His theory of property, and his study of the character of Christ, had led him to the near confines of Anabaptism.  Expanding his views upon the estates of the church into an axiom, he taught that “charters of perpetual inheritance were impossible;” “that God could not give men civil possessions for ever;"[468] “that property was founded in grace, and derived from God;” and “seeing that forfeiture was the punishment of treason, and all sin was treason against God, the sinner must consequently forfeit his right to what he held of God.”  These propositions were nakedly true, as we shall most of us allow; but God has his own methods of enforcing extreme principles; and human legislation may only meddle with them at its peril.  The theory as an abstraction could be represented as applying equally to the laity as to the clergy, and the new teaching received a practical comment in 1381, in the invasion of London by Wat, the tyler of Dartford, and 100,000 men, who were to level all ranks, put down the church, and establish universal liberty.[469] Two priests accompanied the insurgents, not Wycliffe’s followers, but the licentious counterfeits of them, who trod inevitably in their footsteps, and were as inevitably countenanced by their doctrines.  The insurrection was attended with the bloodshed, destruction, and ferocity natural to such outbreaks.  The Archbishop of Canterbury and many gentlemen were murdered; and a great part of London sacked and burnt.  It would be absurd to attribute this disaster to Wycliffe, nor was there any desire to hold him responsible for it; but it is equally certain that the doctrines which he had taught were incompatible, at that particular time, with an effective repression of the spirit which had caused the explosion.  It is equally certain that he had brought discredit on his nobler efforts by ambiguous language on a subject of the utmost difficulty, and had taught the wiser and better portion of the people to confound heterodoxy of opinion with sedition, anarchy, and disorder.

So long as Wycliffe lived, his own lofty character was a guarantee for the conduct of his immediate disciples; and although his favour had far declined, a party in the state remained attached to him, with sufficient influence to prevent the adoption of extreme measures against the “poor priests.”  In the year following the insurrection, an act was passed for their repression in the House of Lords, and was sent down by the king to the Commons.  They were spoken of as “evil persons,” going from place to place in defiance of the bishops, preaching in the open air to great congregations at markets and fairs, “exciting the people,” “engendering discord between the estates of the realm.”  The ordinaries had no power to silence them, and had therefore desired that commissions should be issued to the sheriffs of the various counties, to arrest all such persons, and confine them, until they would “justify themselves” in the ecclesiastical courts.[470] Wycliffe petitioned against the bill, and it was rejected; not so much perhaps out of tenderness for the reformer, as because the Lower House was excited by the controversy with the pope; and being doubtfully disposed towards the clergy, was reluctant to subject the people to a more stringent spiritual control.