Lollards

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

The name given to the followers ofJohn Wyclif, anheretical body numerous inEngland in the latter part of the fourteenth and the first half of the fifteenth century. The name was derived by contemporaries fromlollium, a tare, but it has been used inFlanders early in the fourteenth century in the sense of"hypocrite", and the phrase "Lollardi seu Deum laudantes" (1309) points to a derivation fromlollen, to sing softly (cf. Eng.lull). Others take it to mean "idlers" and connect it withto loll. We first hear of it as referring to theWycliffites in 1382, when theCistercian Henry Crumpe applied the nickname to them in public at Oxford. It was used in episcopal documents in 1387 and 1389 and soon became habitual. An account ofWyclif's doctrines, theirintellectual parentage, and their development during his lifetime will be given in his own biography. This article will deal with the general causes which led to the spread of Lollardy, with the doctrines for which the Lollards were individually and collectively condemned by the authorities of theChurch, and with the history of thesect.

Causes of the spread of Lollardy

Till the latter part of the fourteenth centuryEngland had been remarkably free fromheresy. TheManichean movements of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries which threatened theChurch andsociety in SouthernEurope and had appeared sporadically in NorthernFrance andFlanders had made no impression onEngland. The fewheretics who were heard of were all foreigners and they seem to have found no following in the country. Yet there was much discontent. Popular protests against the wealth, the power, and thepride of theclergy,secular andregular, were frequent, and in times of disorder would express themselves in an extreme form. Thus, during the revolution which overthrew Edward II in 1327, mobs broke into the Abbey of Bury St. Edmunds and attacked that ofSt. Albans. As the century proceeded there were many signs of national disorganization, and of religious and social discontent. Thewar inFrance, in spite of the glories of Crécy and Poitiers, was a curse to the victors as well as to the vanquished. The later campaigns were mere ravaging expeditions and the men who inflicted such untold miseries on the French, whether under the English flag, or in the Free Companies, brought home anevil spirit of disorder, while the military system helped to produce an "over-mighty,"greedy, and often anti-clerical nobility. In the lower ranks ofsociety there was a similar growth of an intemperate and subversive independence. The emancipation of the peasant class had proceeded normally till the Black Death threw into confusion the relations between landlord and tenant. By giving the labourer an enormouseconomic advantage in the depopulated country it led the landlords to fall back upon their legalrights and the traditional wages.

In theChurch there was nearly as much disorder as in the State. The pestilence had in many cases disorganized theparishclergy, the old penitential system had broken down, while luxury, at least among the few, was on the increase. Preachers,orthodox andheretical, and poets as different in character as Langland,Gower, andChaucer are unanimous in the gloomy picture they give of the condition of theclergy,secular andregular. However much may be allowed for exaggeration, it is clear that reform was badly needed, but unfortunately theFrenchAvignonpopes, even when they were reformers, had little influence inEngland. Later on, the Schism gave Englishmen apope with whom their patriotism could find no fault, but this advantage was dearly purchased at the cost of weakening the spirit of authority in theChurch.

It is to these social and religious distempers that we must look for the causes of the Peasant Revolt and the Lollard movement. Both were manifestations of the discredit of authority and tradition. The revolt of 1381 is unique in English history for the revolutionary andanarchic spirit which inspired it and which indeed partially survived it, just as Lollardy is the onlyheresy which flourished inmedievalEngland. The disorganized state ofsociety and the violent anti-clericalism of the time would probably have led to an attack on the dogmatic authority and the sacramental system of theChurch, even ifWyclif had not been there to lead the movement.

