immediate steps to check the abuse, moved thereto by thinking of the souls of the departed, of their own responsibility, and of the safety of the realm. All the world would laugh at our "asinine folly" if we who dared to invade other countries for secular causes were afraid of holding back trust-funds in the name of God from unworthy claimants. The laws of nature, of Scripture, of conscience, bid us boldly say No to the Pope.
What then (Wyclif goes on to consider) would the Pope do if we refused this money? Assume that he would excommunicate the whole realm, put us under an interdict, declare our goods forfeit, as he did to the Florentines, raise a crusade against us, stamp us with the mark of schismatics, as Rome has done for the Greeks. But only an unworthy affection could be disturbed by the withdrawal of such charity as this. The Holy Father, seeing on one side how the Turk grows stronger and stronger in Europe (for reasons best known to God), and seeing on the other that the realm of England is conspicuous for its piety, would not create so grave a scandal through mere greed of temporalities. And even if some disciple of Anti-christ should break out into such madness, it is a consolation to think that censures of this kind are not binding in the sight of God. The limit of what Christians should give to the Pope is what his office demands; but people have been taught to confound the office with the pomp surrounding it.
On the other hand, it has been argued that if we kept this money in England, it would be a cause of wantonness, lubricity, and avarice. If so, then let
