supported by some judicial decisions, practically deprived of her power. Up to that time, we find, in spite of all the obstacles interposed by the brutality of the laity, and rapacity of princes, education extended, and piety and charity diffused. Such is the chequered character of the age of Edward III. The fruits of the fatal policy then pursued were realized in a later age. For the present it is sufficient to have shown, what we undertook to show, that for all the good of the age of Edward III., the Church should have the glory: for all the evil, the State and its anti-papal legislation must be deemed to have been responsible. Never after