The beginnings of Lollardy

During the earlier part of his public careerWyclif had come forward as an ally of the anti-clerical and anti-papal nobility, and especially of John of Gaunt. He had asserted the right of temporal lords to take the goods of an undeservingclergy and, as anecessary consequence, he had attacked the power ofexcommunication. He was popular with the people, and hisphilosophical andtheological teaching had given him much influence at Oxford. Hisorthodoxy had been frequently impeached and some of his conclusions condemned byGregory XI, but he was not yet the leader of an obviouslyhereticalsect. But about 1380 he began to take up a position of more definite hostility to theChurch. He attacked thepope and thefriars with unmeasuredviolence, and it was probably about this time that he sent out from Oxford the "poor priests" who were to carry his teaching to the country folk and the provincial towns. The necessity of giving them a definite gospel may well have led to a clearer expression of hisheretical teaching, and it was certainly at thisdate that he began the attack ontransubstantiation, and in this way inaugurated the most characteristic article of the Lollardheresy.Wycliffism was now no longer a question of scholastic disputation or even of violent anti-clericalism; it had become propagandist andheretical, and the authorities both ofChurch and State were able for the first time to make a successful assault upon it. In 1382 a council inLondon presided over byArchbishop Courtenay condemned twenty-four ofWyclif's "Conclusions": ten of them asheresies, fourteen as "errors."

Though little was done againstWyclif himself, a determined effort was made to purge theuniversity. Oxford, jealous as ever of its privileges, resisted, but ultimately the leadingWycliffites, Hereford,Repingdon, and Ashton, had to appear before thearchbishop. The two latter made fullabjurations, but their subsequent careers were very different.Repingdon became in course oftimeAbbot of Leicester,Bishop of Lincoln, and acardinal, while Ashton returned to hisheretical ways and to the preaching of Lollardy. Nicholas Hereford must have been a man of an uncommon spirit, for at Oxford he had been much more extreme thanWyclif, justifying apparently even themurder of Archbishop Sudbury by the rebels, yet he went off toRome to appeal to thepope against Courtenay, was thereimprisoned, found himself at liberty again owing to a popular rising, returned toEngland and preached Lollardy in the West, but finallyabjured and died aCarthusian. Though theWycliffite hold upon Oxford was broken by these measures, the energy of the Lollard preachers, the extraordinary literary activity ofWyclif himself in his last years, and the disturbed conditions of the time, all led to a great extension of the movement. Its chief centres wereLondon,Oxford, Leicester, and Coventry, and in the Dioceses ofHereford andWorcester.

Lollard doctrines

In the fourteenth century the word "Lollard" was used in a very extended sense. Anti-clericalknights of the shire who wished to disendow theChurch, riotous tenants of an unpopularabbey, parishioners who refused to pay theirtithes, would often be called Lollards as well as fanatics like Swynderby, the ex-hermit of Leicester, apocalyptic visionaries like the Welshmen, Walter Brute, and what we may call the normalWycliffite who denied the authority of theChurch and attacked thedoctrine of theHoly Eucharist. Never was Lollardy so widespread as in its early days; the Leicester chronicles wrote that every second man was a Lollard. But this very extension of the name makes it difficult to give a precise account of the doctrines connected with it, even in their more extreme form. Probably the best summary of Lollardy, at least in its earlier stages, is to be found in the twelve "Conclusions" which were presented to Parliament and affixed to the doors ofWestminster Abbey and St. Paul's in 1395. They complain of the corruptions by appropriations etc. fromRome, "a step-mother;" they attack thecelibacy of the clergy and thereligious orders, the "feigned miracle of the sacrament", the "feigned power ofabsolution," and "feignedindulgences;" they call thesacramentals jugglery, and declare thatpilgrimages are "not far removed fromidolatry."Prayers for the dead should not be a reason foralmsgiving, andbeneficedclergymen should not hold secular offices. There is no allusion in these conclusions toWyclif'sdoctrine that "dominion is founded on grace," yet most of the early Lollards taught in some form or another that the validity of thesacraments was affected by the sinfulness of the minister.

