[Little Bundle of Tares]
But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way.
Edited by Rev. Walter Waddington Shirley, 1858
Excerpts Translated by Protestant Reformation Publications
Containing the Heresies and Condemnations of John Wycliffe and His Fellow Lollard Believers: Nicholas Hereford, Philip Repyngdon, John Aston, William Swinderby, Henry Crumpe, Richard Wyche, John Purvey, William Sawtrey, William Taylor and William White.
[SOURCE]
THE EPISTLE OF WILLIAM OF CANTERBURY ON THE CONDEMNATION OF THE HERESY OF WYCLIFFE IN THE SYNOD, May 28, 1392
[Aka The Twenty-Four Conclusions of Wycliffe]
William, by divine permission, Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England, and legate of the Apostolic See of Bury, to my beloved son in Christ, brother Peter Stokys, professor of the sacred page, of the order of the Carmelites, greetings, grace, and blessing.
The prelates of the Churches must be more vigilant in guarding the flocks entrusted to them on Sundays, as they know that the inner wolves, dressed in sheep’s clothing to snatch and scatter the sheep, go about more deceitfully.
Surely, it was when the frequent clamor and widespread report, which the indolent bore, reached our hearing, that although according to the canonical sanctions no one prohibited, or not sent, without the authority of the Apostolic See or local bishop should usurp the office of preaching, publicly or privately; yet some, children of eternal damnation, led into mental insanity, denying its virtue under the great veil of sanctity, claim for themselves the authority to preach, and some propositions and conclusions written below heretical, erroneous, and false, once condemned by the Church, and contrary to the determinations of the Church, which they threaten to subvert and destabilize all the churches and peace of the kingdom, both in the churches and in the streets, and in other profane places under our province of Canterbury where they are not afraid to assert, to dogmatize, and to preach publicly, infecting some of the faithful of Christ with them, away from the Catholic faith, without which there is no salvation, causing them, mournfully, to deviate.
We, therefore, considering that such a pernicious evil will be able to creep into many by killing their souls with a lethal contagion, ought not, just as we ought not, to pass under concealment, lest their blood be required at our hands; but desiring to extirpate it as much as is permitted to us from above: with the advice and consent of as many of our brethren and supporters, we have called together several doctors of sacred theology, and canon law, and civil professors, and other clerics, whom we believe to be more famous and expert in the kingdom, so that upon the said conclusions they should express their wishes.
It is true that, after the foregoing conclusions and assertions had been openly set forth in our presence and that of our brethren and of those who had been summoned, having been carefully examined, it was finally with certainty, and by all our common counsel that some of those conclusions were heretical, and some of them erroneous and contrary to the determinations of the Church, as described below.
We commit to you, in the virtue of obedience, firmly enjoining you, as far as you are publicly warned and restrained, as we warn in the present tenor, first, second, and third, and restrain more strictly; for the first admonition one day, for the second another day, and for the third canonical and peremptory admonition, assigning one other day: that no one of the rest, of whatever state or condition exists, should hold, teach, preach, or defend the aforesaid heresies or errors, or any of them in the University of Oxford, in the schools or outside, publicly or secretly, or hears heretics or errors of this kind, or hears any of them preaching, or listens to, or favors or adheres to him, publicly or secretly, but at once flees and avoids like a serpent emitting poisonous poison, under a greater penalty of excommunication, than upon all and every one that rebelled in this part, and did not obey our admonitions, having lapsed the three days assigned to them as a canonical admonition, delay, guilt, and offense to their predecessors, and rightly demanding that this be done, from now, as from then, we will bear in these writings.
The heretical conclusions, and contrary to the determination of the Church, of which mention is made above, follow upon these words.
1. That the substance of the material bread and wine remain after the consecration in the sacrament of the altar.
2. Again, that accidents do not remain without a subject after consecration in the same sacrament.
3. Again, that Christ’s own bodily presence is not identically, truly, and really in the sacrament of the altar.
4. Likewise, a bishop or priestly office is voided by mortal sin, so that he cannot ordain, consecrate or baptize.
5. Likewise, if a man has been duly contrite, all outward confession is superfluous or useless to him.
6. Again, to assert persistently that the Gospel is not the foundational authority by which Christ ordained the Mass.
7. Again, that God must obey the devil. [This point is hotly debated as to Wycliffe asserting it.]
8. Likewise, if the Pope is foreordained, and a bad man, and consequently a member of the devil, he has no authority over the faithful of Christ given to him by anyone, except perhaps by Caesar.
9. Likewise, after Urban the Sixth, no one is to be accepted as Pope, but must live after the manner of the Greeks, under their own laws.
10. Also, to assert that it is contrary to the Holy Scriptures that ecclesiastical men have temporal possessions.
These words follow the erroneous conclusions of the Church, mentioned above:
11. That no prelate ought to excommunicate anyone, unless he first knows that he has been excommunicated by God.
12. Likewise, he who excommunicates in this way is therefore a heretic, or excommunicated.
13. Likewise, when a prelate excommunicates a cleric who appealed to the king and council of the kingdom, he is by that very fact a traitor to God, the king, and the kingdom.
14. Likewise, those who are excommunicated because they left to preach, or to hear the unlicensed word of God, or the Gospel preached, on account of their excommunication of such men they are themselves excommunicated, and on the day of judgment will be considered traitors to God.
15. Likewise, to assert that it is permissible for anyone, even a deacon or a priest, to preach the word of God, without the authority of the Apostolic See, or of the Catholic bishop, or of any other matter of which there is sufficient evidence.
16. Also, to assert there is no civil lord, no bishop, no prelate, while he is in mortal sin.
17. Likewise, that temporal lords may, at their discretion, take away temporal goods from ecclesiastics who habitually transgress, or that the people may, at their discretion, correct transgressing lords.
18. Likewise, that tithes are pure alms, and that the parishioners may withhold them for the sins of their guardians and contribute them to others at will.
19. Also, that special prayers applied to one person, by prelates or religious, are no more useful to that person, than general prayers by others [of lesser religious stature].
20. Likewise, by the very fact that a person enters a private religion [religious order] of any kind, he is rendered more foolish and religiously incapable of observing the commandments of God.
21. Again, that the saints who instituted private religions of any kind, both for the those who were permitted to retain possessions and for beggars who were not, sinned in so instituting them.
22. Likewise, religious people living in private religions [sects] are not of the Christian religion.
23. Likewise, that the brethren are obliged to obtain their living by the labor of their hands, and not by begging.
24. Likewise, he who gives alms to friars, or to a friar who preaches, is excommunicated as is the recipient.
In witness of all of which we have our seal. We decided to attach a private one to those present. Given at our manor at Otford the 28th day of May, in the year of the Lord 1382, and in the first year of our transfer.
NICHOLAS HEREFORD, CHIEF ENEMY AND LOLLARD HERETIC
An express letter sent to the Lord Duke of Lancaster by the cloistered doctors of Oxford against Master Nicholas Hereford and others disturbing the peace.
Nicholas of Hereford, professor of the sacred pages [i.e., Doctor of Theology], incessantly proclaims and asserts publicly in the ears of the common people, according to public testimony, if you please, the pinnacle of extraordinary mastery will clearly be seen. By all his words he intends and threatens our very existence by cutting us and our orders off from the glorious body of this kingdom, to which by faith we cling beneficially. This he wills to do most cruelly by the public sword, as if we were rotten members.
Therefore, most pious Lord, we are so anxious and urgent in this storm that under the wings of your most kind protection we fly to you in our trouble. Together we all take refuge, in whose members we hope for a singular refuge reserved for us by God, imploring the clemency of your most gracious condescension with the longings of our hearts, inasmuch as the declaration of our fame stained with so many crimes, and especially in that life of ours guarded by so many snares, may your gracious clemency deign the afore-named master Nicholas, to fear our lord the King and to meet before your presence; so that he may be forced to invoke and recall before you, those threats which he has not ceased to impose upon us so publicly before all at the expense of our reputation, and at the same time the danger of our lives. But if perhaps another way of proceeding seems more expedient to your excellent discretion, your unfailing piety is worthy to provide us with a suitable remedy against the plots of the evildoers, according to your good pleasure.
May the Most High deign always to preserve and promote the pinnacle of your supreme nobility, to whose sincere piety we all humbly recommend the protection of our safety and life with the unanimous wish of our hearts.
Written at Oxford, in the year of the Lord 1381, the 18th day of February, under the seal of the priors and guardians of the assemblies and orders aforesaid.
THE MANNER IN WHICH NICHOLAS HEREFORD AND PHILIP REPYNGDON FAVORED MASTER JOHN WYCLIFFE
In the year of the Lord 1382, a certain son of iniquity, Nicholas Hereford, a Master of Theology, determined to favor the Master John Wycliffe in all things; and said openly that Simon, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was justly killed because he wanted to rebuke his Master. Furthermore, he said that no falsity could be found in any of Wycliffe’s teaching. Master John Wycliffe excelled in many things, but Nicholas was the proudest, who preached the most intolerable and nefarious things; always stirring up the people to insurrection.
Heresies and errors, and other abominations, were reduced to a definite form by stenographers, at the instance of a certain doctor in theology, Brother Peter Stokys, a Carmelite, who during that whole year had attacked him [Hereford] at Oxford, for his preaching. But Nicholas, like a miserable fugitive, never wished to share his fourfold book with another teacher, but only with other heretics, and many times he promoted harlotry. And finally, on the Feast of the Ascension, he preached many abominable and detestable things publicly in the cemetery of St. Frideswide, rousing the people to insurrection, while excusing and defending Wycliffe.
Another Lollard also of the sect of Wycliffe, a canon of Leicester, Philip of Repyngdon, began his support of Wycliffe in the same year. At Bracley Hospital he preached Wycliffe’s doctrine on the sacrament of the altar, exhorting them; but the rising baccalaureate appeared very humble and kind, so that he was considered having a good reputation by all; But in his first doctoral lecture at the end of summer, he began to magnify Wycliffe and his doctrine, saying that he wished to defend all of his doctrine pertaining to moral matters and thought it best to put his finger to his mouth until God enlightened the hearts of the clergy about the sacrament of the altar. Now he was about to preach on the Feast of Corpus Christi near Oxford, at St.Frideswide. And the Catholics [clerics] were afraid he would expose some errors in defense of Wycliffe, wherefore they requested the lord Archbishop of Canterbury that the conclusions condemned by him and his supporters should be published before he preached at Oxford. Having assented, he sent Brother Peter Stokys, the Carmelite, whom he knew to have labored above all others against the Lollards and had resisted the sect of Wycliffe, a commission to publish them at Oxford on the Feast of Corpus Christi, before Philip’s sermon. And he sent another letter to the chancellor, to assist him in the publication, and to help and defend him. And the first letter is prescribed on the fourth leaf, and thus begins:
William, by divine permission, Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England, and legate of the Apostolic See of Bury, to my beloved son in Christ, brother Peter Stokys, professor of the sacred page, of the order of the Carmelites, etc.
THE FOLLOWING IS ANOTHER LETTER WHICH THE ARCHBISHOP SENT TO THE CHANCELLOR OF OXFORD TO ASSIST BROTHER PETER STOKYS IN THE PUBLICATION OF THAT COMMISSION UNDER THIS FORM
In Christ’s son, we marvel not a little and are troubled that, since master Nicholas Hereford is so evidently suspect in regard to his preachings, as well as his doctrines of heretical and erroneous conclusions, which we have related to you elsewhere, from that time you have shown him such favor that you chose him as the recipient of the most excellent and worthy sermon of the year in your university. As such, you have allowed him to preach there without any difficulty whatsoever.
We therefore advise you and exhort you in the bowels of Jesus Christ, that no presumptuous favor be bestowed upon such, lest you see that their sect alone is enumerated; and thenceforth we must exercise our office against you and give what is due. Whereas our lord the King and princes of the kingdom, in the furtherance of their support, have promised to assist us and our suffragans, so that, by the grace of God, the audacity of those presumptuous [heretics] will no longer reign. And in order that the confederations and erroneous opinions of such presumptuous men may be said to be abhorrent, take care to manfully adhere to the publication of our letter to my beloved son, brother Peter Stokys, professor of the sacred page, of the order of the Carmelites, directed to defend the Catholic faith from the contrary conclusions of [the heretics], causing it to be effectually published and read in the schools of theology; and confirming when you have done so.
Written from out manor in Otford, May 30, 1382. Always be strong in Christ.
But notwithstanding this letter, the chancellor began to rage against his brother Peter Stokys, and to stir up the university against him, saying that Peter himself had acted to weaken the liberties and privileges of the University of Oxford; and said that neither the bishop nor the archbishop had any power over the university, even in the case of heresy.
And after deliberating his plan with the procurators and other secular rulers, he finally said openly and publicly that he wished to assist Peter in the aforesaid; but he resisted him as much as he could, summoning against him several armed men, about a hundred, in lances and swords, either to kill or repel Peter, if he attempted the cause.
He also proceeded to confer with the mayor and his agents, and with his other accomplices; and in his speech Master Philip Repyngdon roused the people to insurrection, to plundering the churches, and defending Master John Wycliffe, favoring him in all things; including his premise that temporal lords should be more commended in their speeches than Popes or bishops; and he who does not thus commend does so against the sacred Scriptures. Moreover, he made many other insulting remarks about states and various persons. Among other things, he said the Lord Duke of Lancastria was much persuaded and wished to defend all the Lollards, calling them holy priests. But all that has been said will be made clear in the end, by means of the same discourse […………..]
WRITTEN BELOW ARE THE CONCLUSIONS OF MASTER NICHOLAS HEREFORD, LOLLARD HERETIC
1. The substance of the bread remains after the consecration; and the substance of the bread after consecration is the body of Christ.
2. God, by his absolute power, in the sacrament of the altar, cannot have accidents without a subject.
3. God should obey the devil.
4. The Pope is more bound to obey the Emperor than vice versa.
5. All the monks of the order of St. Benedict who are unwilling to earn their living by the labor of their hands not only are they apostates from the order of St. Benedict, but what is even more true, from the discipleship of Christ.
6. If the orders of the friars were fixed and founded on Christ, they would not seek their confirmation from the Pope.
7. There is no civil lord, no bishop, no prelate, while he is in mortal sin.
8. Subjects are not bound to obey human laws not based on holy Scripture.
9. Neither heresy nor lies can be proven from the teachings of Master Wycliffe.
A COMMAND GIVEN TO THE CHANCELLOR OF OXFORD IN THE SAME YEAR, ON THE 8TH DAY OF CORPUS CHRISTI….
In the name of God, Amen. With us William, the Archbishop of Canterbury by divine permission, Primate of all England, and legate of the Apostolic See, by the consent of our suffragans, certain secular clergymen and regulars of the University of general studies at Oxford, of our province of Canterbury, and others who feel more holy in the Catholic faith, have informed us of certain heretical and erroneous conclusions which subvert the whole Church due to their being generally and commonly preached and published. Having fully deliberated over these conclusions, it has been declared by our common counsel that some of the conclusions themselves are heretical, while others are erroneous, and notoriously inconsistent with the determinations of the Church, and have been and are condemned by the Church; which we also declare to be condemned.
