Social Upheaval and the Growing Discontent of Peasants

The fourteenth century did not merely burden England with war, plague, and ecclesiastical conflict. It also produced deep social tensions that would explode in open revolt. The Black Death had cut the population dramatically, leaving broad stretches of farmland short of laborers. With workers in short supply, wages naturally tended to rise and peasants felt their bargaining power increase.

The ruling classes reacted by attempting to force society back into older patterns. The Statute of Labourers and similar laws sought to fix wages at pre-plague levels and keep workers from moving freely in search of better terms. Lords tried to reassert traditional feudal dues just when peasants were most aware of their new leverage. These measures created resentment that simmered beneath the surface of rural life.

At the same time, the long and costly war with France demanded heavy taxation. Parliament, influenced by royal ministers, experimented with poll taxes—levies that fell not on land or goods alone, but on each individual, regardless of wealth. The third such tax, imposed in 1380, proved especially provocative. Officials who attempted to collect it sometimes behaved harshly, stirring local anger into open resistance.

Religious discontent mingled with economic frustration. Ordinary people saw bishops and abbots living in comfort, monasteries accumulating property, and clergy exempted from many burdens that fell on common folk. Indulgences were sold, tithes collected, and Church courts exacted their fees, even as peasants struggled under secular taxes and labor restrictions. The contrast between clerical luxury and lay hardship was plain to any observant eye.

Into this world had come Wycliffe’s message: that the Church must follow Christ’s poverty, that unfaithful clergy forfeited their moral right to rule, and that Scripture alone defines true dominion under Jehovah. These teachings, meant to purify the Church according to the Bible, reached a population already angry at injustice. Though Wycliffe himself did not preach revolt, his insistence that authority must be righteous resonated deeply in a society where many believed authority had become oppressive.

The 1381 Peasants’ Revolt and London in Flames

Tension finally erupted in 1381. In Essex and Kent, peasants and townsmen began refusing to pay the hated poll tax. Confrontations between collectors and villagers turned violent. Groups of rebels gathered, destroying tax records and attacking symbols of local authority. What began as scattered resistance quickly formed into a coordinated movement.

Under various local leaders, the rebels marched toward London, drawing support from craftsmen, apprentices, and discontented townspeople along the way. A powerful group advanced from Kent under the leadership of Wat Tyler; another moved from Essex. Their rallying points included demands for the end of serfdom, fair rents, and the removal of corrupt officials. Some among them also voiced anger at certain high churchmen, whom they saw as partners in oppression.

When the rebels reached London, they found gates opened by sympathizers inside the city. Crowds surged through the streets, targeting government buildings, legal records, and the houses of unpopular figures. One of the most dramatic moments came with the attack on the Savoy Palace, the luxurious London residence of John of Gaunt. The palace was looted and then burned. The rebels refused to steal its treasure for themselves, choosing instead to destroy it—an act meant to symbolize judgment on perceived greed and misrule.

For several days, London lay effectively in the hands of insurgents. Fires lit the sky. Officials fled or hid. Ordinary citizens watched in fear and confusion as the structures of authority seemed to crumble. The young king, Richard II, only fourteen years old, was caught between royal advisers who wanted a harsh crackdown and the reality that an ill-judged attack could provoke even greater violence.

Though the uprising lacked a single coherent ideology, it expressed a widespread conviction: that the existing order—economic, legal, and ecclesiastical—had failed to protect the common man. For many in power, the sight of London in flames confirmed their worst fear: that the lower orders, if not tightly controlled, would overturn society itself.

Wat Tyler, the Killing of the Archbishop, and Royal Panic

The crisis reached its peak when the rebels demanded direct negotiation with the king. Richard II, under pressure and aware of the danger, agreed to meet them at Mile End. There he listened to petitions calling for the abolition of villeinage, the reduction of rents, and the removal of certain officials. In a moment of tactical concession, he appeared to grant many of their demands, issuing charters that seemed to promise freedom.

But the uprising did not end. A more radical group, led by Wat Tyler, pressed for further concessions and sought a second meeting, this time at Smithfield. There, in a tense encounter, Tyler behaved in ways that royal officers judged threatening. Accounts vary, but in the confusion, the Lord Mayor of London, William Walworth, struck Tyler down. The rebel leader was killed on the spot.

At almost the same time, another group of insurgents stormed the Tower of London, where several leading officials had taken refuge. Among those seized was Simon Sudbury, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Lord Chancellor of England. To the rebels, he symbolized both ecclesiastical wealth and governmental oppression. They dragged him out and executed him, beheading him outside the Tower.

The killing of an archbishop shocked all of Europe. For the ruling classes, it was proof that the rebellion was not merely about taxes or labor conditions but had crossed into sacrilege and open war against the Church’s highest offices. Royal panic turned into determination. With Wat Tyler dead and the rebels suddenly leaderless, Richard rode out to confront them, assuring the crowds that he would be their lord and protector if they dispersed. Many, uncertain and afraid, obeyed.

What followed was a systematic process of retribution. The king revoked the charters he had granted under duress. Rebel leaders were hunted down and executed. Local courts punished those who had participated in attacks on property and officials. The immediate threat was crushed, but the memory of the uprising—and the fear it produced—remained vivid among the nobility and bishops. They began searching for deeper causes and potential instigators.

It was almost inevitable that some would turn their suspicion toward Wycliffe and his followers.