This refusal to distinguish the official from the personal character of thepriesthood has reappeared at different epochs in thehistory of the Church. It is to be found, for instance, among the popular supporters ofecclesiastical reform in the time ofPope St. Gregory VII. Reforming councils forbade thefaithful to accept the ministrations of the unreformedclergy, but the reforming mobs ofMilan andFlanders went much further and treated with contumely both thepriests and theirsacraments.Wyclif gave some kind of philosophic basis to this point of view in hisdoctrine of "dominion," though he applied it more to theproperty and authority of theclergy than to their sacramental powers. To make the validity ofbaptism or theconsecration of theHoly Eucharist depend on the virtue of thepriest could only be a stepping-stone to a complete denial of the sacramental system, and this stage had been reached in these conclusions of 1395. Thus thedoctrine oftransubstantiation became the usual test in trials for Lollardy, and the crucial question was usually, "Do you believe that the substance of the bread remains afterconsecration?" Theheretics were often ready to accept the vaguer expressions of theorthodoxdoctrine, but at times they would declare quite frankly that "the sacrament is but a mouthful of bread." Pilgrimages and otherpious practices ofCatholics often came in for very violent abuse, andOur Lady of Walsingham was known among them as the "Witch of Walsingham."

There is at least one striking omission in the "Conclusions" of 1395. Nothing is said of theBible as the solerule of faith, yet thisdoctrine was probably the most original which the movement produced. As the chief opponents of Lollardy in the fifteenth century, Thomas of Walden and Richard Pecock both pointed out that thebelief in the sufficiency of Scripture lay at the basis ofWycliffite teaching, for it provided an alternative to the authority of theChurch. It occupied, however, a less important position among the earlier than among the later Lollards, for there was at first much confusion of mind on the whole question of authority. Even the mostorthodox must have been puzzled at the time of the Schism, as many were later by the struggle betweenpope and councils. The unorthodox were still more uncertain, and this may partly account for the frequent recantations of those who were summoned by thebishops. In the fifteenth century the Lollards became a more compact body with more definite negations, a change which can be explained by mere lapse of time which confirms a man in hisbeliefs and by the more energetic repression exercised by theecclesiastical authorities. The breach with the tradition of theChurch had now become unmistakable and the Lollard of the second generation looked for support to his own reading and interpretation of theBible.Wyclif had already felt the necessity of this. He had dwelt in the strongest on the sufficiency of Scripture, and had maintained that it was the ultimate authority even in matters ofcivil law and politics. Whatever may have been his share in the work of translating it into English, there is nodoubt that he urged all classes to read such translations, and that he did so, partly at any rate, in order to strengthen them in opposition to theChurch authorities. Even thepope, he maintained, should not be obeyed unless his commands were warranted by Scripture.

As the Lollards in the course of the fifteenth century became less and less of a learned body we find an increasing tendency to take theBible in its most literal sense and to draw from it practical conclusions out of all harmony with contemporary life. Objections were made for instance to theChristian Sunday or to the eating of pork. Thus, Pecock urged the claims of reason and common sense against such narrow interpretations, much as Hooker did in a later age against thePuritans. Meanwhile the church authorities had limited the use of translations to those who had thebishop's license, and the possession of portions of the English Bible, generally withWycliffite prefaces, by unauthorizedpersons was one of the accepted evidences of Lollardy. It would be interesting, did space permit, to compare the Lollard doctrines with earliermedievalheresies and with the various forms of sixteenth-centuryProtestantism; it must, at least, be pointed out that there are few signs of any constructive system about Lollardy, little beyond thebelief that theBible will afford arule of faith and practice. Much emphasis was laid on preaching as compared with liturgy, and there is evident an inclination towards the supremacy of the State in the externals of religion.

Outline of the history of the Lollards

The troubled days of Richard II at the close of the fourteenth century had encouraged the spread of Lollardy, and the accession of the House of Lancaster in 1399 was followed by an attempt to reform and restore constitutional authority inChurch and State. It was a task whichproved in the long run beyond the strength of the dynasty, yet something was done to remedy the worst disorders of the previous reign. In order to put down religious opposition the State came, in 1401, to the support of theChurch by the Act "De Hæretico Comburendo", i.e. on the burning ofheretics. This Act recited in its preamble that it was directed against a certain newsect "who thought damnably of thesacraments and usurped the office of preaching." It empowered thebishops to arrest, imprison, and examine offenders and to hand over to thesecular authorities such as had relapsed or refused toabjure. The condemned were to be burnt "in an high place" before the people. This Act was probably due to the authoritative Archbishop Arundel, but it was merely the application toEngland of thecommon law ofChristendom. Its passing was immediately followed by the burning of the first victim, William Sawtrey, aLondonpriest. He had previouslyabjured but had relapsed, and he now refused to declare hisbelief intransubstantiation or to recognize the authority of theChurch.