And we understood, from the testimony of those worthy of faith, and from the experience of the fact, that you, Master Robert Rygge, Chancellor of the aforesaid University, are in some way inclined to the foregoing conclusions thus condemned, and you also incline clerics, whom we suspect are on the side of the heretics [……….]
We have admonished you, as Chancellor, three times, Master Robert, [………] that you forbid the preaching, teaching or defending of the aforesaid heresies or errors in all your schools. This includes the doctrines of John Wycliffe, Nicholas Hereford, Philip Repyndon [Doctor of Theology and] canon regular, John Aston, or Lawrence Bedena of the University, who are notoriously suspected of heresy […..]
ANSWER OF MASTERS HEREFORD AND REPYNDON CONCERNING THE 24 CONCLUSIONS
condemned in the presence and consent of 10 Bishops, 30 Doctors of Theology, 16 Doctors of the Law, 13 Bachelors of Theology, and 4 or more Bachelors of Canon and Civil Law.
“We protest publicly in these writings, as elsewhere, that we intend to be humble and faithful children of the church and of the sacred Scriptures, and to obey the determinations of the church in everything. And if in any way contrary to this intention, by word or deed, we happen to err, we humbly submit ourselves to the correction of the reverend father and lord, lord Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primate of all England, and of all others who are interested in correcting those who err in this way.
In view of this protestation, we respond to the prescribed conclusions as follows:
1. That the substance of the material bread and wine remain in the sacrament of the altar after the consecration. We firmly believe that the contrary sense of that [Gregory IX] decretal is heresy.
2. That accidents do not remain without a subject after consecration in the same sacrament. The opposite sense of that decretal Cum Marthae we grant that it is heresy.
3. That Christ is not in the same sacrament identically, truly, and really, in his own bodily presence.
Although the composition of those words is hardly intelligible; yet if it has the opposite meaning to that decretal in the Clementines, Si Dominum: we grant that this is heresy.
And briefly, as regards this whole matter of the sacrament of the altar, or any other, let us confess that we wish, both in words and in sense, to perceive with the sacred Scriptures, with the determination of the Church, and with the sayings of the holy teachers.
4. As to whether a bishop or priest in mortal sin cannot ordain, consecrate or baptize. We concede that it is heresy.
5. Persistently asserting that it is not based on the Gospel that Christ ordained the Mass. We concede that it is heresy.
6. That God should obey the devil. To the sense that God, in his own person or essence, must necessarily obey the devil: we grant that it is heresy.
7. If a man is duly contrite, every outward confession is superfluous and useless to him. We concede that it is heresy.
8. If the Pope is reprobate and a bad man, and consequently a member of the devil, he has no power over the faithful of Christ, given to him by anyone, except perhaps by Caesar. We concede that it is heresy.
9. After Urbanus the Sixth there is no one to be accepted as Pope, so we must live in the manner of the Greeks under their own laws. We concede that it is heresy.
10. To assert that it is contrary to Scripture that ecclesiastical men have temporal possessions. We admit that it is heresy.
11. No prelate ought to excommunicate anyone unless he first knows that he has been excommunicated by God. We grant that it is an error, as we understand from experimental knowledge, that the decree of the Church, Nemo episcoporum, may be saved with it.
12. He who excommunicates in this way is therefore a heretic or an excommunicated person, according to the former sense. We agree that this is an error.
13. That the prelate excommunicating the cleric, who appealed to the king and the council of the kingdom, is by that very fact a traitor to God, to the king, and to the kingdom. We grant that this is an error.
14. That those who leave to preach or to hear the word of God, or the Gospel preached because of the excommunication of men, are excommunicated, and in the day of judgment they will be considered traitors of God.
Understanding the conclusion universally, as the Scriptures and the law understand indefinites of this kind: we admit that it is an error.
15. To assert that it is permissible for anyone, even a deacon or a priest, to preach the word of God without the authority of the apostolic see, or of a Catholic bishop, or of other sufficiently established. We agree that this is a mistake.
16. To assert that there is no civil lord, no bishop, no prelate, while he is in mortal sin. We agree that this is an error.
17. That temporal lords may, at their discretion, take away temporal goods from ecclesiastics habitually delinquent.
We grant that it is an error, to this sense, that they can legitimately thus take away the temporal goods of the churches, outside the cases limited in the laws of the Church and kingdoms.
That the people may at their discretion correct the offending masters. Understanding by power, the power of law: we grant that it is an error; because the people do not have coercive power over their masters, but on the contrary.
18. That tithes are pure alms, and that the parishioners may retain them due to the sins of their guardians and give them to others at will. Understanding by power, as before, you can judge: we grant that this is a mistake.
19. That special prayers applied to one person by prelates, or religious, are of no more use to that person, than general prayers applied to the same person, all others being equal.
Understanding the conclusion universally negatively, and by special prayers, prayers made from special charity, and general ones, from the general: then to this sense, that no such special prayers applied to one person by private speakers are more beneficial to that person than general prayers made for the same. We admit that it is an error.
20. The one who gives alms to friars, or to the friar who preaches, is excommunicated, as is the recipient. Understanding this universally, or conditionally, as has been said: we admit that it is an error.
21. By the very fact that a person enters a private religion [religious order] of any kind, he is rendered more foolish and incapable of obeying the commandments of God. We agree this is an error.
22. The saints, who instituted private religions of any kind, either allowing possessions or of the mendicants who do not, sinned in so instituting them. We grant this is an error in the universal sense.
23. That religious people living in private religions are not of the Christian religion. Understanding this universally, as has been said: we admit that it is an error.
24. That the brethren are obliged to obtain their living by the labor of their hands, and not by begging. Understanding it also universally, as before: we admit that it is an error.
These things, father and reverend sir, have been humbly said, with your gracious support and kind correction, as far as we are presently sufficient with the small measure and weakness of our intellect. We humbly supplicate you to inform us, as children, if anything more needs be said according to your excellent discretion and gracious paternity in accordance with the sacred scriptures, the determination of the Church, or the sayings of the holy Fathers. Truly, we wish to be in agreement with your most wholesome doctrine with the most prompt and obedient hearts.
May it therefore please your reverend fatherhood to accept these words favorably in the usual manner of kindness, since the aforesaid conclusions were never ours, neither asserted by us in the schools, nor publicly preached in speeches.”
However, because it is the nature of heretics to be duplicitous under the veil of words, deceiving many, the lord Archbishop examined their answer with the assembled clergy, reducing it to the form which follows:
EXAMINATION OF THE RESPONSES OF MASTERS NICHOLAS AND PHILIP
In answer to the first conclusion, namely, that the substance of bread, etc., they admitted that a contrary sense to the decretal, Firmiter credimus, was heretical. However, when asked what that sense was, they refused to express it. The inquisitor, therefore, expressing the sense of the condemned conclusion, asked whether the same number of substances of the bread which is placed on the altar before the consecration remains in the sacrament of the altar after the consecration, according to its proper substance or nature. And he inquired likewise about wine. To this sense, however, they did not want to respond at all.
In answer to the second conclusion, viz., that accidents, etc., when they had conceded that it is heretical to believe a sense contrary to the decretal, Cum Marthae; being asked what that sense was, they refused to express it. The inquisitor, then, expressing the sense of the condemned conclusion, asked whether those corporal accidents which before the consecration were formally attached to the substance of the bread or wine, after the consecration were attached to the same bread or wine; or are subject to another substance. To this sense they did not want to respond at all.
In answer to the third conclusion, viz., that Christ is not in the same sacrament, etc., when they had admitted that it was heretical in a sense contrary to that decretal in the Clementines, Si Dominum, being asked what that sense was, they refused to declare it. The inquirer, therefore, expressing the meaning of the condemned conclusion, asked whether the same body of Christ in number as was assumed of the Virgin was really in the sacrament of the altar according to itself, according to the truth of its carnal substance, and according to its own essence and nature. To this sense, however, they did not want to respond at all.
In answer to the fourth conclusion, viz. That if the bishop, etc., when they had conceded that it is heretical under the form of their words; being asked further whether someone existing in mortal sin is a bishop or a priest, they agreed that yes, as regards power.
In answer to the sixth conclusion, namely, God must obey the devil; when they had conceded it was heretical in the sense of necessary obedience, they were asked if God ought to obey the devil in some way or kind of obedience, they answered yes, because God owes the devil the obedience of charity by which he loves him and punishes him. And to prove this, Master Nicholas offered himself of his own accord, under pain of burning.
In answer to the eleventh conclusion, namely, That no prelate should, etc., they had conceded it was erroneous in the limited sense. Asked whether a prelate can excommunicate someone who is in grace, they answered yes.
In answer to the nineteenth conclusion, viz., That the special prayers, etc., they had conceded they were erroneous in the limited sense, but when asked whether special prayers are of more benefit than general ones, etc., they did not want to say anything other than they were more special.
In answer to the twenty-fourth conclusion, viz., That the brethren are bound, etc., they had conceded that it is erroneous in the limited sense, that is, by understanding it universally. When asked about a particular matter, whether a friar is bound to live by the labor of his hands, so that it is not permissible for him to beg, or to live by begging, they did not want to answer completely.
Upon hearing [a review] of their responses all those present, including masters, theologians, and both secular and regular jurists, concluded their responses were heretical, erroneous, deceitful and damnable; rather a mocking subterfuge than a full declaration of their faith. Whereupon the archbishop decided that the matter was concluded, but the decision to issue a verdict against them remained until the eighth day afterwards.
[N.B. Hereford eventually repented of his Lollard views and was received back into the good graces of the Catholic Church in 1391. He died of natural causes in a Carthusian monastery in 1420.]
JOHN ASTON CONDEMNED
The master, John Aston, [Master of Theology], refused to answer and was condemned and remanded into secular custody. He was condemned for promoting errors as well as agitating the people against the archbishop and clergy. He printed his confession of faith in leaflets which were distributed throughout the streets and neighborhoods of London.
THE CONFESSION OF MASTER JOHN ASTON DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE STREETS OF LONDON
“I, John Aston, an unworthy priest, was requested by the lord Archbishop of Canterbury on the 19th day of June, in the year of grace, 1382, in the house of the Preaching Friars of London, to say what I felt in the matter of the sacrament of the altar:
I have confessed, and I still confess, that the bread that the priest holds in his hands is made or becomes, by virtue of sacramental words, in truth and in reality, the same body of Christ in number; which was taken and born of the Virgin, suffered and died on the cross, and lay there for three days in the grave; and on the third day he rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God, and on the day of judgment he will come to judge the living and the dead.
Moreover, I generally believe in this matter whatever the Holy Scripture determines in words and in sense, or the holy Church of God determines.
Therefore, being required to say specifically what I felt about that proposition, that the material bread remains in the sacrament of the altar after consecration, I protested that I had never put forward, taught, or preached that proposition. For I know that this matter, or the speculation thereof, transcends my understanding; and therefore, I believe that as much as the Holy Scriptures expressly teach of that subject is to be believed.
Concerning that matter, or any other matter touching the Catholic faith not expressed in the holy Scriptures, I believe as holy mother the Church believes.
And upon these things I ask each and every one of the Christians to whom my stated confession has reached to bear witness to me before the supreme judge, Christ; and to pray for me with a view of charity.”
“This,” he says, “is the confession of a poor man imprisoned, lamenting his sins and the blinded people.”
THE CASE FOR THE CONDEMNATION OF MASTER JOHN ASTON DISTRIBUTED BY THE LONDON CLERGY IN CHURCHES AND STREETS
All men know that John Aston, the teacher of Christ, was condemned as a heretic, not because he confesses, as he says, that the bread which Aston’s priest holds in his hands is made or becomes, by virtue of the sacramental words, truly and really the body of Christ; but because he refused to confess, as the holy church teaches, that the body of Christ is in the sacrament of the altar, identically, truly, and really, in its own bodily presence; and that the substance of the material bread or wine remains after the consecration, in the same venerable sacrament.
Nay, rather it was for 24 heresies and error solemnly condemned by the church and proposed to him by the Inquisitor of heretical pravity, that he disdained to express his faith, canonically admonished, and publicly required.
THE TRUE AND MANIFEST CONFESSION OF MASTER JOHN ASTON WHICH HE HAD WRITTEN TO THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
“Most reverend father and lord:
When, as of late, I had been publicly required by the office of Inquisitor of heretical pravity, acting through you as a supporter and asserter of the same, having been accused by my rivals of certain heretical and damnable conclusions to the extent that I was commanded to declare my assent, either verbally or in writing, I put aside and abandoned all due respect owed you and answered too superficially, bursting into words not so much offensive to your ears as demonstrative of my own foolishness and cowardice. Accordingly, I beseech you with all my heart in humble submission to your most reverend fatherhood, inasmuch as you will graciously forgive me for the impetuous response which I have perpetrated, according to the teaching of the Savior Luke. 17:3, Take heed to yourselves, he says, if your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he has done penance, forgive him, let him go. Moreover, most pious father, imbued with salutary doctrine through my master, the abbot of St. Alban’s, and my master, master Nicholas of Radclyff, Professors of the Sacred Page, and other similar brethren, alleging the sayings of the saints expressed below, I am prepared to propose my conclusions with a much more detailed explanation, while recounting them to a public audience.
And when it is imposed that I am condemned as a heretic because, as it is said, I refuse to confess as the holy church teaches, that the body of Christ is in the sacrament of the altar, etc. and that I scorned to express my faith, canonically admonished and publicly required, to the aforesaid conclusions: I simply confess openly in these writings, as the holy mother church teaches and determines, and the holy teachers agree, namely, Augustine, Ambrose, Bede, and Chrysostom, and you , most reverently father; namely that in the sacrament of the altar, after the consecration, the material substance of the bread and wine does not remain in the same venerable sacrament; because bread is neither unleavened nor leavened, as Chrysostom says in a certain letter. And Ambrose, on Consecration, dist. 2.1: “It is no longer bread,” he says, “but it is called the body of Christ.” “Therefore,” he says, “it is not bodily food, but spiritual.” “It is true,” says he, “that the figure of bread and wine may be seen, yet nothing but the flesh and blood of Christ after the consecration is to be believed.” And Bede in his book on the Mysteries of the Mass: “There,” he says, “the form of bread is seen, where there is no substance of bread; and there is no other bread than the flesh of Christ, whom the Lord designates by the name of bread. We must not, therefore,” says Bede, “seek the first nature nor custom in a miracle ”
Now, acquiescing in the faithful and harmonious opinion of these venerable and authentic teachers, with the holy mother Church, and with you, most reverend father, condemning all heresy, authorizing, supporting or defending none. Regarding the rest of the conclusions, or any others that may be brought to me, concerning the Catholic faith, I confess that I believe as the holy church believes, teaches, and determines; and just as you, father, and the other teachers have determined to be Catholic.
