imprisoned by Arundel, and by tortures induced to recant at Paul's Cross, in 1396. A small living was then given to him. He is mentioned in Thorpe's examinations as living in conformity to the manners of the world. But his conscience did not allow him to pursue this course. He was imprisoned again in 1421, by archbishop Chichely, and is supposed to have died in confinement.

Knighton mentions several other active Lollards; among them was WILLIAM SWINDERBY. He was originally a hermit. Coming to Leicester he preached against the corruptions of the age, particularly reproving the pride and vanity of females, until, as we are told, "the good and grave women, as well as the bad, threatened to stone him out of the place!" He then addressed the merchants and rich men, denouncing those who neglected heavenly riches for worldly wealth; so often dwelling thereon, that, as the Romish chronicler remarks, had not the divine clemency interposed, he had driven some honest men of the town into despair! Swinderby then became a recluse, but after a short time resumed his preaching, directing his discourses against the errors and vices of popery. Knighton, of course, stigmatizes his doctrines as erroneous, but adds, He so captivated the affections of the people, that they said they never had seen or heard any one who so well explained the truth." Being excommunicated, and forbidden to preach in any church or churchyard, he made a pulpit of two millstones in the high-street of Leicester, and there preached "in contempt of the bishop." There," says Knighton, "you might see throngs of people from every part, as well from the town as the country, double the number there used to be when they might hear him lawfully." Swinderby was cited to appear before the bishop at Lincoln, when he was convicted of heresy and errors, for which it is said, " he deserved to be made fuel for the fire." Many of his hearers had accompanied him, and lamented his danger, but the duke of Lancaster being at Lincoln interposed in his behalf; he was allowed to escape upon promising to recant his opinions, and publicly acknowledging them to be errors. He afterwards settled at Coventry, where he preached and taught with greater success than before. Walsingham, another Romish historian, says, that the multitude raged in his behalf, so as to deter the bishop of Lincoln from further measures against him.

66

Swinderby then retired to Herefordshire, where proceedings were instituted against him by the bishop of the diocese, in 1391. Fox has given them at length from the registers of the bishop. They show that Swinderby taught the same doctrines as Wickliff, and was active in preaching the truth. One of the articles against him states, that " The same William, unmindful of his own salvation, hath many and often times come into a certain desert wood, called Dorvallwood.

and there, in a certain chapel not hallowed, or rather in a profane cottage, hath, in contempt of the keys,* presumed of his own rashness to celebrate, nay rather to profanate." He was also accused of similar" doings" elsewhere. Already had the poor Lollards resorted to village worship in private houses, then considered a crime worthy of death! This accusation was denied by Swinderby in his replies to the articles alleged against him, but rather on the ground of the facts being wrongly stated, than as admitting such conduct to be contrary to God's law. From the registers it appears that Swinderby being cited to appear again, absented himself, when he was excommunicated. He addressed a letter to the parliament, urging an examination into the errors and abuses then prevalent, but no particulars are recorded of the subsequent events of his life.

WALTER BRUTE, or BRITTE, was a layman. He studied at Oxford, and graduated there. In 1360 he opposed the favourite tenet of the friars, that Christ obtained his livelihood by begging. He was of the diocese of Hereford, where he was accused of heresy in October, 1391. The tenets objected to him are those usually attributed to the Lollards. He was also accused as a favourer of Swinderby. His answers were clear and decisive as to his belief, that he approved Swinderby's answers, that real bread remained after the consecration of the sacrament, and that the pope was antichrist. He further presented some written declarations of the doctrines he held, which were entered in the bishop's register, and have been copied by Fox. They present an interesting record of his sentiments, extending to thirty folio pages. Some extracts will be found in the present volume.

It appears that Brute was a man of some consequence, from the pains taken by the Romanists to bring him to their views: they probably were more earnest on account of his descent from the ancient Britons. The proceedings lasted for two years, when after an examination of three days' continuance, before a number of prelates and other ecclesiastics, among whom was his late associate Nicholas Hereford, Brute made a submission in general terms, which, however, did not imply a recognition of the errors of the church of Rome. The register also contains a letter sent to Nicholas Hereford by some Lollard, faithfully rebuking his apostacy. Swinderby and Hereford were deemed of sufficient importance for royal proclamations to be issued, denouncing them by name. What became of Brute is not known. If he survived till the persecutions became more severe he probably perished in prison.

Many other disciples of Wickliff are enumerated by Lewis and Fox. Among them was THOMAS THORPE, whose examinations are an important document in the history of the

*Or ecclesiastical authority.

Reformation. They were written by himself, and printed by Tindal and Fox. They will be found in the present selection. The Acts and Monuments of Fox contain interesting particulars of many others of the faithful band who constituted the church of Christ in England, till the brighter days of the Reformation commenced. To insert the narratives here would make the present work a martyrology rather than a collection of the writings of the British Reformers. It is, however, much to be regretted that they are so little known, having been almost entirely unnoticed in the numerous imperfect extracts from Fox which have issued from the press. A correct reprint of that truly national work is most desirable.

The industry of the martyrologist has not left much for those who come after him, but in the present volume will be found the Lantern of Light, a piece to which he has only adverted by name, the contents of which will amply repay the perusal.

We have now to take a brief view of the course pursued to suppress the English Lollards.

Of this period, Milton well observes in his discourse of the Reformation in England. "When I recall to mind, how the bright and blissful Reformation, by divine power, strook through the black and settled night of ignorance and antichristian tyranny, after so many dark ages, wherein the huge overshadowing train of error had almost swept all the stars out of the firmament of the church, methinks a sovereign and reviving joy must needs rush into the bosom of him that reads or hears; and the sweet odour of the returning gospel, imbathe his soul with the fragrancy of heaven. Then was the sacred BIBLE sought out of the dusty corners, where profane falsehood and neglect had thrown it; the schools opened; divine and human learning were raked out of the embers of forgotten tongues; the princes and cities came trooping apace to the newly erected banner of salvation; the martyrs, with the unresistable might of weakness, shaking the powers of darkness, and scorning the fiery rage of the old red dragon."

