22. CHRISTIAN ORTHODOXY, CHRISTIAN HERESY: RESPONSES TO “LOLLARDY” IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY
INTRODUCTION
Although the church of Rome in the Middle Ages presented itself as “catholic”—that is, universal—in fact there were many and diverse forms of “officially approved” Christian expression in the medieval world, from the western Roman form of orthodoxy to eastern orthodox forms in the Byzantine Empire, eastern Europe, and western Asia, and in the southern Mediterranean and Middle East. In addition to these dominant forms, multiple alternative versions of Christianity appeared, which were labeled as “heretical” by the leaders of institutionalized Christianity.
In England, one such alternative developed in the fourteenth century under the intellectual leadership of JOHN WYCLIF (ca. 1331–1384), a theologian and Master of Law at Oxford University. Wyclif, whose ideas would form a significant component to the doctrines espoused in the Protestant Reformation, objected to the dominance of church precepts that did not originate in the Bible. For example, he rejected the doctrine of Purgatory, the theology of transubstantiation, the Catholic Church’s sacramental system, and the idea that the Bible could not be translated into vernacular languages. Although he was protected by the highly influential Duke of Lancaster, JOHN OF GAUNT (son of Edward III and father of the future king HENRY IV), Wyclif’s teachings were condemned at the Council of Constance (1414–1418) and his followers, who were derogatively called “Lollards” (that is, ignorant and uneducated persons), were labeled heretics. By the later fifteenth century, all homegrown dissenters of orthodoxy were referred to as Lollards.
The Lollard movement, especially in the later fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, had a significant political component, one borrowed from the precepts of the Great Rising of 1381. The Lollards claimed that a “priesthood of all believers” should also render all men equal not just in the eyes of God but also in society. They rejected the institution of villeinage and the notion of the “natural” superiority of the aristocracy and the clergy. As can be imagined, this led to significant suppression of Lollards on the part of both the Crown and the Church.
Although Lollardy had been strenuously attacked during the brief reign of Henry V (1413–1422), it resurfaced during the long minority of his son, HENRY VI (1422–1462, 1470–1471), who succeeded to the throne as an infant and did not achieve his majority until 1437. The two documents that follow trace a trajectory of increasing radicalism in the Lollard community, one which was never completely eradicated, leading to sympathy for King Henry VIII’s rejection of the authority of Rome and the establishment of the Church of England in the following century.
KEEP IN MIND AS YOU READ
In the Middle Ages the Roman Church forbade the translation of the Bible into any vernacular language and discouraged laypeople from reading it, even if they were educated in Latin. The Catholic mass was conducted in Latin and sermons were not preached routinely in English and other vernaculars until the beginning of the fourteenth century. Therefore, the typical Christian experience of churchgoing was ritualized and performative, with little understanding of the subtleties of the Catholic mass. Nevertheless, the communities of Europe longed for a more personal relationship with religion, and this is what drew many to Lollardy and similar movements on the Continent.
Document 1: Letters of King Henry VI to the Abbot of Bury St. Edmunds and to the Aldermen and Bailiffs of the Town of St. Edmunds, Concerning the Suppression of the Lollards (1431)
Letter 1: King to The Abbot of Bury St. Edmunds
Right trusty [faithful] and well-beloved [abbot], for as much as that, in this holy time of Whitsun week, the misgoverned men of diverse Shires of this our land, and especially the Shire of Kent—Lollards as well as other robbers and pillagers of our people—were, in great number and in riotous ways, gathering in the said Shire of Kent, to do whatever harm they might, and to have subverted all the politic rule of this our land. Among the misgoverned men, Sir Nicholas Coneway, knight, who is now taken and set fast in prison, should have been a Captain; a great number of other men have been imprisoned as well. We have been informed that there is likely to be an assembly gathering in Cambridgeshire, around Cambridge town. We command, therefore, that anyone, after the sight of these our letters, with all diligence … prevent the gathering of such misgoverned men, and at all times to be ready, with all the might and power that they can and may get in order to resist their malicious intent and purpose. … And moreover We command you to report to us in this behalf, from time to time, as the case shall happen and require. Given under our privy seal, at Westminster, the 5th day of June.