Wherefore, most pious father, I humbly ask forgiveness from your most gracious fatherhood for my aforesaid offense and rashness, I submit myself in all things to your correction and reformation.
Blessed be God, true victim of truth. Amen.”
THE PROCEEDINGS OF LORD JOHN, BISHOP OF LINCOLN, AGAINST WILLIAM SWINDERBY, THE WYCLIFFITE, AND HIS HERETICAL IMPIETY
To all the children of the holy mother Church, John, by divine permission, Bishop of Lincoln, eternal peace in the Lord.
To root out the treachery in the various errors of the penitents in modern times, who are trying to tear apart the seamless tunic of the Lord, namely the unity of the holy Church and the Catholic faith, recklessly usurping the office of preaching, upon which they trespass, running through various locales of our diocese, with their heretical, erroneous, blasphemous, schismatic [doctrines] opposing the sacred canons and decrees which they wretchedly teach and preach publicly. Moreover, they assumed, fabricated and falsified their status and ecclesiastical degrees instituted by the holy fathers, unable to tell the truth. He who was gravely suspected of us, and by clamorous insinuations, and by public report, having been denounced and brought before our commissioners, we caused him to be lawfully summoned to judgment on a certain day and place.
With the charges already mentioned, William appeared before the commissioners, and with his requested terms of deliberation agreed to, William denied all the accusations. So, another date and place were arranged whereby witnesses pro and con could testify. Among the denouncers were friars Roger of Frysby, of the Order of Minors, John of Hunchay, of the Order of Augustinians, and Thomas of Blakstone, of the Order of Preachers. [Having been found guilty, William acknowledged his errors and humbly submitted himself to the sentence of the Church. His penance included reading his recantation in eight churches located within the diocese, never again teaching or preaching those heresies, and he must recite the following recantation as written by his judges]:
RECANTATION OF WILLIAM SWINDERBY
“I, William de Swinderby, a priest, though unworthy, of the diocese of Lincoln, knowing the true catholic and apostolic faith of the holy Roman Church, all heresy and error contrary to the determination of the holy mother Church, of which I have hitherto been defamed, and especially of any of the subsequent conclusions and articles, by the commissioners of the reverend in Christ my father, the Bishop of Lincoln, I abjure the judicial objections to me and I recant them all and every one of them, some as heretical, and the rest as erroneous and false; and I assert, and believe, that they would be such; and I will not preach, teach, or affirm any of them publicly or secretly; I will not make a discourse to the people, nor will I preach for posterity below the diocese of Lincoln, unless the permission of the said reverend father and lord of my lord the bishop of Lincoln be first sought, and obtained.
But if I should at any time presume to feel, to do, to assert, or to preach something contrary to these things; I will submit to the severity of the canons, as I judicially swore and now swear by necessity of the law.”
The following are the conclusions which William abjured:
ERRORS TO BE ABJURED
1. That men may ask for debts [they feel are owed them, such as tithes] out of charity, but in no way imprison any one for [unpaid] debts.
2. If the parishioners know their curate to be lacking self- restraint by practicing that which is evil, they must withdraw tithes from him.
3. Tithes are pure alms, and in cases where evils have been taken care of, they may lawfully be given to others.
4. The fact that an evil guardian, excommunicating his subjects for the detention of tithes, is nothing but extorting from them unduly and wickedly.
5. No prelate can excommunicate anyone unless he first knows that he has been excommunicated by God.
HERESIES TO BE ABJURED
1. That a child is not truly baptized, if the baptizing priest, godfather or godmother has been in mortal sin.
2. That no one living contrary to the law of God is a priest, no matter how he was ordained a priest by some bishop.
3. Any priest can absolve any sinner having a contrite disposition; and notwithstanding the prohibition of the bishop, he is bound to preach the Gospel to the people.
4. A priest receiving an annuity from an agreement is by that very fact excommunicated and a simoniac.
5. Any priest existing in mortal sin, if he sets himself to make the body of Christ, commits idolatry rather than performing it.
6. That no priest enters any house except to mistreat a wife, daughter, or maidservant, and therefore he asked that husbands be careful not to allow any priest to enter their house.
Therefore, lest the truth of the events is cloaked in the deceit and loquacity of the perverse, but that the injustice of such damned heretical and erroneous conclusions, and the confusion of those asserting them, shall be brought to public notice: We command and instruct all and each of you, as pertains to the subjects of our jurisdiction, that in the places and on the days aforementioned, you publicly announce all and every one of the preceding matters to the people with the clergy gathered for this purpose, and that you execute and ensure execution of these matters effectively; and that you admit and introduce the master William Swinderby, and, if necessary, compel him through ecclesiastical censure to faithfully carry out those things which have been enjoined upon him for his excesses, as mentioned. We ask to be duly informed in writing of the manner and form of your execution of these present commands, and of all actions taken by the aforementioned William regarding the matters herein.
Given in the aforesaid chapter house of our church in Lincoln, July 11, 1382, and the twentieth of our consecration.
One thing worthy of notice has been omitted above, namely, that the aforesaid William, after he had been lawfully summoned to appear before the aforesaid bishop, appeared, and there publicly, in the manner of heretics, appealed from him to King Richard, and to the audience of the lord duke in the cause of heresy. And the cause was prolonged and brought to the parliament held in London; and by the decree of the parliament, William was sent back to be corrected by the bishop: and thus, as was predicted, he was condemned.
A COPY OF A CERTAIN LETTER OF MASTER JOHN WYCLIFFE’S MISSION TO POPE URBAN VI CONTAINING AN EXCUSE FOR NOT ATTENDING HIS SUMMONS, A.D. 1384.
“I am happy to reveal to anyone the faith that I hold, and especially to the Roman Pontiff because if subject to orthodoxy he will humbly confirm that faith, and if erroneous he will correct it.
However, underlying the Gospel of Christ is the body of the law of God, and I believe that Christ, who gave that Gospel without delay, is true God and true man; and from this Gospel law all the Scriptures are drawn.
Underlying this truth is the fact that the Roman Pontiff, as Christ’s vicar on earth, is most bound to this law, as are all wayfarers. For the majority of Christ’s disciples were not measured by the greatness of the law they kept, but by their imitation of Christ’s character.
Again, from this heart of the Lord’s law I clearly draw out the fact that Christ was, for the time of his journey, a very poor man, rejecting all worldly dominion. It is evident by the faith of the Gospel, Matt. 8:20, and 2 Cor. 8: 9.
From this I can elicit a general truth, that neither the Pope himself, nor any of the saints, ought a faithful person to imitate, except in so far as he imitated the Lord Jesus Christ. For Peter, Paul, and the sons of Zebedee, desiring worldly dignity against this imitation, had sinned; therefore, they are not to be imitated in these errors.
From this a policy may be elicited whereby the Pope should release temporal dominion to the secular arm, and exhortations to this end with the clergy would be efficacious. Significantly, this is what Christ did with his disciples.
But if I err in this, I humbly wish to be corrected, even by death, if necessary. And if I could, I would have liked to humbly visit the Roman Pontiff personally. But God required me to do the opposite; and generally taught me to obey God more than men. But since God has given our Pope the instincts of just evangelicals, we must ask that those instincts not be extinguished by a cunning plan, nor that the Pope or the Cardinals be moved to do something contrary to the law of the Lord. Therefore, we ask God, the Lord of every creature, that he will thus stir up our Pope Urban the Sixth, as he had begun, to imitate the Lord Jesus Christ with his clergy, even in their morals; that they may effectively teach the people to faithfully imitate themselves. And let us ask that our Pope be preserved spiritually from an evil plan. For, again, we know that man’s enemies are his household, and God does not allow us to be tempted beyond what we can. He requires no more from his creatures than what one is able to do, unlike the Antichrist who requires the impossible.
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MASTER FRIAR HENRY CRUMPE, MONK, IN THE GREAT COUNCIL OF THE KING OF STANFORD, IN THE HOUSE OF THE CARMELITE FRIARS, UNDER LORD WILLIAM OF CANTERBURY
It is to be remembered that in the year of the Lord 1392, on the twenty-eighth day of the month of May, in the great council celebrated by the king of Stanford, there was a convocation of the bishops as well as the doctors, in the house of the Carmelites of the same town, by the lord Archbishop of Canterbury, master William Courteney; in which convocation the friar, master Henry Crumpe, [Doctor of Theology and] a monk of the Cistercian order, of Irish nationality, on certain articles concerning the jurisdiction of the Pope and bishops, as well as the privileges of the brethren, was juridically examined by the aforesaid Archbishop, in the presence of ten bishops, twelve Doctors of Theology, four Doctors of Law, and by several others, both clerics and laymen, where he publicly denied the ten conclusions which he had put forward and stated in different determinations at Oxford.
Upon these, however, by the friar, master John of Paris, of the Order of Preachers, as if by the promoter of the office of the lord of Canterbury, in this part of the three articles which are set down here below, he was accused by way of denunciation, and by nine trustworthy witnesses, two of whom were baccalaureates of theology, juridically convicted. This is more fully contained in the register of the same Archbishop, on the thirtieth day of the same month in a certain parish church called Blessed Mary, of the same town, in the presence of the same Archbishop and many other notable persons, both religious and others, the aforesaid conclusions, as well as all other contentious and stinking matters, having touched the sacred Gospels, he was compelled to abjure; and the same master Henry was imposed by that lord Archbishop under the same oath of silence, namely, that he should not perform any scholastic act thereafter, reading, preaching, or to set bounds in public, until he had a special license from the Archbishop to do so.
THE FORM OF THE FOLLOWING CONDEMNED TEN CONCLUSIONS
1. Pope John XXII wrongly condemned the three conclusions of John of Poliaco contained in the statute Vas electionis.
2. The Pope cannot declare a proposition heretical if its conditions are contingent.
3. He also says that if a person went to the Roman court, not having a special license from his parish priest to confess there, and confessed to the Supreme Pontiff, if he returned within the same year, he would still be bound to confess the same sins to his own priest, standing by the statute Omnis utriusque sexus.
4. He also said that according to the intention of the chapter, Omnis utriusque sexus, neither Pope nor bishop, but the vicar or rector of the parish, is appointed as a proper priest.
5. He also said that kings and princes, prelates and magnates, confessing to friars without the permission of the parochial curate, sin mortally by confessing in this way; and likewise, the friars hearing them. And he is convinced of these three.
6. He also said that from that corrupt practice which says that kings and lords, as well as others who have confessed to the friars, are not bound to confess again to their own parish priests, seven inconveniences follow.
The first is contempt for one’s own healing.
Second is the diminishing of shame.
Third is the desertion of obedience.
Fourth is general contempt of the statute.
Fifth is the unworthy reception of the Eucharist.
Sixth is the removal of grace; and this in both confessing and hearing.
Seventh is fodder for death.
7. He also said that from the confessions made to the friars, disputes, robberies, discords, and divisions follow.
8. He also said that the friars who asserted that they did not confess the same sins to their own priests are heretics.
9. He also said that all the determining teachers on behalf of the friars concerning the chapter, Dudum, were afraid to tell the truth lest their books should be condemned by the friar Inquisitors for heretical perversity; or they stated their opinions only disputatively and did not proceed with determination because if they had clearly spoken the truth for the church the friars would have persecuted them, as they persecuted the holy Doctor of Armagh.
10. He also said that the friars are not of the four orders of beggars, nor were they appointed by the inspiration of the Lord, but against the general Council of Lateran, celebrated under Innocent the third; and by the fictitious and false dreams of Pope Honorius, after having been persuaded by the friars, he confirmed them.
He publicly denied these ten conclusions, saying that he never held these most false and erroneous conclusions and that he had never made them.
Then the Archbishop of Canterbury demanded Crumpe produce the conclusions he had [allegedly] stated or had put forward on the matter; so, he produced a certain card, containing nine conclusions, asserting and contesting that he had stated them alone, and no others, in this matter. The seventh, eighth, and ninth of these conclusions, I have inserted word for word, since the three articles in which he is convicted clearly follow from them, which will be clear to any observer. Hence his seventh conclusion was this:
“It can probably be supported, which I truly believe is Catholic and in accordance with the law, by the opinions of the Doctors, as well as their reasoning, that any parishioner without the permission of his own priest, who has by right and custom to administer the body of Christ to him, confesses to anyone else having only a general license to hear confessions, is bound once a year to confess the same sins, at least mortal ones.
[8.] Although those who confess to the friars, having only a general license to hear confessions, are no more bound to confess the same sins again than if they had otherwise confessed to their own priest; nevertheless, if they have thus voluntarily confessed without the permission of their own priest, they are bound to confess again the same sins, at least mortal ones, which they had not confessed before.
[9.] According to the opinion of the friars of the Mendicant Orders who assert that the custom by which the prelates of the church, kings and princes, temporal lords, and commoners of both sexes, destitute of permission by the friars themselves, yet is conferred upon them by the chapter, Dudum, so they may confess their sins for the whole year, the permission of their guardians being in no way required nor obtained; Thus, this is good, approved, and having the force of law. However, in fact, it is erroneous, injurious to souls, and inductive of many dangers: such a custom is not to be considered correct, but rather corrupted by Catholics.”
I omit the other six conclusions which he made, because they have nothing to do with the purpose of the present business. [……………………..]
THE FOLLOWING ARE THE LOLLARDS’ LIBELLOUS CONCLUSIONS BROUGHT BEFORE THE FULL PARLIAMENT OF ENGLAND DURING THE 18TH YEAR OF KING RICHARD’S REIGN
I.
Whereas, when the Church of England began to go mad in temporality, according to its stepmother, the great Roman Church and churches were authorized to appropriate for themselves, faith, hope, and charity began to flee from our Church because pride, with its painful genealogy of mortal sins, claimed the title of truth.
This conclusion is general, and proved by experience, custom, effect and manors, as you shall hear afterwards.
II.
That which is our common priesthood, began in Rome by the fictitious power of higher angels, and is not that priesthood which Christ ordained for his Apostles.
This conclusion is proved because the Roman priesthood was made with signs, rites, and pontifical blessings of little virtue, and is nowhere exemplified in the sacred Scriptures. Furthermore, the liturgical book of the bishops agrees little with the New Testament. Moreover, we do not know how it is possible that the Holy Spirit confers any gift with such signs as they claim because he and all his noble gifts cannot rest with mortal sin in any person.
The corollary of this conclusion is that it is a sorrowful event for wise men to see bishops playing with the Holy Spirit in putting together their religious orders, because they give themselves marks [characteribus] as crowns, instead of white thorns, and this was delivered by the Antichrist who introduced it into the holy Church to color idleness.
III.
The law of continence enjoined on the priesthood, which was previously ordained to the detriment of women, introduces sodomy into the whole holy Church. But we have exempt ourselves because this is a suspicious decree which the Bible does not mention.
Reason and experience prove this conclusion. Reason, because they want ecclesiastic men to have a natural purification without paramours, but the opposite happens. Experience, for the secret test of such men is that they delight in women, and when you have tried such a man, know him well, for he is one of them.
This is the corollary. Religious orders and those who initiated this sin are most worthy to be annulled. For God, by his power, will send open, public vengeance upon this secret sin in his Church.
IV.
The false miracle of the sacrament of bread leads all men, except a few, into idolatry because they think that the body of Christ, which is never outside Heaven, is essentially included in the little bread which they show to the people by virtue of the priest’s words. But God would have them believe what the evangelical teacher [Wycliffe] says in his Trialogus, that the bread of the altar is by custom the body of Christ because we generally believe it to be the case that every faithful man and woman can, in the law of God, make a sacrament of that bread without any such [false] miracle.
The corollary concludes that, although the body of Christ is endowed with eternal joy, the service done for the body of Christ by brother Thomas is not true and false, [it is] full of false miracles. It is not surprising, because Brother Thomas, holding at that time with the Pope, wished to have performed the miracle of a hen’s egg, and we know well that every falsehood openly preached turns to the disgrace of him who is always truthful, and without any defect.
V.
The exorcisms and blessings made upon wine, bread, water, oil, salt, wax, and incense; upon the stone of the altar and upon the walls of the church; upon the garment, the cup, the miter, the cross, and the staves of pilgrims are the true practices of necromancy rather than of sacred theology.
This conclusion is proved because by such exorcisms creatures are honored to be of a higher virtue than they are in their proper nature, and we do not see any change in any creature which is thus exorcised, except through false faith, which is the principal art of the devil.
Corollary: if the book of exorcism with blessed water was read [well] in the church by all the faithful, we truly think that the blessed water used in the sacred church would be the best medicine for all kinds of ailments, that is to say, sores, the opposite of which we sometimes experience.
VI.
When the king and bishop are one and the same person, as well as the prelate and judge in temporal cases, as well as the curate and official in mundane office, it makes every kingdom’s government appear good on the outside.
This conclusion is clearly shown because the temporal and the spiritual are the two parts of the whole holy Church. And therefore, he who has put himself in one should not meddle with another because no man can serve two masters, etc. It seems that hermaphrodite or ambidextrous would be good names for such people of double status.
The corollary is that for which we are agents of God in this matter. We must pursue the parliament to ensure that all curates, both superior and inferior, are fully exempt [from such offices] and devote themselves to their duties and nothing else.
VII.
That special prayers are made in our church for the souls of the dead, preferring one by name [more] than another, is a false foundation of almsgiving, on which all the almshouses of England are ill-founded.
This conclusion is supported by two reasons.
It is one thing that a meritorious prayer of some value should be a work proceeding from high charity. And perfect charity does not just receive any particular person because you love your neighbor as yourself. Hence, it appears to us that gifts of temporal goods given to priests and almshouses is the principal design of their special prayers, which is not far from simony.
The other reason is that special prayer made for men condemned to eternal punishment is very displeasing to God. And although sometimes doubtful, it is not unreasonable for faithful Christian people to conclude that the founders of the almshouses, due to their poisonous endowment, have for the most part passed over the broad road [to perdition].
From this a corollary follows: The prayer of moral value proceeding from perfect charity embraces in general all whom God wishes to save, and it would dismiss the usual path marked out for special prayers made for those who beg for possessions, and for other hireling priests who are a [allegedly] people of great work, though maintained in idleness throughout the entire kingdom. It has been proven in a book of the King’s that a hundred houses of alms suffice for the whole kingdom, and from this a greater possible increase would arise for temporalities.
VIII.
Pilgrimages, prayers, and oblations made by the blind to crosses or roods, and to deaf images of wood and stone are closely related to idolatry and far from almsgiving. And although these things are forbidden and imaginary, [they are] a book of error for the lay people; still, the customary image of the Trinity is most abominable.
God clearly shows this conclusion by ordering alms to be given to needy men because they themselves are the image of God in a greater likeness than wood or stone. For God did not say, ‘let us make wood or stone in our image and likeness,’ but man. Moreover, the highest honor, which the clerics call adoration, belongs to the Deity alone; and the lower honor, which the clerics call dulia, belongs to man and angels and to no other lower creature.
It is a matter of fact that the Service of the Cross performed twice every year in our Church is full of idolatry, because if with its nails and lances should be so highly honored, then the lips of Judah, if one could have them, would be most powerful relics.
But we ask you, pilgrim, to tell us, when you offer to the bones of the saints placed in a chest located somewhere, whether you refresh the saint who is [already] in joy, or that for alms given as gifts to the poor, men have been canonized: God knows. And to speak more plainly, the faithful Christian supposes that the puncture wounds of that noble man, whom men call St. Thomas, were not the cause of his martyrdom.
IX.
That auricular confession, with its false power of absolution which is said to be so necessary for the salvation of man, exalts the pride of the priests, and gives them the opportunity of other secret observations, of which we do not wish to speak because lords and ladies testify that they dare not tell the truth for fear of their confessors. Furthermore, confession is the proper time of proposals, that is, of vowing, and other sins of secret agreements.
They say they [priests] are commissioned by God to judge all sin; to pardon and cleanse whomsoever they please. They say they have the keys of heaven and hell, and can excommunicate and bless, bind and loose, at their will: in so far as they are willing to sell the blessing of heaven for a bushel of barley or 12 denarii, and you will receive a paper sealed with the common seal of the warranty.
This conclusion is indisputably true due to its frequent practice that it does not need further proof.
It is a corollary that the Roman Pope, who pretends to be the high treasurer of the whole Church, having in its custody the worth of the joyous passion of Christ, together with the merits of all the saints in heaven, by which he gives a false indulgence from punishment and guilt, and is a corollary written especially out of [alleged] charity, from which he can deliver all the prisoners existing in hell at his will or eliminate the need to go there. But by this assertion every faithful Christian can see quite well that many lies are secretly hidden in our Church.
X.
That murder by war or the pretended law of justice for a temporal cause, without spiritual revelation, is expressly contrary to the New Testament; which indeed is a law of grace and full of mercies.
This conclusion is clearly proved by the examples of Christ’s preaching here on earth; who most of all taught man to love his enemies, and to pity them, and not to kill them. The reason is because for the most part, when men fight, charity is broken after the first blow. And whoever dies without charity goes straight to hell. And beyond this, we know well that no cleric knows how to deliver, by Scripture or by legitimate reason, the punishment of death for one mortal sin, and not for another; but the law of mercy, which is the New Testament, prohibits all manner of murder: for in the Gospel it was said to the ancients, Thou shalt not kill.
The corollary is the holy plundering of the poor when their masters obtain indulgences for temporal gain, promising them freedom from punishment and guilt. This money is then used to help their army kill Christian people in distant countries, all for temporal gain, as we have seen by the soldiers who run to the Gentiles, that is, to the heathen, to seek a name for themselves in the killing of men. But in truth, much more thanks are given us by the King of peace because through humility and patience our faith has been multiplied. Besides, Christ Jesus hates and threatens fighters and murderers, saying, He who strikes with the sword will perish with the sword.
XI.
That the vow of continence made in our Church by women [in religious orders], who are fragile and imperfect in nature, is the cause of the introduction of the most horrible possible sins of human nature. Although the killing of children before they are baptized is abortive and the destruction of nature by medicine are base sins; yet making themselves common with one another [lesbianism], or with irrational beasts [bestiality], or with creatures having no life [necrophilia], transcends such indignity that they are punished with the punishments of hell.
The point is that widows, and such as had received a cloak and a ring, having experienced the pleasure of a paramour, we would like them to be betrothed because we do not know how to justify their private sins.
XII.
Excessive interest and unnecessary reliance on the arts in our kingdom fosters waste and curiosity, and is sin, though otherwise disguised. This is shown partly by experience and reason because the needs of man are naturally met with little need for the arts.
It is a corollary from St. Paul’s advice that having food and clothing we are to be content. Thus, it seems to us that goldsmiths and armorers, and all such manner of arts not necessary to man, according to the Apostle, and were to be demolished so that virtue could increase. Although these two arts mentioned were very necessary in the ancient law, the New Testament omits these and many others.
This is our mission which Christ commanded us to pursue at this time which is most acceptable for many reasons. And although these matters have been briefly noted here, they have nevertheless been amply explained in another book entirely in our own language, which we wished to be commonly accessible to the whole Christian people.
Let us therefore ask God, in his great goodness, to reform our Church, which is completely out of joint, back to the perfection of its first beginning.
VERSES WHICH FOLLOW THE AFORESAID CONCLUSIONS
The people of England lament the crime of the Sodomites.
Paul says their idols are the cause of evil.
The ingrates arise, born with the name, ‘Prelates,’ prepared to defend their high office.
You who are kings, who preside over the peoples, how is the sword able to stop these strong feelings?
THE FOLLOWING IS THE RESPONSE OF RICHARD WYCHE UPON THE SUBSCRIBED ARTICLES RECENTLY IMPOSED ON HIMSELF; PROTESTING THAT IF HE WRITES OR SAYS ANYTHING WHICH IS NOT FOUNDED IN THE SCRIPTURES, HE WILL SORROWFULLY RECANT AND WITHDRAW IT; AND HE REQUESTS THAT THE CHURCH ALSO CONSIDERS IT AN ERROR.
I.
“In the first place it is alleged I preached that images are not to be worshipped, but rather to be consigned to the fire.
I said this because it is written in the first commandment of the Decalogue, You shall not make for yourself a graven image, nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, nor in the earth below, nor of anything that is in the waters under the earth: you shall not bow down to them, nor serve them. Gregory also writes in the Register, book 10, epistle 30: “If anyone wishes to make images, do not forbid; but to adore images is absolutely forbidden in all ways. Let your fraternal order earnestly remind you to perceive the fervor of remorse from the vision of past deeds, and to be prostrate in the worship of the one Trinity.” And in Psalm 96:7 [97:7]: Let all be confounded who worship graven images, and who glory in their images. That is why I said that images are not to be worshipped. It is also written in Wisdom 13:10 ff., Unhappy are they, whose hope is set on dead things, who are called gods though the work of men’s hands; gold and silver, the invention of arts, and the likenesses of animals. Or if a skilled craftsman has cut wood from the forest and skillfully scrapes the bark, using his skill to make a practical vessel for the conduct of life, and that which remains, rather than be wasted, is used to make vessels for the preparation of food. And out of the remaining, which is of no use, he makes a curved piece of wood, carving it carefully so that it is shaped and resembles the image of a man. He then makes a worthy dwelling for it in the wall, placing and strengthening it with iron, so that it may not fall when looking at it, knowing that it cannot, by itself, keep from falling. For it is only an image which needs help. In seeking the help of the image, he makes a vow concerning his property, children and marriage, petitioning him who is without a soul. He seeks life in that which is dead to heal the sick, calling on the useless for help. He asks that which cannot walk for accompaniment on his journey, or for help in acquiring work, or anything else that requires a good outcome, though completely useless………Even when fragile, it is called God. And, because of this, there exists no respect for the idols of the Gentiles, since they have become hateful to God’s creatures; for they are the darlings of men’s temptations and a snare for the feet of fools. For the beginning of fornication is the seeking of idols; and the invention of them is the corruption of life. And every evil has this as its cause, beginning and end. For while they trust in idols which have no soul, do they not think that they are harmed by such wicked vows? Either way, evil will befall them in a worthy manner because they thought ill of God, seeking the idol, and unjustly swearing by the idol, despising righteousness.
Therefore, I told the people that they should not trust or hope in images, or make vows to them, or pray to them. because James says, Above all, my brothers, do not swear, neither by heaven, nor by earth, nor by any other oath; but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation. John Chrysostom says: “He who swears by a creature commits idolatry because he deifies that by which he swears.” That is why I said that men should not swear by them. It is also written, He who sacrifices to gods other than God alone must be killed [Exodus 22:20]. That is why I said that the people must not make offerings to them. And as Augustine says, “Those who seek Christ and his Apostles, not in the holy codices, but in the painted walls, deserve to go astray.”
II.
Secondly, I would rather eat dirt than beg because it is written, The needy and beggars shall not be among you [Deut. 15:4]. And again: Do not give me riches or poverty, Lord; but give only what is necessary for my subsistence [Proverbs 30:8-9]. Also in the Psalm: I have not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread [37:25]. Jerome also writes in canon 1. qu. 2, Clerics, and 16 qu. 1, Since whatever: “Most of all it is the clerics, though they should be self-sufficient, yet they fraudulently steal what is owed the needy, committing sacrilege, and by such abuse they eat and drink judgment for themselves.” Also, Jerome: “Let those poor who are no longer able to work take food, those who do not have enough for themselves.”
Therefore, some beg unjustly and against the command of God.
III.
Thirdly, that every good priest has as much power as the Pope.
Regarding this I said that at the hour of a man’s death every plain and simple priest has the same fullness of power as the Pope. And I further said that at one time the priest and bishop shared the same power, until restrictions were established by the Church. Jerome, in his 44th epistle to Titus says so. And in canon, dist. 95, it says, “At one time the priest and bishop were the same, before religious studies were instigated by devilish instincts, when it was said by the people, I am of Paul, I am of Apollo, and I am of Cephas. Before this, the Church was governed by a common council of presbyters, unlike when Christians looked to their own, and not Christ. However, it was decreed throughout the world that one of the priests should preside over them, and the seeds of schism should be removed.” And a little later, “Just as the priests know from the custom of the Church, they are subject to him who has been put in charge of them: so, the bishops know they are greater than the priests by custom, rather than by the dispensation of the Lord’s truth. And in common they must rule the church.” And in the Gospel, it says: Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
IV.
Fourthly, those whom the Pope excommunicates are not excommunicated.
Jerome writes in canon 24, quest. 3: “If anyone is expelled without just judgment by those who preside over the church, and is cast out, if he had not previously gone out, that is, if he did not act in such a way as to deserve to be cast out; nothing is harmed in him who is seen to be expelled without proper judgment by men. And so it happens that the one who is cast out is inside, and the one who is seen to be held inside is outside.” And thus, I said that although the Pope may excommunicate someone due to a false suggestion, or from an unjust will, or for an unreasonable cause, it does not mean that he is excommunicated by God, who cannot act unjustly, nor approve of an unjust deed. And again, because in certain instances a man must suffer the sentence of excommunication rather than act against his conscience.
V.
Fifthly, that it is not lawful for a woman to be purified with silver candles. [N.B. “Metallic silver candles are often used on pagan altars to represent the Goddess or feminine energies. In candle magic, silver candles are used to enhance powers of intuition and divination.”]
VI.
Sixthly, that it is not permissible to baptize a child with offerings of silver candles; nor to offer in the reception of the body of Christ.
VII.
Seventhly, that the priest who receives a salary is excommunicated.