The doctrines of the truth were so widely diffused, at the time of Wickliff's decease, that the Romish ecclesiastics found prompt and decisive measures alone would preserve their power. To reformation they were utterly averse. As they would not relinquish their vices and errors, the only course was to establish their authority so fully, that whatever they chose to sanction or permit, should not be gainsaid. The dictates of the church of Rome were to be received as equal in authority to the faith builded on Christ, set forth in the scriptures; every opponent, therefore, of the papal doctrines, was to be treated as an infidel, and as an enemy to christianity.

Various measures were adopted to repress the obnoxious doctrines. As early as 1387, commissioners were appointed in many

parts of the kingdom, who were directed to search for and seize the books and tracts of Wickliff, Hereford, and Ashton, and to send them up to the council. All persons were forbidden to defend, maintain, or teach, openly or privately, the opinions set forth in those books; or to keep, copy, buy, or sell them, under pain of imprisonment and forfeiture of all their property. Many were apprehended in consequence of these measures, and compelled to abjure, or to suffer imprisonment, perhaps death. Knighton, however, expresses regret that these edicts were slowly and faintly executed. The numerous copies of portions of Wickliff's writings still extant, are evidences to confirm his statement as to the nonsuppression of the Reformer's writings, but the indisputable authority of the bishops' registers show that very active exertions were made against the Lollards.

The contest between the English government and the papal court was still kept alive by the encroachments of the latter. This encouraged the Lollards or rather those who were the outward adherents of Wickliff, to make a bold attack upon the ecclesiastics. A parliament was held in 1394, at which they presented twelve articles of complaint. These chiefly attacked the power and profligacy of the clergy, but the more gross errors of popery were also adverted to. A variety of small satirical papers exposing these errors and vices, were actively circulated. The clergy were much alarmed at these open proceedings. They sent some of their number to the king, then in Ireland, who induced him to return without delay. He summoned Clifford, Latimer, Montague, and others, and by threats prevented them from giving encouragement to the Lollards. The pope was not wanting on such an occasion. He addressed a letter to the king and prelates; the latter were especially admonished that they must no longer be slothful, but must make strenuous efforts "to root out and destroy" their heretical opponents.

The clergy, in truth, did not deserve these reproaches. Courtney had been active in his proceedings, and Arundel, who succeeded to the primacy in 1396, followed his example. Immediately after his accession, he held a council at London, when eighteen conclusions taken from Wickliff's Trialogus were condemned. By order of the prelate, a friar named Woodford drew up a long reply to the opinions thus deduced from the writings of the Reformer."

In the same year, a royal brief was directed to the university

It is printed in the Fasciculus Rerum. The date at the conclusion is 1396, but some passages show that it was not completed till the commencement of the reign of Henry IV. Arundel's occupation of the see of Canterbury was interrupted, in consequence of his political intrigues, till the accession of Henry replaced him in power. He attributed his restoration to the especial interference of the virgin Mary in his behalf, and ordered new acts of worship to her honour!

of Oxford, directing the removal of all Lollards and others suspected of heretical pravity. The Trialogus of Wickliff was also to be examined, that the errors contained therein might be pointed out. In the following year, letters patent were issued, forbidding the university to plead any exemption to the prejudice of the royal authority, or in favour and support of Lollards and heretics. Some unwillingness to proceed against the followers of Wickliff probably had been evinced, for archbishop Arundel wrote to the chancellor that he was informed almost the whole university was touched with heretical pravity. To avert the dangers consequent upon such a charge, twelve delegates were appointed, who from fourteen of Wickliff's tracts selected three hundred conclusions as worthy of censure. These they sent to the archbishop and the convocation.

A darker hour was at hand, although the civil discords, which terminated in the dethronement and death of Richard II., checked the proceedings against the Lollards for a brief interval, and the accession of the son of John of Gaunt, their most zealous patron, excited hopes of protection. These, however, were speedily disappointed. Henry IV. was a usurper; he felt that he needed the support of the Romish clergy, and at once entered decisively into their views. In his first message to the convocation, October, 1399, he declared that he never would demand money from them except in the most urgent necessity: he also promised to protect their immunities, and to assist them in exterminating heretics. Arundel and the ecclesiastics lost no time in availing themselves of the royal dispo sition in their favour. In the next parliament a law was enacted, at the instance of the clergy, forbidding any one to preach without leave of his diocesan, and ordaining "that none should from thenceforth preach, hold, teach, or instruct, openly or privily, or make or write any book contrary to the catholic faith or determination of holy church, or make any conventicles or schools." All books of heresy were to be delivered up within forty days. Whoever offended was to be arrested by the diocesan, proceeded against according to the canons, to be kept in prison, and fined at the discretion of the diocesan. "If he refused to abjure, or relapsed, he was to be delivered to the sheriff or chief magistrate, to be BURNED ALIVE, in a conspicuous place, for the terror of others!"

Thus the liberties and immunities of the Romish clergy, or in other words, their errors, usurpations, and profligacies, were protected by a statute which constituted them sole judges in their own cause, and compelled the civil power to put to death any one whom they might denounce as differing from themselves in opinion! It is unnecessary to say that such measures evidently originated with the Romish clergy; in fact this law, though, as Fox observes, it "cost many a christian man his life," never was legally enacted-it was the act of the