Letter 2: From the King to our trusty [faithful] and well beloved Alderman and Bailiffs of our town of Bury [St. Edmunds].
Trusty and well-beloved men: the malicious intent and purpose of the traitors against God and ourselves, heretics in this our Realm, commonly called Lollards, who have lately been posting seditious bills, and in addition, have traitorously exhorted, stirred, and moved the people of our land, to assemble, gather, and arise against God’s peace and ours, is not unknown to you: nay to no man endowed with reason, foresight, or discretion. You know how subtle, fraudulent, and treacherous they are: they feign, pretend, and write such things as they know will blind the innocent, and [which will] draw them by their hearts and emotions to them and their intent, intending … without any doubt, the subversion of the Christian faith, … and would destroy all politic rule and governance, spiritual and temporal. And consider that they, against God’s law and man’s, stir our people, without our commandment or authority, to assemble and arise, and therewith propose and would take upon them and usurp as well our royal power and authority in the churches, … [which] by the law of this our land, is treason … [The Lollards are interested only in robbing, despoiling, murdering, and destroying] all men of [high] estate, thrift, and [orthodox] worship, … and would make lords of lads and low-born men … [And even though “our beloved uncle of Gloucester”—Thomas of Woodstock, duke of Gloucester—and other judges and commissioners have arrested and] lawfully executed [many of] the said traitors of God and ourselves, … nevertheless it is credibly reported to our said lieutenant and counsel here, … that the wicked and malicious purposes of the said traitors do not cease but continue. [We wrote to you before about this issue but do not know if the letters arrived.] We write again … charging you on the faith, truth, and allegiance that you owe to God and to us, that with all diligence, and without delay or tarrying, you ordain and array you and yours, and stir others as will accompany you, to be ready to assemble, with other of our true liege men to do the same, and withstand, mightily chastise, and subdue the damnable malice and enterprise of these traitors. … And especially, we will and charge you, that you [investigate] which of the inhabitants in [your region] have absented themselves, or absent themselves hereafter, for reasons other than what is required of their work; and also [inquire about and investigate] strangers and [people unknown to the community], of whom ill suspicion may reasonably fall, and that you arrest, search, and examine them in the straightest ways: whence they come, and where they have been, and of all the days, times, and places of their absence, and also of sowers of seditions, slanders, or violent language, or tales. In addition, do not permit private assembling of people or illicit meetings to be had or made, by night or by day … [and, if needed, request help from] our said lieutenant and council, whom you will find ever well disposed to provide [assistance]; and faileth not in due and diligent execution of these things, as they [are necessary for the maintenance of] our prosperity and yours and welfare. Given under our privy Seal at Westminster the 6th day of July.
Source: Archaeologia: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity. The Society of Antiquaries of London. Volume XXIII (1830). Pp. 339–343. Translated by Kimberly Fogarty Palmer. Modernized and modified by editor.
Document 2: Lollardy in Lincolnshire: The Beliefs of William and Richard Sparke (1457)
List of heretical tenets publicly maintained by William Sparke and his brother Richard Sparke, of Somersham, in the diocese of Lincoln, and afterwards publicly acknowledged by them before John, lord bishop of Lincoln. [1457]
1. Crosses and Images set up in Churches ought not to be worshipped; and offerings ought not to be made at them, since they are only stocks and stones. A human being [would be better off to] worship a man with arms stretched out cross-wise, since that is a true cross and image of God.
2. Pilgrimages ought not to be made to places where the bodies of saints rest. The expenditure incurred in such pilgrimages is wasted, and the toil undergone is profitless.
3. A child whose parents have been baptized has no need of baptism, and ought not to be baptized, since its parents’ baptism is sufficient for it.