I say this because it is established by the Church in the Extravagante de Simonia, chapter, Non satis, and the chapter, Cum in ecclesiae corpore, where it is written: “Indeed, it is horrifying that in certain churches venality is said to have a place, to the extent that for the appointment of bishops or abbots or any ecclesiastical persons to a See, or for introducing priests into the Church, as well as for burials, funeral rites, and the blessings of weddings, or other sacraments, some [payment] is required. However, many believe this to be permissible because they think that the law of death has not been valid due to long custom, not considering that the crimes are even more grievous the longer they keep an unfortunate [soul] bound. Henceforth, we strictly prohibit these practices. If anyone shall presume to act against this, let them know that they will have a share with Gehazi.” This matter is addressed in several places in the canon and seems to me to be illegal to act against such institutions.
Also, unbelieving women often give an offering as payment for the baptism of infants, thinking they are redeemed thereby. Some openly say in English, “They will pay for the administration of the sacrament.” They sin grievously out of ignorance by thinking they can buy the body of Christ or other sacraments because it is written in the Gospel: I will judge you by your own words; and again, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned. Those whose office it is to correct others sin more gravely because they not only teach them their error but warn they will not be partakers of the sacrament unless an offering is given. Moreover, women, out of pride, call many women to their purifications, arrogantly preparing grand feasts to satisfy their gluttony, with shameful tales and disgraceful jokes, ever to the reproach of their neighbors. Hence, I said that it would be much more permissible, and pleasing to God, to carry out purification in the manner of the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, in poverty, with two women, primarily offering themselves to God as a living sacrifice, than to display such worldly pomp. The more who offer themselves humbly in this way, the better.
Certainly, when priests are called to a certain locale, supplied with all their needs, yet leave out of greed for a higher salary, deviate from the command of the Lord, and thus, are excommunicated, as Psalm 119:21 testifies: Cursed are those who turn away from your commandments.
VIII.
Eighth, that neither the son of a priest, nor of anyone born out of wedlock, can be saved.
It is written in Wisdom 3:16: “But children of adulterers will not come to maturity, and the offspring of an unlawful union will perish.” And if indeed they live long, they will be counted as nothing, and their old age will be without honor. And if they die sooner, they will have no hope, nor recognition on the day of address. Also, the Apostle tells us, If any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she consents to live with him, let him not divorce her. Then, a little later: An unbelieving man is sanctified through a faithful woman; and the unbelieving woman is sanctified by the faithful man. Otherwise, your children would be unclean; but now they are holy. Wherefore I said that children born out of wedlock are in a certain way more disorderly and disordered, and more prone to evil, than children born in wedlock. But I always believe and have believed, confess and have confessed that the son will not eternally bear the iniquity of the father or mother because at whatever hour the [repentant] sinner groans, deploring his sin, God will not remember it. Again, our Jesus says to the Pharisees and scribes, Publicans and harlots will precede you into the kingdom of God, because Christ came to save sinners. And, Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
IX.
Ninth, animals alone are lawful offerings.
I well recall in the Old Testament the commandment of offerings. It was to bring animals as burnt offerings and sacrifices for the purification of women, both for offenses and for sins, and as a tithe for the firstborn of sinners. Thus, I said they offered a pair of turtle doves, or two young pigeons as a substitute for Christ out of recognition to their poverty-stricken status.
I further recall that they brought the first fruits of the earth, libations, gold, silver, precious stones, silk, and skins to make and adorn the temple and tabernacle.
Likewise, how Christ offered himself as an offering to God, and commands us to offer ourselves to God, which offering he most readily accepts.
I acknowledge before you that I offered silver in the offering and similarly received it; and if I acted unlawfully in this, I ask that you forgive me, for I believed, and still believe, that I acted lawfully in this matter.
X.
Tenth, that a servant can bless the bread as well as a priest.
This is true because it is commanded and said in the law [Gregory’s Decretals], that a simoniac is not a priest, nor can he be. And we are forbidden by the Holy Scriptures to commune, nor take food with idolaters, fornicators, perjurers, rapacious, avaricious, and the like. And in the law [is] a precept that the people should not receive ministry from priests who fornicate. Therefore, I said that I would rather receive bread from the hand of a layman who lives well and is pleasing to God, whom he has blessed, than from the hand of such a priest.
XI.
Eleventh, that no one should give tithes, nor a receptacle for the dead.
Because Christ says in the Gospel, Woe to you hypocritical scribes and Pharisees who tithe mint, rue, cummin, and every vegetable; and have omitted the weightier things of the law, judgment, faith, and mercy. We must do these things and not omit them. Upon which Chrysostom [testifies]: “God has commanded justice, mercy, and faith, for his glory; but tithes are for the priests, for the ministry which they serve in the tabernacle.” And hence Paul says, He who serves at the altar partakes of the altar; for the worker is worthy of his wages. And because, as the Apostle says, He who does not want to work should not eat. And in the Canon it is established thus, “If there are any priests, deacons, or subdeacons who lie down for the crime of fornication, we forbid them, on behalf of Almighty God, and by the authority of St. Peter, to enter the church until they repent and make amends. But if they choose to continue in their sin, let none of you presume to listen because their blessing is turned into a curse, and their prayer into sin, testifies the Lord through the prophet [Malachi]. Whoever refuses to obey this most salutary precept incurs the sin of idolatry, as Samuel attests and blessed Gregory instructs.” And again: “Let no one hear the Mass of a priest whom he knows undoubtedly to have a concubine or is secretly harboring a woman.” Wherefore the holy synod established this under excommunication, saying, “Whoever, after the establishment of priests, deacons, and subdeacons, after the establishment of the good memory of our predecessors Saints Leo and Nicholas concerning clerical chastity, if he has openly taken a concubine, or has not left one taken to serve Almighty God; by the authority of the chief Apostles Peter and Paul, we command, and absolutely oppose his singing the Mass, nor reading the Gospel, nor an Epistle to the Mass, nor should he remain in the presbytery in a divine office with those who have been obedient to the aforesaid constitution, taking no part in the Church.” Upon which the archdeacon says that the people must withdraw voluntary tithes from such a person because no benefice should be given except on account of [faithfully fulfilling his] duty.
Then I said that the people should not voluntarily give tithes to such priests because Christ says, He who wants to contend with you in judgment and take away your tunic, give him also your mantle. Therefore, it is better to give such things to those who ask, than to litigate on behalf of such a matter. Nor should the people give a receptacle for the dead, except by custom.
XII.
Twelfth, there ought not be an order of [mendicant] friars.
There are two ways which we speak of the order of friars. The first is normative by which the acts of all creatures are called to serve their Creator. The second is that which is called their [rules of] manners, actions and lives.
And because this order of brothers is comprised of voluntary and clamorous beggars, which is against evangelical righteousness, as is clear from the holy teachers.
And this order of friars is a band of looters, boys brought into their order, who act deceitfully in order to plunder. Therefore, they are thieves and robbers, not entering through the door of Christ, but by another way that they may steal, kill and destroy.
And thirdly, because this order of friars lives in many ways against the order of Christ, as well as against the rules of their own order because they are against the primary [reason] the order was instituted. So that they are, in fact, no order, as is plainly evident from their sermons and works, and from St. Hildegard, the virgin, whose sayings were approved and canonized by Pope Eugene, in the presence of St. Bernard, and many others in the Council of Treverensi.
Also, because the friars consider their order to have more weight than any other source. This is why I said their order was introduced apart from the law of Christ.
XIII.
Thirteenth, there should not be a separate religion for nuns.
I say that a pure and undefiled religion with God the Father consists of visiting the fatherless and widows in their affliction and keeping oneself undefiled from the world. But although these nuns are appointed guides of the Church, they receive the fruits and tithes which are meant for needy souls, retaining them out of greed without distributing them to the needy. Nor do they guide the churches with whom they have pastoral care, whether alone or with priests. Furthermore, the Apostle does not allow women to speak in Church. And the venerable Doctor of Lincoln [Robert Grosseteste] says in a certain discourse that women are not to be appropriated for Church functions because it is contrary to God’s ordination. So, what I said simply agrees with this theologian.
XIV.
That Mass performed by the priest does not benefit the souls for whom he celebrates but rather increases the punishment.
I said what Gregory says in his Book of Pastoral Rule (III, qu. 7, In gravibus), “When he who is displeased is sent to intercede, the angry mind is doubtless provoked to worse things.” For it is written in Prov. xv. 8: The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to God, but the prayer of the righteous is his delight.
[N. B. Wyche was burned at the stake on June 17, 1440.]
THE HERESIES AND ERRORS OF LORD JOHN PURVEY THE PRIEST, EXTRACTED FROM HIS HERETICAL BOOK
I.
On the sacrament of the Eucharist, he says:
1. That the chapter [in the Sextus decretals] entitled, Penances and Forgiveness, Omnis utriusque sexus, in which it is established that all the faithful must receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least once a year, that is at Easter, is irrational, heretical, and blasphemous.
2. Likewise, that Pope Innocent III was the chief Antichrist; who, after the loosing of Satan, discovered a new article of faith, and a certain false truth [i.e., lie] about the sacrament of the altar; namely, that the sacrament of the altar is an accident without a subject, or an accumulation of accidents without substance. But Christ and his Apostles clearly teach that the sacrament of the altar is the bread as well as the body of Christ, just as he said. And by the fact that he calls it bread, the people will and must reasonably understand that it is true bread, and not false or fictitious. And if that Antichrist Innocent alleges that in the council of Lyons, where this matter was decided, there were with him six hundred bishops and a thousand prelates concurring in a determination of this kind; He [Solomon] calls them all foolish, according to Ecclesiastes I:15, The number of fools is infinite. And likewise, he calls them false Christs and false prophets: of whom Christ says, Matt. 24:24, false Christs and false prophets will arise and will deceive many. And therefore, every Christian must firmly believe that the sacrament of the altar is real bread, and not false or fictitious. And though it be true bread, yet it is truly the body of Christ; just as he said. And just as there is a true God and a true man; so that bread, which is a sacrament, is the true bread and the true body of Christ. And just as Christ through his humanity was visible and susceptible, and through his divinity he was invisible [and] impassive; thus, this sacrament, in that it is true bread, can be seen with the bodily eye and can suffer corruption; but although a man may see that sacrament, yet the body of Christ cannot be seen with the bodily eye in that sacrament, even though this sacrament is the body of Christ in the way that he said. And although this sacrament is corruptible, and this sacrament is the body of Christ in the way that he said, yet the body of Christ is in an incorruptible mode in heaven. And the sacrament of the cup is the true wine and the true blood of Christ, according to what he said.
3. Innocent III, along with a great multitude of worldly clerics, made a new determination that the sacrament of the altar is an accident without a subject; even though neither Jesus Christ nor any of his Apostles explicitly taught this belief, but rather the opposite. Nor did the holy doctors explicitly teach this belief for a thousand years and more.
4. Likewise, when the Antichrist, or one of his worldly clerics, asks you, a simple Christian, whether this sacrament is true bread, admit this openly. And if he asks whether it is material bread, or some other bread, grant that it is such bread as Christ understood in his own word, and such bread as the Holy Spirit understood in St. Paul’s calling it truly the bread which we break and go no further here. But if he asks you how this bread is the body of Christ, you say, in such a way as Christ understands, who is omnipotent and completely truthful, and cannot lie. Say also, as the holy teachers say, that earthly matter or substance can be converted into Christ, just as a heathen or unbeliever can be baptized, and through this be spiritually converted into a member of Christ, and thus, in a way, become Christ, and still remain the same man in nature. For indeed, Augustine concedes that a sinner, renouncing his sin, and becoming one spirit with God through faith, grace, and charity, can be converted to God and in a certain way be God, as David and St. John testify, and still be the same man in substance and nature, while being transformed in soul and virtues. But men of greater knowledge and reason can be more openly convinced of the falsity of Antichrist, in this matter, and in others, by the gifts of the Holy Spirit working in them. If, however, the simple wish to humbly keep open the words of the Holy Scriptures, as well as the general opinion with the understanding of the Holy Spirit, and go no further, but humbly commit to the Holy Spirit that which transcends their understanding, then they can thus die securely, as true martyrs of Jesus Christ.
II.
On the sacrament of Penance, he says:
1. That the chapter on Penances and Forgiveness, Omnis utriusque sexus, by which a certain new aural confession, that is to say, vocal, is ordered, is full of hypocrisy, heresy, avarice, pride, and blasphemy. And in the process, he refutes that chapter verbatim and by sentences.
2. The items concerning penalties or penances prescribed by canons are unreasonable and unjust, due to the harshness or rigidity they impose beyond the penalties established in divine law. It exemplifies the refusal to admit solemn and public penitents to orders, according to the decree of the general council, Dist. 50, Ex poenitentibus. It presents another example regarding the seven-year penance of a fornicating priest, according to the chapter Presbyter, Dist. 82. It also offers another example concerning the penance of a priest from the West, according to that chapter, Qui presbyterum, in Penances and Forgiveness, where the decrees of the general council state that such a person must remain girded with the belt of military service and without hope of perpetual marriage.
3. Also, that Innocent III introduced a new confession by which the priests oppress the simple laity; and they do many other things, such as forcing them to confess to blind priests who are full of pride and avarice, scorning the priests expert in theology and Canon law.
4. Likewise, the decree of Innocent III concerning the aforesaid vocal confession was introduced to entangle men’s consciences with sin and drag them into hell. And that this kind of confession destroys the freedom of the Gospel and hinders men from seeking and keeping the wise counsel and teaching of the [true] priests of God, who know how to faithfully keep his precepts, and would willingly teach the people the right way to heaven. For this reason, all Christians, and especially all Englishmen, must cry out against laws of this kind.
III.
On the sacrament of Orders, he says:
1. That all good Christians are predestined to Orders. All true priests are ordained and made such by God to offer Christ in themselves and themselves to Christ, and to teach the Gospel to their neighbors by word and example. Secular clerics, on the other hand, mostly magnify the bare signs of the priesthood founded by sinful men, than they do the true priesthood of God founded on true faith and good works.
2. Likewise, if it were necessary to have religious Orders of priests, God knows and is able, when it pleases him, to make priests without human activity and without the signs of human sins, that is, without sacraments or characters [characteribus] which the people can recognize by their holy life and example, as well as the true preaching of the divine law. For thus he made the first-born priests before the law of Moses. And so, he made Moses the priest before Aaron and the ceremonies of the law, without human intervention. And so, God makes all the predestined priests. However, Christians do not receive such as priests, but only in so far as they themselves imitate Christ and his Apostles; nor do they hold that they can perform the sacrament of the altar whenever it pleases them, lest perhaps God should not work with them if their desire is out of greed or boasting of their power. And therefore, the simple wish to adore that sacrament is not without hesitation, with the tacit condition that it is only accomplished by divine authority, and their devotion is only to the body of Christ in heaven.
3. Likewise, that priests, if they are [true] priests of God, are bishops, prelates, and guardians of their Christian brothers, whom they can lead to heaven by the example of holy behavior and the preaching of the Gospel. Neither do they make a sacrifice to the Antichrist of Rome for their confirmation; nor are they betrothed to the world through secular lordships; nor do they consume the subsistence of the poor, as do secular bishops, prelates, and curates.