No fresh execution occurred till 1410, and the Act was mercifully carried out by thebishops. Great pains were taken to sift the evidence when a man denied hisheresy; the relapsed were nearly always allowed the benefit of a freshabjuration, and as a matter of fact the burnings were few and the recantations many. Elevenheretics were recorded to have been burnt from 1401 to the accession of Henry VII in 1485. Others, it istrue, were executed as traitors for being implicated in overt acts of rebellion. Yet the activity of the Lollards during the first thirty years of the fifteenth century was great and their influence spread into parts of the country which had at first been unaffected. Thus the eastern counties became, and were long to remain, an important Lollard centre. Meanwhile theecclesiastical authorities continued the work of repression. In 1407 a synod at Oxford under Arundel's presidency passed a number of constitutions to regulate preaching, the translation and use of the Scriptures, and thetheologicaleducation atschools and theuniversity. A body of Oxford censors condemned in 1410 no less than 267 propositions collected out ofWyclif's writings, and finally theCouncil of Constance, in 1415, solemnly declared him to have been aheretic. These different measures seem to have been successful at least as far as theclergy were concerned, and Lollardy came to be more and more a lay movement, often connected with political discontent.

Its leader during the reign of Henry V was Sir John Oldcastle, commonly known as Lord Cobham, from his marriage to a Cobham heiress. His Lollardy had long beennotorious, but his position and wealth protected him and he was not proceeded against till 1413. After many delays he was arrested, tried, and sentenced as aheretic, but he escaped from the Tower and organized a rising outsideLondon early in 1414. The young king suppressed the movement in person, but Oldcastle again escaped. He remained in hiding but seems to have inspired a number of sporadic disturbances, especially during Henry's absence inFrance. He was finally captured on the west border, condemned by Parliament, and executed in 1417. Hispersonality and activity made a great impression on his contemporaries and his poorer followers put a fanatic trust in him. He certainly produced an exaggerated opinion of the numbers and ubiquity of the Lollards, for Thomas of Walden, who wrote about this time, expected that they would get the upper hand and be in a position to persecute theCatholics. This unquiet condition lasted during the earlier part of the reign of Henry VI. There were many recantations though few executions, and in 1429 Convocation lamented thatheresy was on the increase throughout the southern province. In 1413 there was even a small rising ofheretics atAbingdon. Yet from this date Lollardy began to decline and when, about 1445, Richard Pecock wrote his unfortunate "Repressor of overmuch blaming the Clergy," they were far less of a menace to Church or State than they had been in Walden's day. They diminished in numbers and importance, but the records of thebishops' courts show that they still survived in their old centres:London, Coventry, Leicester, and the eastern counties. They were mostly small artisans. William Wych, apriest, was indeed executed, in 1440, but he was an old man and belonged to the first generation of Lollards.

The increase in the number of citations forheresy under Henry VII was probably due more to the renewed activity of thebishops in a time of peace than to a revival of Lollardy. There was such a revival, however, underHenry VIII, for twoheretics were burnt on one day, in 1511, and ten years later there were many prosecutions in the home counties and some executions. But though Lollardy thus remained alive, "conquered but not extinguished," asErasmus expressed it in 1523, until theNew Learning was brought into the country fromGermany, it was a movement which for at least half a century had exercised little or no influence on English thought. The days of its popularity were long passed and even itsmartyrdoms attracted but little attention. The little stream ofEnglishheresy cannot be said to have added much to theProtestant flood which rolled in from the Continent. It did, however, bear witness to the existence of a spirit of discontent, and may have prepared the ground for religious revolt nearLondon and in the eastern counties, though there is no evidence that any of the more prominent early reformers were Lollards before they wereProtestants.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT