Biography of John Philpot -1384

Archaeologia Volume 22 Section XVI. Of the discord raised in St Paule hys churche in London, betwene the Cleargie & the Duke, & Syr Henry Percye & the Londoners, by John Wiclyffe (age 49).

Thys sonne, therfor, of perdition, John Wiclyffe, was to appeare before the bishopps the Thursday before the feast of St. Peter his chaire [23rd February 1377],^x there to be convented for marvellous wordes that he had spoken, Sathan, the adversarye of the whoole churche, as ys beleaved, teachynge hym; whoe after the nynth houre, the duke & Syr Henry Percye, & divyers other assystynge hym, whoe by there powre were able to trouble the weake people, & also beynge as a meane betwene them, that yf any thynge sholde fall from the table of the ritche bishopps, that ys to say plate, although it were soyled in the fall, they wolde gather yt upp & wolde chew yt by there backbytynge, beholde the abominable hoste, John aforenamed, was brought furthe with greate pompe, nether yet was sufficient yt for hym to have onely the common sergeants, unlesse Syr Henrye Percye the chiefe Marshall of Englande did goe before hym; in the waye he was animated by his companions not to feare the congregation of the bishopps, whoe in respect of hym were unlearned; nether yet the concourse of the people, seynge that he was walled in on every syde with so many knightes. His body was now broughte into St. Paule's churche with an incredible pryde, where such a multitude of people was gathered togeather to heare hym, that yt was harde for the noble men & knyghtes (the people lettynge them) to passe through, and even by & by with this occasion they were persuaded craftely to pull backe with there handes there scholer, that he myght escape deathe entended hym by manye bishopps. The devill founde a way, that fyrste a dissension beynge mayde betwene the noble men & bishopp, hys answeare myght be differed. Truly when the people beynge gathered togeather, stayed to geave place unto the noble men, Syr Henry Percye, abusynge hys authorytye, miserably pricked forwardes the people in the churche, whiche the Bishopp of London seyng, prohibited hym to exercyse suche authoritye in the churche, saynge that yf he had knowne he wolde have used hym selffe so there, he sholde not have come into the churche yf he coulde have letted hym, whiche the duke hearynge was offended, & protested that he wolde exercyse suche authorytye whether he wolde or not. When they were come into our Ladyes chappell, the duke & barons, with the archbishopp & bishopps, syttynge downe, the foresayed John also was sent in by Syr Henrye Percye to sytt downe, for because, sayed he, he haythe much to answeare he haith neade of a better seate. On the other syde, the byshopp of London denyed the sayme, affyrmynge yt to be agaynst reason that he sholde sytt there, & also contrary to the law for hym to sytt, whoe there was cited to answere before hys ordinarye; & therfor the tyme of hys answearynge, or so longe as any thynge sholde be deposed agynste hym, or hys cause sholde be handled, he ought to stande. Here upon very contumelyous wordes did ryse betwene Syr Henrye Percye & the bishopp, & the whoole multitude began to be troubled. And then the duke began to reprehende the bishopp, & the bishopp to turne then on the duke agayne. The duke was ashamed that he colde not in this stryfe prevaile,^y & then began with frowarde threatenynges to deale with the bishopp, swearyng that he wolde pull downe both the pryde of hym & of all the bishopps in Englande, & added, thou trustest (sayed he) in thy parents, whoe can profytt the nothynge, for they shall have enough to doo to defend themselves, for hys parents, that ys to say hys father & hys mother, were of nobylitye, the Earle & the Countes of Devonshire. The bishopp on the other syde sayed, in defendynge the trueth I truste not in my parents, nor in the lyfe of any man, but in God in whom I ought to trust. Then the duke whysperynge in his eare sayed he had rather draw hym furth of the churche by the heare then suffer such thynges. The Londoners hearynge these words, angerlye with a lowd voyce cried out, swearynge they wolde not suffer there Bishopp to be injured, & that they wold soner loose there lyfe then there bishopp sholde be dishonered in the churche, or pulled out with such vyolence. There fury was the more encreased, for that the same day before none in the parlyament at Westminster, the duke being president, &c. it was requested in the kyngs name, that from that day forward there should be no more Mayre of London accordynge to the auncyent custome, but a captayne, and that the Marshall of England, as well in the cytye as in other places myght arrest such as offended, with many other thynges, which were manyfestly agaynst the lybertyes of the cytye, and portended daungers and hurt to the same, which being once hard, John Philpott, a cytezyn of specyall name, arose, and affyrmed that such thyngs were never sene, and that the mayor & comons wold suffer no such arrest, and so before none the counsell brake up. The duke and the byshops revylyng one another, the people wonderfully enraged and trobled, the enemy of mankynde, as I sayd before, procuryng this counsell, and by these occasyons that false varlet & mynyster of the devill persuaded, lest he should be confounded in his inventions, for he saw that in all thyngs he wold be profytable unto hym, & therefore was careful lest such a defender of his part should perysh ether secretly or so lightly.

Note x. The date here assigned to this remarkable transaction is doubted by Lowth, because the Pope's Bull, which he supposes to have been the cause of Wicliffe's citation to St. Paul's, bears as late a date as the 22d of May 1377. He therefore concludes, that the tumult could not have happened many days before the death of Edward the Third, which occurred on the 21st of June. Lewis, in his Life of Wicliffe (p. 50), supposes the meeting at St. Paul's not to have taken place till the February of the succeeding year, after the accession of Richard the Second, in which he is followed by Mr. Baber, in the memoirs prefixed to his edition of Wicliffe's New Testament, p. xvii. This, however, is completely at variance not only with the relation in the text, but also with that of Walsingham, the Continuator of Murimuth, and the other contemporary or early authorities. Mr. Godwin (Life of Chaucer, ii. p. 251) defends the earlier date, suggesting that the citation to St. Paul's was the immediate and personal act of the English prelacy, and that it was the citation of Wicliffe to Lambeth in the following year, which was the result of the Pope's interference, the English Bishops having found themselves too weak in the contest, and having, on that account, invited the interposition of the sovereign Pontiff. This appears to be the true solution, agreeing with the statement in the text, that it was upon the suggestion of the bishops, that Archbishop Sudbury had been unwillingly moved to issue the citation. It is true, indeed, that the mandate (preserved in Wilkin's Concilia, iii. p. 123), which the Archbishop and the Bishop of London, in consequence of the authority vested in them by the Pope's Bull, issued to the Chancellor of Oxford on the 5th of January following, required Wicliffe's presence at St. Paul's on the thirtieth juridical day from that date. But as we have no account from the contemporary writers that any second meeting in St. Paul's actually took place, it may be reasonably concluded that Lambeth was afterwards substituted, as a less likely scene for the renewal of popular commotion, though the result proved otherwise. The opinion here expressed may be strengthened by remarking that not only Fox, but his able antagonist Harpsfeld, who, though a zealous papist, was furnished with materials for his Ecclesiastical History by Archbishop Parker (in whose mild custody he was a prisoner) understood the tumult at St. Paul's to have preceded and been the cause of the Pope's interference, and that the proceeding at Lambeth was the consequence of it. Hist. Wicleffiana, p. 683.

Note y. y Fox, in quoting the Chronicle of St. Alban's, then belonging to Archbishop Parker, from which (as is stated in the introductory Letter) the Chronicle above printed is conceived to have been a translation, says, "to use the words of mine author, 'Erubuit Dux quod non potuit prevalere litigio,' i. e. that the Duke blushed because he could not overpasse the Bishop in brawling and railing." Acts & Mon. i. p. 558, edit. 1641. It clearly appears from this and other passages, that Fox had the use of the Latin original, translating it into language which suited his purpose, though not departing from the facts. Fuller, in his Church History, has dramatized this dialogue between the duke and the bishop, in his usual quaint style.