4. Likewise, although there has never been a Pope according to [early] Church custom, still Christ, who is the head of the Church, ordains such as Pope at his pleasure, particularly whoever is the most humble and performs the office of priest the best, although he may be unknown to the world. And although no one [became] a bishop by being lifted up over others according to the custom of the [early] Church; yet at one time, all the priests were able to govern the Church by common consent, before there was worldly pride among the priests. For bishops are now superior to other priests, more by the custom of the [present-day] Church than by the ordination of God. And although there was no priest according to the usual way nowadays of receiving Orders, with the haircut by a secular bishop and his barber, Christ still knows how to make and choose whomever he pleases: those who live well, teach his gospel well, and minister to his people all the necessary sacraments. And every holy man who is a member of Christ and will be saved, is a true priest ordained by God, although no secular bishop ever laid hands on him.
5. Again, that the Pope and the prelates give more weight to their superficial characteristics [characteres] such as haircuts and crowns invented by them, than to the true priesthood made by God, since all the saints are predestined to be true priests who are made by him.
IV.
On the power of keys and censorship, he says:
1. No Christian should consider Satan of value, whom he calls the Pope, with his unrighteous censures, no more than he would the hissing of a single serpent or the snorting of Lucifer.
2. Again, that no one should trust in the false indulgences of greedy priests, who take away men’s hope from God, while placing it in themselves, sinful men. They also rob the poor of the alms due to them. For such priests are manifest traitors to Christ and the whole Church; or at least they’re Satan’s agents to deceive Christian souls by their hypocrisy and false indulgences.
3. Also, from the fact that the secular prelates and clerics, whom he calls worldly fools, live so detestably against the Gospel and the example of Christ and his Apostles, and do not teach the Gospel truthfully, but the lies and false traditions of sinful men, it is very clearly evident that they do not have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, but the keys of hell. And they must be very sure that God never gave them the power to make so many traditions that are contrary to the freedom of the Gospel, preventing Christian people from knowing and keeping it in freedom, and thus making it easier to reach heaven.
4. Likewise, the laity can legitimately administer all the sacraments necessary for salvation, such as baptism, preaching, marriage, and many other things. And without the sacrament of chrism, or the eucharist, men can be [spiritually] well [in the eyes of God].
5. Likewise, that any religious, notwithstanding the chapter, On the Privileges of the Religious, in the Clementines, can lawfully administer all the sacraments to those who are worthy to receive them, since this is a work of charity which the will and ordination of the Pope and his supporters alone impedes in this case.
6. Again, that if the Pope were to place an interdict in our kingdom, it could not harm us, but would greatly benefit us because by this he would relieve us from his accursed laws, and from the expense of supporting so many thousands of worldly priests and their chattering use of [the medieval] Sarum, a new crowing chant without piety.
7. Likewise, whatever the Pope binds with his general council on earth is not bound by God in heaven. For either God binds irrationally and acts contradictorily against himself, or the Pope [has the greater power to] destroy the judgments of God.
V.
As to the preaching of the Gospel, he says:
1. Whoever has received the office of priest or bishop and does not fulfill it by the example of a good life, as well by faithful and free preaching of the Gospel, is a thief excommunicated from God and from the holy Church. And that if the curates do not preach the word of God, they will be damned; but if they do not know how to preach, they must resign with grace.
2. Likewise, those prelates who do not teach the Gospel of Christ, although they bring nothing else evil, are dead in themselves, antichrists, and Satans transformed into angels of light, thieves by night and by day, murderers and destroyers of the Christian people.
VI.
As to the sacrament of marriage, he says:
1. That, notwithstanding their spiritual kinship, a man and a woman may lawfully be united in marriage by the law of God, without any papal dispensation. And moreover, he says that if our kingdom elects a single illegitimate king, provided he does the king’s duty well, God makes him king; and consequently, he rejects any other, even if the legitimate heir of the kingdom.
2. Likewise, because of this kind of spiritual kinship, married couples should not be separated.
3. Likewise, notwithstanding [Gregory IX decretal], chapter, Si inter de Sponsalibus, if a man contracts with one woman by words concerning the future, also by means of an oath, and afterwards with another by words concerning the present, the second contract holds.
4. Likewise, if a man contracts with a woman by means of words about the future, even with an oath, and another contracts with the same plan, the first contract after the carnal copulation constitutes a true marriage, and not the second.
5. Likewise, when a man has been united to a woman by contract in the presence of witnesses, and has received children from her, and afterwards the same man has married another in the same immediate way by words, also in the presence of witnesses, the first witnesses being dead or corrupt by bribes, and if the second witnesses of the second contract of those present at the trial say that the first contract is a true marriage, the papal law approving the second contract compels them to live in adultery, contrary to the commandment of God.
6. Likewise, he condemns that decree on the restitution of the despoiled, [Gregory IX decretal], chapter, Literas tuas, which requires that a woman knowing common ancestral descent between herself and her husband to a prohibited degree, yet having no evidence of this, if she wishes to leave him, shall be compelled by censures to remain with him and pay the debt.
7. Again, that in a case where one contracted [marriage] with two [spouses], one secretly without witnesses, and the other publicly with witnesses, then it would be better to recognize that the law would be insufficient, and men should be allowed men to be regulated by their own consciences than compelled to continue the adultery by censures.
VII.
Concerning the making and paying of vows, he says:
1. That vow or oath is irrational and indiscreetly given, for which man has no grace and power from God to keep because there are some whom God does not wish to give the gift to persevere in a state of chastity, or perpetual virginity; and thus, they cannot keep it, although they have vowed this.
2. Also, whoever makes a vow of continence or chastity that has not been accepted by God for this purpose, he makes such a vow indiscriminately and irrationally, since he cannot fulfill his vow from himself, but from the gift of God. Next to that is Wisdom 8:21: I cannot be continent unless God gives it to me. And in other cases, unless God wants to help such a person fulfill his vow or a similar oath, the prelate cannot compel him to do this, unless he does it against the divine ordinance, but must commit him to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and his own conscience.
VIII.
As to possessions of the Church, he says:
1. What is clearly demonstrated in a certain other special treatise is how the king, lords, and commoners can, without any expense, acquire anew fifteen counties, fifteen thousand soldiers and knights with sufficient lands and revenues from the temporal possessions in the hands of secular clerics and counterfeit religious, who never do the office of guardianship properly, nor that of secular lords. Moreover, the king may freely receive twenty thousand pounds annually into his treasury. Furthermore, the king, lords, and commoners can find or support anew fifteen universities, and fifteen thousand priests and clerics with sufficient sustenance, and one hundred almshouses for the needy, and each lord to have a worth of one hundred marks from lands. All these can well be levied or taken from the aforementioned temporal possessions without any expense to the kingdom.
To do this he invokes and encourages the king, lords, and commoners. For the same purpose, he also threatens the final destruction or transfer of sovereignty if it does not occur; and promises the exaltation of the entire kingdom, and specifically of the militias, if this happens.
2. Those secular clerics and fake religious, who are simoniacs and heretics, yet pretend to celebrate masses, and do not celebrate any, according to the canons which bring this up, XXIV. qu. 1, Audivimus, and the heading, Pudenda, and the heading, Schisma, which chapters speak of those who do not perform the sacrament of the altar; then all Christians, especially all founders of abbeys and endowers of bishoprics, priories, and chantries, ought to make amends for this sin, as well as the tradition or betrayal committed by their ancestors, by taking away their secular dominions which sustain their sins.
3. Also, that the Christian lords ought to withdraw from the clerics all secular rule which nourishes them in heresy, and to bring them back to the simple impoverished life of Jesus Christ and his Apostles.
4. Those who wish to obtain redemption from the curse and blasphemy which they give the name of God must withdraw their temporal possessions from worldly clerics, who primarily nurture such curses: likewise, the tithes appropriated by wealthy churches which are given to rich monks and other false religious figures through blatant lies and other illicit means. In addition, the donation of gold to the proud priest in Rome, who intoxicates all of Christendom with his simony and heresy.
5. Likewise, that the temporal dominions ought to be taken away from the bishops and assigned to the soldiers and squires to defend the kingdom, and to justly govern their subjects. For this would be very profitable to the kingdom, and to honest clerics, and to lords and commoners.
6. Likewise, it is a great abomination that bishops, monks and other carnal clerics are such great lords in the world, since Christ, and his Apostles and disciples never received secular dominion, nor appropriated the churches to themselves, as these do, but led a humble and poor life, as an example for future priests. And therefore, all Christians ought to swear by the power of their virtue to reform worldly clerics to the humility and poverty of Christ and his Apostles. And if anyone does not do so, he agrees to heresy.
7. Likewise, he condemns those two chapters [from Gregory IX Decretals] on the Immunity of the Churches, that is to say, the chapter, Non minus, and the chapter, Adversus, because they establish that temporal lords cannot demand taxes or tithes from ecclesiastical persons.
IX.
As to clergy discipline, he says:
1. As per the law of God and reason, the king and all Christians may be allowed to lead back all false Italian priests and clergy to the humble ordination of Jesus Christ.
2. Likewise, the law of Pope Sylvester, which is found in II qu. 4, chap. Praesul, and II qu. 7, Nullus, is contrary to the law of Christ and to both Testaments. And by that law proud and ambitious Sylvester protected the lords and cardinals who are not grounded in the law of Christ, from prosecution, no matter how vicious and evil they may be.
3. Likewise, if Christ endured the judgment of unjust temporal judges, modern worldly prelates magnify themselves beyond Christ and his Apostles, by their refusing to be judged.
4. Likewise, that decree [of Gregory IX] On Accusations, in the heading, Qualiter et quando, which prevents clergy from being brought to secular judgment, contains heresy, blasphemy, and error; and makes for great profit and conquest for the Antichrist.
5. Likewise, that Christian kings and lords must cry out against the Pope and his supporters, banishing them from their lands, until they are willing to obey God, the Gospel, Christian kings and divine ministers.
6. Again, because when bishops and their supporters claim that the punishment of adulterers and fornicators do not belong to the king and the secular lords, but to themselves and their officials, they fall into open treason against the king and heresy against the Scriptures.
7. Likewise, it belongs to the king to ordain priests and bishops, as did kings Solomon and Josaphat.
8. Similarly, that heading, Nullus judicium, in [Gregory IX], On Agreement of the Court of Justice, by which secular judges are prohibited from condemning any cleric without a bishop’s order, is clearly against the Holy Scriptures, which shows that kings had power over clerics and priests to punish them for their crimes.
9. Also, that law of Boniface VIII, de Censibus, in the Sixth chapter, Felicis, issued against the persecutors, assailants, and captors of the cardinals, is contrary to the sacred Scriptures and reason.
10. Likewise, according to the divine law, a secular lord can legitimately seize a cardinal and imprison him for open simony, adultery and blasphemy.
11. Furthermore, that chapter head, Si papa, dist. 40, which says the Pope should not be judged by anyone unless he has deviated from the faith is contrary to the Gospel which says, If your brother sins, rebuke him.
12. Likewise, when blessed Gregory and Augustine called themselves servants of servants, this proud Bishop of Rome, who does not want to be judged by his subjects, who are truly his masters when they are just, destroys the order of divine law and humility and exalts himself above God and his Apostles.
13. Again, that Christian kings ought not only judge the proud Bishop of Rome, but also depose him, by the example which Cestrensis narrates, book 6, chap. 8, of Emperor Otto deposing John XII and appointing Leo in his stead.
14. Furthermore, he exhorts the leaders and rulers to judge the Roman church, which he calls that great and accursed harlot of whom John writes in Revelation 17.
X.
Regarding the laws and decisions of the Church, he says:
1. Christians have reasonable evidence, laws and motives for spurning the statutes of the Pope and secular prelates which are not founded expressly in the sacred Scriptures or are unavoidable conclusions due to common sense.
2. Also, he says the particular law which is laid down concerning Consecration, dist. 2, in the heading, Seculares, and in the heading, Omnis homo, and in the heading, Etsi non frequentius, and in the heading, In cœna Domini, that the worldly who do not receive the sacrament of the altar at Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost are not counted among Christians and are not believed to be Christians. From which it follows that all clerics and laymen who do not keep it are going to Hell. But if that law has no force because the common custom is against it, then we can bless rebellion and disobedience against the Pope and his law because otherwise we should all fly to hell without hindrance. From which he concludes that Christians must practice well this school of disobedience against the Pope, as well as all his laws not based on the Holy Scriptures which prevent men from tending towards heaven through observing charity and the freedom [free grace] of the Gospel.
3. Also, that the Christian people have a great reason to refute the laws and statutes of worldly clerics, such as those called papal and episcopal laws made out of greed and pleasure, without which the Church could run safely toward heaven under the gentle yoke of God’s commandments, as it did for a thousand years before those laws were sent to the universities, turning people away from sacred Scripture because of the desire for benefits and worldly gain.
4. Also, that simple people receive with reverence the opinions of the teachers and any other laws, in so far as they are expressly founded on the Holy Scriptures, or on good reason.
5. Likewise, since the laws of the Popes and their ignorant clerics are contrary to themselves, without foundation in Scripture or reason, simple people must allow them to go dormant.
6. Likewise, when all the Apostles failed in faith at the time of Christ’s passion, and faith then rested in the Blessed Virgin alone, the proud priest of Rome and his followers can also easily err in faith. Furthermore, the Christian faith is always kept intact in Christ’s faithful, who are the true church of Christ, while the Pope and all his people do not understand the evidence necessary to prove they are part of the church.
7. Again, that the Pope with all his supporters can be deceived by the spirit of lies as well as Ahab and all his prophets; and one true prophet, as Micah was, can have the truth shown to him against Antichrist.
8. Again, that good Christians ought to throw away the papal laws, saying, Let us break their chains, and cast from us their yoke [Psalm 2:3].
9. Likewise, since prelates burn one excellent book because of one error, all books of canon law must be burned because of the many heresies contained in them.
XI.
As to the status of the Pope and his clergy, he says:
1. The proud priest of Rome is clearly the Antichrist.
2. Also, that the Bishop of Rome and all those promoted by him are simoniacs because they give and receive the first fruits.
3. Likewise, that the Roman court or the Roman Church is that great harlot, that is, Babylon, sitting on the waters and preaching her sin, like Sodom and Gomorrah, which is an example of hypocrisy, heresy, and blasphemy, sending lies under leaden bulls. And this harlot destroys Christian kingdoms by her tyranny.
Explaining the heresies and errors of Purvey’s Lollard book, collected by the venerable Carmelite friar Richard Lavenham.
THE CONFESSION AND REVOCATION OF HIS ERRORS AND HERESIES BY JOHN PURVEY, PRIEST, BEFORE THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, AND HIS PROVINCIAL COUNCIL IN LONDON, FEB. 29, 1400
In the name of God, Amen.
