derivative way, and could easily lead the unwary exegete astray. If Wyclif is to be believed, the majority of his contemporaries in Oxford were caught up in a kind of early linguistic turn, devoting undue attention to the properties of terms, generally at the expense of any engagement with the truths underpinning them.
Some people maintain that there is nothing anomalous about holy scripture being false. Indeed, if scripture is nothing more than the codices of human scribes, and those scribes happened to have been more untruthful than usual [when
( 37i and 37ii ); indeed, their lack of proper power in secular affairs effectively excluded church officials from any meaningful engagement with affairs of state. Wyclif is careful to point out in the sixth chapter of On the Office of the King that, of the two, the king’s office was superior ( 37i ). The king was quite at liberty to exercise his authority over ecclesiastical administration, especially in relation to perceived errors of the church, but any such intervention had properly to relate to secular, rather than spiritual, affairs of the church. In