ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 



other craftsmen ; while their teachers were mostly laymen like them- 

 selves, with no commission from the church, who wandered from place 

 to place and mingled their teaching with the exercise of their ordinary 

 trade. A few of the Buckinghamshire heretics of 1464 confessed to 

 having learned their views from the rector of Chesham Bois a former 

 rector in all probability, as he was not brought to trial at this time ; 

 possibly even the same Richard Monk who abjured in 1428. But more 

 of them had been instructed by one John Wyllis, who was examined 

 before the bishop at Wooburn on 13 August 14.62.* This man had 

 originally been a weaver of Bristol, and a disciple of a certain William 

 Smith, burned after trial before the bishop of Worcester. Wyllis 

 himself had taught in Bristol and London as well as in Lincoln diocese, 

 and had already abjured, by his own confession, before the bishop of 

 London. His condemnation therefore as a relapsed heretic was inevit- 

 able ; but it is noteworthy that after his excommunication, when all 

 hope was past, he again, it is stated, abjured his errors, and received 

 absolution from the church that he might ' die a good Christian.' 

 There are no signs at this time of anything like the formation of regular 

 congregations such as Foxe speaks of as existing thirty or forty years 

 later. It is well known indeed that the term ' Lollard ' or ' heretic ' 

 was applied loosely to a great many people who agreed more in what 

 they denied than in what they affirmed, and even here had often very 

 little in common. The heresy of this period, like the Lollardy from 

 which it was descended, was rather destructive than constructive ; it 

 was in fact mainly revolt against ecclesiastical authority. Those who 

 were examined before the bishop in 1464 confessed chiefly to a series 

 of wild and self-contradictory criticisms of the Church, the sacraments, 

 and the clergy. ' Bishops should go on foot, clothed in white, preaching 

 to the people.' It was better to baptize children in a river or pond 

 than in a church. It was enough for a man and woman to consent to 

 live together ; the blessing of a priest could do them no good. Priests 

 who are sinners cannot and ought not to preach. Singing, bell-ringing 

 and the use of organs were to be blamed, not praised. Nearly all 

 agreed in condemning all veneration of images or relics : most not only 

 denied Transubstantiation but the Real Presence. One, a blacksmith of 

 Henley, examined with the men of Wycombe, used language about the 

 pope, the king, the sacraments, worthy of Bishop Bale 2 ; he said baptism 

 was only a token and a sign, and that he could make as good a sacrament 

 as the priest ; and yet confessed that he had been wont to undertake the 

 cure of children suffering from the ' chynkow ' by means of charms, 

 involving the repetition of a great many paters and aves. Of greater 

 interest is a list of English books, presumably of a heretical nature, 



1 Line. Epis. Reg. Memo. Chedworth, 57-63. All the details which follow are from the same 

 source. 



a He said that the pilgrims to Canterbury went to offer their souls to the devil : the Blessed Sacra- 

 ment was a great devil of hell and a synagogue : the pope a ' grete best and a devyll of hell and a sina- 

 goge ' : the king and all that maintain the church shall go to the devil. 



I 297 38 