I, John Purvey, an unworthy presbyter, of the diocese of Lincoln, recently suspected, infamous, accused and clearly convicted before the reverend in Christ father and lord, Lord Thomas, by divine providence Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England, and Apostolic legate of the see, in the presence of his provincial council, of the belief, doctrine, and maintenance of certain errors and heresies repugnant to the orthodox faith, and to the determination of the holy Roman church; in which I have humbly submitted myself, and in the present I submit myself to the correction, judgment, and information of the reverend father and lord aforesaid, with his council; now recognizing the truth of the Catholic faith, and my former errors and heresies; here personally constituted, not by force, nor induced by fear, but purely, voluntarily, and freely, I anathematize forever, and abjure, every heresy, and especially that of which I have been infamous hitherto, or convicted; and I firmly believe in my heart the Catholic truth, which is repugnant to the said heresies and errors, and I faithfully confess it with my mouth, according to the order that follows in these writings.
I.
The first heresy that I have held, written, and taught, was this Heresy:
That in the sacrament of the altar, after its consecration, there is not, nor can there be, any accident without a subject; but there remains there truly the same substance and nature of the visible and corruptible bread, and the same wine likewise, which are placed on the altar before the consecration, to be consecrated by the ministry of the priest. Just as when a pagan or infidel is baptized, he is converted spiritually into a member of Christ by grace; and he still remains the same man as before, in his own substance and nature.
Against which heresy I believe and confess that this is the Catholic truth. That in the same venerable sacrament of the altar, after its consecration, the same substance or nature of the bread or wine does not remain, which was previously placed on the altar; but the whole substance and nature of the same bread are converted into the whole substance of the body of Christ, and the whole of that wine into his blood, not figuratively, but truly; so that only the sensible form and likeness of the same bread and wine remain there in their accidents, without any subject of the same. And in that form of bread and wine is the true body and blood of Christ, so really and truly, in its own substance and nature, as it was in the womb of The Virgin, hung on the cross, lay in the tomb, and now resides in heaven.
II.
The second heresy that I held, wrote, and taught was this:
That vocal confession, or private penance, is a kind of auricularism destroying the freedom of the gospel and newly introduced by the pope and clergy to entangle men’s consciences in sin, and to drag their souls down to hell.
Against which heresy I believe and confess that it is the Catholic truth that vocal confession does not destroy, but promotes the freedom of the gospel, and was not introduced to entangle, but rather to free men’s consciences from sin.
III.
The third heresy which I held, wrote, and taught was
that every man holy and predestined to eternal life, even if he be a layman, is a true presbyter and priest ordained by God to minister all the sacraments necessary to men for salvation, although no other bishop ever lays hands on him; just as the firstborn under the law of nature were made priests by God, and just as Moses himself was a priest before Aaron, through him and the ceremonies of the ancient law, officiated in the priesthood.
Every holy presbyter or priest of God is truly a bishop, and prelate, and curate of the faithful. And whoever is humbler and better fulfills the office of priest, he is a true pope according to divine ordination, although who he is may be entirely unknown to the world.
Against which heresy I believe and confess that this is the Catholic truth. That no one, however predestined or holy, is ordained Pope, bishop, or priest by God to minister the sacraments of the church, unless he has been canonically ordained by the ministry of consecration, election, or human institution, with the cooperation of divine power.
IV.
The fourth heresy which I have held, written, and taught concerned the evil lives of priests.
That because certain prelates or clerics live evilly, contrary to the doctrine and example of Christ and his Apostles, therefore, those who live thus do not have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, but the keys of hell; nor should any Christian value their censures more than the hissing of a serpent. Indeed, if the Pope were to interdict our kingdom it would not harm us but rather benefit us; since by this we would be relieved from observing his laws, and from celebrating divine offices according to the custom of the church.
Against which heresy I believe and confess that this is the Catholic truth: That the prelates of the Church, however evilly they live, as long as they are tolerated by the Church, nevertheless have the true power of the heavenly keys against which the gates of hell do not prevail; and their censures, although sometimes perhaps unreasonable or unjust, are nevertheless to be humbly feared with reverence, lest they bring harm to their despisers.
V.
The fifth heresy which I have held, written, and taught, is this unlicensed one:
That whoever has received the office of priest, even if he has not had the care of souls delegated to him by the custom of the church, is not only not forbidden, but rather must freely preach the gospel to the people of God; for otherwise he is a thief excommunicated by God and by the holy Church.
Against which heresy I believe and confess that this is the Catholic truth: That it is not lawful for any priest, however learned or holy, to preach the word of the Gospel to the people unless he has been sent for this purpose by a prelate, or by the Church militant, or by a clear miracle shown himself to be sent by God or by the Church triumphant.
VI.
The sixth heresy which I held, wrote, and taught, was this:
If anyone has made an oath or vow to observe perpetual chastity, or to do anything else for the Lord, for which God perhaps does not accept by not giving him the grace to accomplish his purpose; that vow or oath is unreasonable, and even indiscreet, and no prelate can compel him to observe it, unless it contravenes the divine ordinance. Instead, he must entrust it to the Holy Spirit and the guidance of his own conscience because such a one who will not fulfill his vow or oath cannot de facto finally fulfill it.
Against this heresy I believe and confess that this is the Catholic truth: That although any one has made an oath or vow to do some good work for the Lord, and perhaps afterwards he does not have the grace given to him by God to fulfill it; If, however, nothing else prevents it, such a vow or oath is reasonable and accepted by God for the time in which it is made by him, and he himself can keep it by the grace which he can have from God, if he wishes to dispose himself accordingly to receive it. And thus, he can be compelled by the prelate to keep it, by the grace of God with other appropriate means.
VII.
The seventh heresy which I have held, written, and taught, was this:
That Pope Innocent III, and six hundred bishops, with another thousand prelates, and the whole residue of the clergy, who with the same Pope determined in unison in the general council of Lyons that in the sacrament of the altar, after the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, the accidents of the same bread and wine remain there, without any proper subject of the same; and who there also established that all the faithful of Christ ought once a year to confess all their sins to their own priest, and to receive this venerable sacrament of the altar at Easter; and who established many other laws there; all of them were in this foolish and idiotic, heretics and blasphemers, and seducers of the Christian people. Wherefore neither should we believe the determinations of them or their successors, nor should we obey their laws or statutes unless they are founded expressly on Holy Scripture, or on reason which cannot be contradicted. And because this is lacking in their decrees, and decretals, and other books of their law; therefore, they should all, as the books of heretics, be burned for their errors.
Against this heresy I believe and confess that this is the Catholic truth: That all the faithful of Christ should faithfully believe and humbly obey the aforesaid determinations, and constitutions, and all the other laws of the same Innocent III, with the aforesaid general council, and of his other successors, commonly approved by the consent of the Roman Church with the clergy subject to it; and to preserve the books of this kind of canon law containing ecclesiastical discipline and Catholic doctrine with due reverence.
IN all the above-mentioned articles, therefore, I swear by the holy gospels of God, by the holy Trinity, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the one living and true God, that I, the aforesaid John Purvey, truly believe and hold this same faith in my heart, which I have confessed above from the tradition of the said reverend father and my lord the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and with my own mouth of his provincial council, and I forever deny and abjure all the aforesaid errors and heresies which I have hitherto held, written, or taught, and all others, not by force or fear, but purely, and voluntarily, and freely, both in heart and mouth.
Moreover, I pronounce all those and each one who stubbornly hold, or teach, or defend the aforesaid errors and heresies, or any of them, as heretics, worthy of eternal anathema; and, unless they repent, to be deservedly burned in perpetual fire for their perfidy.
Also, if ever, God forbid, in the future I presume to hold or teach anything contrary to my present confession, in heart or mouth, secretly or openly; from now as from then, I voluntarily submit and oblige myself to the laws and prelates of the Church, equivalent punishment should be rigorously applied.
And I, John, the above-mentioned, in truth and testimony of the foregoing, here with my own hand, voluntarily and freely subscribe. And I affix the sign of the cross.
Explicit revocation of John Purvey, Lollard, on the cross of Saint Paul.
CONCLUSIONS OF WILLIAM SAWTREY THE HERETIC
I, William Sawtrey, protest that I do not wish to defend in a false sense, neither these nor any conclusions, without sufficient deliberation, being compelled by persecution and violent imprisonment, supplicating my lord the king, all the royals, and the whole parliament, that I may come to the manifest audience of the lord king and the whole parliament; to whom and to which audience I appeal, for the sake of the safety and peace of the whole kingdom.
I.
As for the adoration of the cross, I was asked, saying that I did not want to adore the cross on which Christ suffered, but only Christ who suffered on the cross; thus, understanding that I do not want to adore it in relation to its gross bodily matter. But I want to adore it as a memorial and a sign of remembrance of Christ’s passion, with vicarious adoration; so that the whole adoration tends towards Christ.
As for the said cross, I say that I want to adore the temporal king more than the wooden cross, as regards its gross matter.
II.
Also, when asked, I say that I would rather not adore the relics of the bodies of the saints than the true cross on which Christ hung, given that the true wooden cross was before me. Reason as above.
III.
Also, when asked, I say that every deacon and priest and presbyter are more bound to preach the word of God than to say matins and canonical hours, according to the first ordinance of the church.
IV.
I also said that I had omitted, bound by oath, matins and canonical hours on many days, being in good health, because of various occupations; namely, in hearing confessions, prayers for others and because of the study of sacred Scripture, compelled by necessity and brotherly love; and that I had celebrated masses on those days.
And I say further that a priest thus occupied in similar prayers or study is not bound to say matins, nor canonical hours, according to the first ordinance [of the church], where he cannot complete both parts competently; because neither the Apostles nor the Church were thus occupied about those hours for four hundred years after the ascension of the Lord when the Church flourished and profited more than afterwards. I grant, however, that work must be done, and it is good with appropriate devotion and piety.
V.
I also say that if someone has vowed to travel abroad to the tomb of St. Thomas of Canterbury, or elsewhere, for the purpose of obtaining some temporal benefit, such as liberation from infirmity, or the deliverance of temporal goods, or the like; he is not bound to fulfill that vow out of necessity for eternal salvation; but to distribute the expenses of the vow in alms to the poor, with the prudent counsel of his superior.
VI.
Also, being asked about the sacrament of the altar, I said that after the proclamation of the sacramental words of the body of Christ, the bread which we break remains, as the apostle says, 1 Cor. 10:16 and it does not cease to be bread simply; but it is holy, true and living bread, as the Gospel of John says, chap. 6:51; and this I believe most firmly. And I want to believe until the end of my life, God helping me, even if I die for this article, that that venerable sacrament is the true body of Christ in the form of bread, as St. Augustine testifies in his sermons, and is placed in the canon on Consecration, dist. 2, chap. Qui manducant; where he writes thus: “What is seen,” he says, “is bread, and the cup what the eyes declare. If faith demands otherwise to be instructed, the bread is the body of Christ.”
VII.
Also, when asked, I said that I am bound to adore a predestined man, truly confessed, and contrite, like Matthew, or Mary Magdalene, and others of that kind, rather than any angel of God; because of the human nature united to the deity, or the deity united, because their human nature is now exalted above all the choirs of angels. Yet I wish to adore both duly and devoutly, with the adoration of dulia.
FORM OF THE EXAMINATION OF THE LORD WILLIAM SAWTREY, LOLLARD, DEGRADED AND BURNT IN SMITHFELD IN LONDON FOR HERESIES AND ERRORS, A.D. 1400. IN THE REIGN OF KING HENRY IV.
LORD William, it is imposed on you, and the same is placed on you, that after you have abjured all heresy and error before the venerable man our brother the bishop of Norwich, you have publicly declared that in the sacrament of the altar, after the consecration of a priest, the true bread remains.
To which question the William, as if wavering, answered, saying he did not know that. However, he immediately said that there would be true bread because it is the bread of life which comes down from heaven.
Then the lord archbishop asked the William, Does material bread remain in the sacrament of the altar after the consecration has been duly performed by a priest?
To which question he answered in a similar manner, saying; that he did not understand this matter.
Consequently, the lord archbishop asked the William, Would he be willing to stand by the determination of the Church which states that after the consecration has been duly performed by a priest, the same bread does not remain in nature as before?
To which question he said that he would stand by the determination of the church, where such a determination was not contrary to the divine will. And then, finally asked to say what he thought, he said and ultimately asserted that after the consecration duly performed by the priest, the same bread remains in nature as before, etc.
JUDGMENT PASSED AGAINST WILLIAM TAYLOR, THE WYCLIFFITE
A memorandum that William Taylor, Master of Arts and presbyter, having relapsed into heresy, by the definitive sentence of Lord Henry, Archbishop of Canterbury, with divine permission, in the presence of the venerable fathers and bishops, namely of London, Lincoln, Menai, Hereford, and Rochester, in the church of St. Paul, London, was delivered over to the secular arm, degraded and burned at the stake in Smithfield, on the second day of March, A.D. 1423, and the first of King Henry VI. The conclusions of which heresies follow in order.
1. Every prayer that is a request for some supernatural or gratuitous gift must be directed to God alone.
2. Prayer must be addressed only to God.
3. To pray to any creature is to commit idolatry.
4. The faithful should never direct their prayers to God under the aspect of humanity, but only under the aspect of Deity.
5. Civil or secular dominion, which in my opinion is the same as civil, is so imperfect that it in no way stands with priestly perfection. And in no way did Christ want the priests of the Church to rule in such a way.
6. God does not will by the will of his own good pleasure, but only by divine permissiveness, that kings and princes, however good, should have civil right to rule over their servants, as well as their temporal kingdoms or dominions.
7. The common way of begging among the brothers is completely harmful and detestable to the religious.
8. Whoever offers worship to the holy cross of Christ, or to any other saint, commits idolatry.
9. Although some of the conclusions were condemned and rejected by the general council of Constance, they are no less truly catholic and approved by the law of our Lord Jesus Christ.
THE FIRST EXAMINATION OF WILLIAM WHYTE’S ERRORS AND HERESIES HELD AT NORWICH, SEPT. 13, 1498
I.
First, we propose against you and object to you that you, long since forgetful of your salvation, have written, held, dogmatized, and preached before the people in public in the villages of Gyllyngham, Tenterden, and many others within the diocese of Canterbury, various errors and heresies. And among other things, that in the sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread remains, after its complete consecration on the altar, and does not cease to be material bread, but is at the same time the flesh of Christ, and the bread in substance, the blood of Christ also, and the wine not transubstantiated.
Upon which article the same William Whyte, then examined there judicially, confessed, and acknowledged that he had held and affirmed the same article, and the contents thereof, in the diocese of Canterbury before his abjuration of heresy before the said lord of Canterbury.
II.
Again, we object to your articulating what you have held and taught in the aforesaid places and elsewhere by publicly preaching to the people that the law of grace does not make it lawful for priests and others anointed, both secular and regular, to be endowed in temporal possessions. And that not only temporal masters may lawfully take away such goods from the church, but they are also obliged to do so under penalty of eternal damnation.