4. Laymen who are married or who are engaged in manual labor are not [required] to fast. Christ is nowhere found to have instituted fastings of this sort. The Canonical Rule of the Church put forward in this respect is binding only on clerics and on inmates of convents.
5. To bury a corpse in consecrated ground does the soul of the dead person no more good than if the corpse had been thrust into a bog. The solemnities of funerals were invented to provide fees for money-loving priests. It would be better if funeral expenses went in alms to the poor than to enrich priests.
6. A priest has no more power to make “the body of Christ” than the wheat-stalk has. After the words of consecration the bread remains only bread as before; and, in fact, is debased by having had such spell-words pronounced over it.
7. Thirty breads [i.e. the communion wafer] of this sort are sold for one halfpenny, but Christ was sold for thirty pence. The sacrament after this fashion is therefore a figment devised to enrich priests.
8. Confession made to a believer of the Lollard sect is more soul-healing than confession made to a priest.
9. Inasmuch as God is searcher of all hearts and the knowers of all secrets, an unspoken prayer is just as good as a spoken prayer, and a prayer made in a field or other unconsecrated place is just as efficacious as if it were made in a church.
10. The sole requisite for a valid marriage is mutual consent between the man and the woman, and no other solemnity is needed to justify their living together as man and wife. The marriage-service was brought in solely to provide fees for priests.
11. Extreme unction does not benefit the soul of any man. The only result of this anointing (“greasing,” we call it in English) is to dirty and make vile the person’s body.
12. The Pope is Antichrist; priests are the disciples of Antichrist. All persons in Holy Orders are incarnate devils.
13. Every human being is called “the church of God.” Therefore, if any Lollard is brought before the judge of an ecclesiastical court and required to answer the question “Dost thou believe in the Church?” he may answer without scruple “I do”; since by his belief in the Church he states only that he believes in man, who is “the temple of God.”
14. Each of the accused publicly admitted that, in a large meeting of Lollards, he had solemnly taken oath upon the Bible (i) that he would use his utmost diligence to bring into the Lollard sect as many as ever he could prevail upon, and (ii) that he would reveal to no outsider the existence of the sect or names of its adherents until they were strong enough in numbers to destroy Antichrist and all Antichrist’s disciples; and this (he at that time asserted) would soon be.
Source: Lincoln Diocese Documents, 1450–1544. Edited by Andrew Clark, London: Early English Text Society, 1914. Pp. 92–93.
AFTERMATH
The teachings of John Wyclif were absorbed by the Bohemian theologian JAN HUS, who started a Wyclifite movement in Prague in the late fourteenth century; his followers were known as Hussites. Although he also was condemned at Constance and indeed executed as a heretic, Hus’s followers persisted and would eventually influence the ideas of Martin Luther. Lollardy, in large part because of its political overtones, was widely and viciously suppressed in the aftermath to the rebellion of Jack Cade (1450). It nevertheless survived to some extent, to form the center of belief of English followers of Martin Luther in the sixteenth century. The ideas of religious equality and one’s personal relationship with God spread rapidly through Europe, assisted by the invention of the printing press, and the Protestant Reformation was one result.
ASK YOURSELF
Why would the king and his council equate Lollardy with political insurrection?
In what ways did the expression of Lollard beliefs challenge not just religious hierarchies but also social and political ones?
What elements of Christian ritual and practice were challenged by Lollards and why?
TOPICS TO CONSIDER
Compare the beliefs of followers of Wyclif with those of Catholic orthodoxy and consider their significance to social and political systems in medieval England.
Consider the possible reasons why people who followed Lollard beliefs might also be political dissidents.
Further Information
Ozment, Stephen. The Age of Reform, 1250–1550: An Intellectual and Religious History of Late Medieval and Reformation Europe. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981.
Somerset, Fiona, Jill C. Havens, and Derrick G. Pitard, eds. Lollards and Their Influence in Late Medieval England. Rochester: Boydell Press, 2003.