the Lady Chapel of old St. Paul's, and he presided in person over the inquiry. Is it possible to dissociate it from the bold act which procured Wykeham's restoration? Must we not take the two acts together as Courtenay's retort for his treatment after the Florentine riot or at any rate as a challenge to John of Gaunt on behalf of the rulers of the Church?
It is probable enough that Wyclif's militant spirit led him to anticipate with a certain keen satisfaction the opportunity of fighting out so noble a cause with an antagonist so worthy of his steel. He could not foresee that his own friends would make anything like a connected argument impossible, even if his enemies had been willing to hear him.
But the Duke of Lancaster seems to have made up his mind beforehand that Courtenay was acting in excess of his jurisdiction—and it is certainly not quite clear what the jurisdiction was. Courtenay was not Wyclif's diocesan; but the latter had preached for many years in the diocese of London, and the Bishop's authority was doubtless sufficient to prevent him from doing so again, if on inquiry he found that the King's chaplain was in the habit of preaching rank heresy. For anything beyond this it would seem that Courtenay would need authorisation from the Pope or the Archbishop. There is no evidence of a bull up to this point, and it is extremely improbable that the proceedings were taken on the authority of Sudbury, who was not heroic enough in his mood to break with and defy the Duke of Lancaster. We can only suppose that Courtenay's position in the matter was a weak one,