Upon the said article, William Whyte, when examined in the same place, admitted judicially, and acknowledged the said article, except that he did not hold that temporal lords are bound to take away temporal possessions from the church under penalty of eternal damnation.
III.
Again we say to you, we object and articulate what you have held and written and taught and preached in the aforementioned places and others that the brothers of the four orders of beggars are pseudo-prophets and false teachers, deceiving the people, introducing sects of perdition and blaspheming the way of truth, whose begging is nowhere founded in the Scriptures, but is completely inconsistent with the perfection of the Gospel.
Upon which article the same William White, having been examined there, confessed and acknowledged judicially that he held and taught the said article, and the contents thereof, in their entirety, speaking heresy, in the diocese of Canterbury, in the presence of the Lord of Canterbury, before abjuration.
IV.
Also we say to you, we object and propose that subsequently, on the occasion of your aforesaid writings, doctrines, preaching, and other erroneous and heretical things, you were before the most reverend father in Christ, the lord Henry, by the grace of God, the archbishop of Canterbury, the primate of all England, and the legate of the apostolic see, judicially drawn up by the assembly, and finally convicted of the foregoing and other errors and heresies; of whom you abjured the same most reverend father judicially and in the form of law.
On which article the said William Whyte was then and there judicially examined, acknowledging that he had judicially abjured before the most reverend father, the lord Archbishop of Canterbury, all and every kind of heresy and error, because he [Whyte] was held by him [the Archbishop] to be strongly suspected of heresy. He [Whyte] said, however, that he himself had not been convicted of heresy before his abjuration.
V.
You have transferred your abjuration to this Norwich diocese of ours, where you have cast off your haircut and presbyterian habit, for a certain woman named Johanna, whom you brought with you, [with whom you share] adulterous and illicit embraces, under color of marriage, living as if a layman, for two years and beyond, in our diocese below mentioned, and because of which, by cleaving, you are worthy of damnation.
Upon which said article, William Whyte reviewed, and was judicially charged, and then examined in the same place; but he denied the nature [of the charge], of course, which was damnably attached to the said woman.
VI.
We declare and reproach you because, aside from your aforementioned arrival in our Norwich diocese, afterwards, contrary to your aforementioned abjuration, you labored with your influence to infect our parishioners in several parts within our diocese, wandering and going about with your errors and heresies of heretical depravity and perverse doctrine, as we regret to report. You have thus infected many of them, leading them to deviate from the faith and become heretical.
William White confessed that, before and after his aforementioned abjuration, he preached and taught the people errors and heresies in the diocese of Norwich. However, he said that at the time he taught this he believed he was teaching and doing well.
VII.
We declare and object that you have held within our diocese, against your aforementioned abjuration, writing and teaching that infant baptism is useless, according to the rite upheld by the universal Church because as soon as the soul is united to the body, the grace of the Holy Spirit is poured out, by which the child is sufficiently baptized, and when he reaches mature years, such that he can understand the word of God, he is sufficiently confirmed.
This article William Whyte consistently and expressly denied.
VIII.
We declare, oppose, propose, and articulate to you that after and against your aforementioned abjuration, in our diocese you have held, affirmed, and taught that vocal confession to another priest is due only to God, who is the highest priest. And that the decree, Omnis utriusque sexus, issued against this, was unjustly established since the holy Fathers commanded that sins be confessed and admitted to God and to those offended.
As to this article, the said William Whyte said judicially that he himself never forbade, nor held that confession should be made to a priest. And the same William Whyte also asserted that to say or affirm that someone cannot be saved without confession, if he has the opportunity, is heresy.
IX.
Likewise, we declare, object and articulate to you that nevertheless, afterward and opposed to your said abjuration, you held, affirmed, wrote and taught in our diocese that all forgiveness of sins is from God alone; and therefore, penance is not to be imposed by a priest or by man.
The said William Whyte judicially admitted that article and its contents and acknowledged that he had held and taught it.
X.
We also declare, object and articulate to you concerning the keys, that afterward and opposed to your aforesaid abjuration, you nevertheless held, wrote and taught that all living piously and righteously, in both sexes, have equal jurisdictional power to bind and loose here on earth; so that the power of binding and loosing granted to priests does not exceed the power of other perfect men or women.
William Whyte then judicially admitted that he had expressly held, written and taught that article, and the contents thereof.
XI.
We also object and articulate to you that, after and against the aforementioned abjuration, in our diocese you have held, affirmed, written and taught that no priest ordained according to the rite and custom of the universal Church, whom you nevertheless commonly call the priest of Antichrist in your treatises and pamphlets, has the power to consecrate the body of Christ; but after the sacramental words have been pronounced by such a priest, the [same] material bread remains on the altar.
William Whyte then judicially confessed that article, and acknowledged that he had held, affirmed, written, and taught it after his aforesaid abjuration.
XII.
We also say, object and articulate to you that after and against your such abjuration in our diocese you have held, affirmed and taught that every faithful person in Christ Jesus is a priest of the chosen church of God. Inasmuch as on the holy day of Easter last past, in a certain chamber of yours in the parish of Bergholt in our diocese, you introduced John Scutte, a layman, your disciple, to perform the office of priest, and that he should break bread and give thanks to God, and distribute such bread to you, your concubine, William Everdon, John Fowlyn, and William Caless, priest, who were present there with you, pronouncing these words in the sense, ‘Take and eat in memory of the passion of Christ,’ you instructed and did.
William Whyte denied this article in its entirety.
XIII.
Likewise, we declare, object and articulate to you that after your aforementioned abjuration you held, asserted, affirmed, wrote and taught that despite the fact that Christ said, “This is my body,” it is not necessary that he destroy the matter of the bread and thus convert it into the nature of his body; but it is sufficient for the faithful Christian to believe that it is the body of Christ in memory, and the true bread in nature.
William Whyte then judicially admitted that article in its entirety and acknowledged that he had held, affirmed, written, and taught it, after and opposed to his aforesaid abjuration.
XIV.
We also declare, object and articulate to you that afterward and against your aforementioned abjuration, you held, affirmed, wrote and taught that the Lollard opinion or doctrine instructs people to place faith, hope, fear and love only in God and his law, and not in the Pope, or his false laws, or in the subtle language of the execrable assembly of Antichrist, most truly figured by the fig tree producing only leaves which the Lord cursed.
William Whyte then judicially confessed that article, and acknowledged that he had held, affirmed, written, and taught it after the aforementioned abjuration.
XV.
We also declare, object and articulate to that afterward and opposed to your aforesaid abjuration in our diocese you held, affirmed, wrote and even taught that the law of freely marrying ordained by Christ for any of the three estates of the Church, Militant, the Pope, whom you call Antichrist, with his councilors, who, as you assert, are the clerics of Lucifer, with foolish leaders and furred hoods, enfeebled for the destruction of the priesthood in England, after the release of Satan, that is, the thousandth year of Christ; and that accepting the said ordinance on the continence of priests, they prefer the captivity of the execrable creature of Antichrist to the general liberty of Christ the Creator. William Whyte then admitted in court that he had affirmed, written, and taught that article after the aforementioned abjuration.
XVI.
We also declare, object and articulate to you that afterward and opposed to your said abjuration, within our diocese you held, affirmed, wrote and taught that the presumptuous crowned priests, who say that they follow the Savior according to their exceptional virtue of chastity, as is their profession made to Antichrist, when the Bridegroom comes at night, the door will be closed, and their lamps extinguished.
William Whyte then admitted and acknowledged that he held, affirmed, wrote and taught this article judicially there.
XVII.
We also declare, object and articulate to you that afterward and opposed to your aforementioned abjuration, within our diocese you held, affirmed, wrote and taught that after the Roman court forbade priests in England to take wives their salaries increased monstrously; to such an extent that from being poor and working with their hands they are now magnanimous, free from idleness and fanciful lust.
William Whyte then judicially confessed that article and acknowledged that he had held, affirmed, written, and preached it.
XVIII.
Likewise, we declare, object and articulate to you that afterward and opposed to your aforesaid abjuration within our diocese, you held, affirmed, wrote and taught that it would be very inconvenient for you, a priest, to usurp the lawful virtue of bodily virginity never given to you by God, and to abjure your own gift of marriage freely conferred on you by the Lord. William Whyte then confessed that article and acknowledged judicially that he had held, written, affirmed, and taught it, after his aforesaid abjuration.
XIX.
We also tell you, object and articulate that after and against your said abjuration, within our diocese, you held, affirmed, wrote and taught that the bodies of the sick are in vain smeared or anointed with material oil consecrated by a bishop since extreme unction is nothing other than the infusion of mercy and the grace of the Holy Spirit.
This article was also held, affirmed, written and taught by William Whyte, after and against his aforesaid oath, as he confessed, and judicially acknowledged there at that time.
XX.
Likewise we declare, object and articulate to you that afterward in opposition of your abjuration of this, in our diocese you held, affirmed, wrote and taught that in Lent, on the days of the four seasons, on the vigils of the saints, or on the advent of the Lord, no faithful is obliged to fast since Christ did not fast at such times, and because for a thousand years after the ascension of Christ such observances were deceptively instituted by the supreme pontiffs.
William Whyte admitted this article, and judicially acknowledged that he had held, affirmed, written and taught, after his aforesaid abjuration.
XXI.
We also declare, object and articulate to you that afterward and opposed to your aforesaid abjuration, in our diocese you held, affirmed, wrote and taught that in the times and days immediately preceding the above, it was lawful for the faithful, according to the teaching of the Apostle Paul, to eat meat and all foods indiscriminately among themselves, and even in the presence of unbelievers, so as to make them believers; which, however, is not lawful for weak brothers who have infatuated consciences, lest scandal arise from this.
This aforesaid article William Whyte confessed and judicially recognized that after his aforesaid abjuration he himself held, affirmed, wrote and taught; in so far as William himself often ate meat in the times and days immediately preceding the abovementioned, as he judicially asserted there.
XXII.
Likewise we declare, object and articulate to you that after and against your aforesaid abjuration, in our diocese you have held, affirmed, written and taught that on Sundays and other festive times declared by the Church, it is licit for the faithful to work and to do and exercise any bodily works, except servile works, which you have explained to be sins or vices, and have declared this to your hearers.
This article the aforesaid William Whyte held, affirmed, wrote and taught after his aforesaid abjuration, as he himself admitted, and judicially recognized there at that time.
XXIII.
We also declare, object and articulate to you that after and against your aforesaid abjuration, in our diocese you held, affirmed, wrote and taught that tithes are to be deducted from clerics and churches, provided that this is done prudently, because the payment of tithes ceased at the Passion of Christ, from which time until Gregory X [d. 1276], as you assert, the people freely tithed only to the poor, and then there were few beggars, and no wonder because at that time there were not those four orders of beggars robbing the people, as now.
The said William Whyte admitted this article and judicially acknowledged that he had held, affirmed, written and preached it after his abjuration.
XXIV.
We also declare, object and articulate to you that after and against your aforesaid abjuration, you held, affirmed, wrote and taught that any faithful person, even not sent or licensed by diocesan or ordinary, notwithstanding a constitution of the Church passed to the contrary, can freely preach the word of God because blessed Wycliffe, to use your words, proves in his sermons that the very person is accursed who ceases to publish the gospel of Christ to the people who hunger and thirst for the law of God due to the threat of excommunication by the Antichrist.
The said William Whyte confessed this article, and judicially acknowledged that he had held, affirmed, written and taught this after his aforesaid abjuration.
XXV.
We also declare, object and articulate to you that after and against your aforesaid abjuration, you held, affirmed, wrote and taught that the relics of saints, namely the flesh and bones of dead men, should not be venerated by the people, nor taken out of a foul tomb, nor placed in a golden or silver box because men who do so do not honor God and his saints, but commit idolatry.
The aforesaid William Whyte asserted this article, and admitted judicially that he held, affirmed, wrote and taught there, after his aforesaid abjuration.
XXVI.
We also declare, object and articulate to you that after and against your aforesaid abjuration, you held, affirmed, wrote and taught that no honor is to be paid to images of the Crucified, the Blessed Virgin Mary, or any saint. For trees growing in the forest are of greater power and vigor and bear a more expressive likeness of God and image than stone or dead wood carved in the likeness of man; and therefore, such growing trees are more to be adored with prayers, genuflections, offerings, pilgrimages and lights than any dead idol in the church.
Which article the aforesaid William Whyte admitted objecting to and judicially acknowledged that he held, affirmed, wrote and taught at that time, after his aforesaid abjuration.
XXVII.
We also declare, object and articulate to you that after and against your aforesaid abjuration, you held, affirmed, wrote and taught in our diocese that if the passion of Christ was useful and precious, the death of the martyr, St. Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, was vile and should be cursed by the faithful because he endured the suffering of death for the Church’s temporal affairs, and if the death of Thomas himself was to be commended, then the suffering of Christ was to be rejected.
The aforesaid William Whyte then judicially confessed this article and acknowledged that he had held, affirmed, written and taught after and against his aforesaid abjuration.
XXVIII.
We also declare, object and articulate to you that after and against your aforesaid abjuration in our diocese you held, affirmed, wrote and taught that it is lawful for temporal lords to take possessions of the church from it. Indeed, they are bound to do so under penalty of mortal sin.
On which article the aforesaid William Whyte, examined, confessed, and judicially acknowledged at that time and there that he himself held, wrote and taught that it is lawful for temporal lords to take possessions of this kind from the Church. He said, however, that he himself never held, wrote, nor taught that temporal lords are bound to do this under penalty of mortal sin.
XXIX.
We also declare, object and articulate to you that after and against your aforesaid abjuration, you held, affirmed, wrote and taught in our diocese that nowhere in the new law did Christ permit thieves and malefactors to be killed by hanging or in any other way, who in time of necessity took the goods of their neighbors to relieve themselves. But, on the contrary, the just judge Christ, by the woman caught in adultery, saying, ‘Go,’ etc., exemplified to us that killing would in no way be lawful.
To this William Whyte stated and asserted in the judgment then and there, that it is in no way lawful for those who should be disciples of Christ to kill anyone.
XXX.
We also declare, object and articulate to you that after and against your aforesaid abjuration, in our diocese you held, affirmed, wrote and taught that no one is permitted to fight for his hereditary right or for his country, for such a one, when he fights, loses the charity with which he would love his neighbor, and thus, existing in mortal sin, loses the entire dominion of temporal possession because such a one is not a servant of God but of sin.
The aforesaid William Whyte confessed and judicially acknowledged then and there that he had held, affirmed, written, taught and preached the said article: the same William Whyte also confessed and judicially acknowledged there that after and against his aforesaid abjuration he had written and dictated several books, containing some errors and heresies which were then judicially exhibited before the said reverend father, and that he had held and affirmed that he had written and taught the heresies contained in the same books.
These acts of William Whyte, priest, heretic and Lollard were set forth against him before he was burned in Norwich.
END OF EXCERPTS
Be First to Comment