Wycliffe Falsely Accused of Stirring Rebellion by His Teachings

In the aftermath of the Peasants’ Revolt, many in authority sought explanations that went beyond economic burdens or local grievances. They asked why common people had dared to question long-established social roles at all. Some concluded that the fault lay in new religious teachings that challenged traditional views of authority.

Wycliffe’s doctrine of dominion founded in grace—that all rightful lordship depends on obedience to God—was easily misunderstood or willfully distorted. He had argued that a ruler living in mortal sin forfeits moral legitimacy even if he retains legal power. In Wycliffe’s writings, this principle applied first to clergy and then, by extension, to all who held authority. He did not call for violent overthrow, but for spiritual reform and, where necessary, lawful correction.

Yet to suspicious bishops and conservative nobles, such teaching sounded dangerously close to a justification for rebellion. If peasants heard that sinful lords had no rightful dominion, might they not rise up to cast them down? If preachers spoke of the equality of all believers before God’s Word, would this not encourage people to reject the social distinctions that had long structured medieval life?

There is no evidence that Wycliffe encouraged the revolt. He condemned violence and viewed war itself—especially clerical involvement in it—with deep misgivings. His call for reform was always tethered to Scripture, emphasizing repentance, faith, and obedience to Christ. Nevertheless, opponents accused him of being the intellectual father of the uprising.

In sermons and tracts, defenders of the old order warned that heretical ideas had seeped into the minds of the lower classes. They pointed to Wycliffe’s criticism of ecclesiastical wealth and his attacks on corrupt clergy as seeds of discontent. Some claimed that rebels had carried his books or repeated his slogans. Even when such claims were exaggerated or unfounded, they served a political purpose: tying social chaos to doctrinal dissent.

For Wycliffe, these accusations were deeply unjust but not entirely unexpected. He had long known that those who challenge entrenched structures are often blamed for any disorder that follows. Still, the association between his name and the revolt gave his enemies a powerful weapon. They could now argue not only that his teachings endangered souls, but that they threatened the stability of the realm.

William Courtenay, the “Earthquake Council,” and Condemnations

The man who would lead the charge against Wycliffe in this new climate was William Courtenay, formerly bishop of London and, from 1381, Archbishop of Canterbury. Courtenay had long distrusted Wycliffe’s teachings. The revolt gave him both motive and opportunity to act with renewed vigor.

In 1382 he summoned a synod at Blackfriars in London, intent on examining and condemning Wycliffe’s doctrines. The meeting brought together bishops, theologians, and representatives of religious orders. As they gathered to deliberate, a sudden earthquake shook the city—so forceful that some considered postponing the council. Courtenay, however, interpreted the tremor as a sign of divine approval, supposedly symbolizing the shaking of heresy from the Church. Thus the assembly became known as the “Earthquake Council.”

The synod examined a series of propositions drawn from Wycliffe’s writings and from the teachings of his followers. These articles touched on the Eucharist, the nature of the Church, the authority of the pope, the role of secular rulers in disciplining clergy, and the right of the laity to own Scripture in their own tongue.

The council condemned twenty-four of these propositions. Ten were branded “heretical,” especially those denying transubstantiation and challenging the Church’s teaching on the sacrament of the altar. The remaining fourteen were labeled “erroneous” or “dangerous,” including Wycliffe’s assertions about clerical poverty, the limits of papal authority, and the proper relationship between temporal and spiritual power.

Courtenay issued constitutions requiring bishops and university authorities to suppress these teachings. Preachers were forbidden to proclaim them. Those suspected of adhering to Wycliffe’s doctrines were ordered to appear before ecclesiastical courts. The synod’s decisions did not name Wycliffe alone; they targeted an entire movement, seeking to stifle Wycliffite thought at Oxford, in parish pulpits, and among itinerant preachers.

The earthquake that had shaken London physically now symbolized the shaking of Wycliffe’s position. While he remained personally untouched for the moment, the net around his followers began to tighten.

Dismissal From Oxford and Threats Against His Followers

The University of Oxford had long been a crucial base of support for Wycliffe. Many masters and students respected his scholarship, shared his concerns about ecclesiastical abuses, and sympathized with his desire to align Church practice with Scripture. Some, like Nicholas of Hereford, John Aston, and Philip Repyngdon, openly preached or defended his views.

Courtenay and the bishops recognized that as long as Oxford tolerated Wycliffite teaching, reform ideas would continue to spread among the educated classes. They therefore pressed the university to enforce the “Earthquake Council” condemnations.

Under this pressure, Oxford’s authorities gradually capitulated. Public lectures defending the condemned articles were forbidden. Wycliffe himself was ordered to cease teaching at the university. Though not formally excommunicated or imprisoned, he was effectively dismissed from Oxford’s public life. The scholar who had once been one of its most respected theologians now found his voice silenced in the very halls where he had risen to prominence.

His followers faced even harsher treatment. Nicholas of Hereford, who had helped translate the Bible, was cited to appear before Church authorities and eventually fled to the Continent; later he would return and, under duress, submit. Philip Repyngdon, once a bold defender of Wycliffe’s views on the Eucharist, recanted before the archbishop and eventually rose to high ecclesiastical office. John Aston continued to preach for a time but was excommunicated and pursued as a persistent heretic.

Some Wycliffite sympathizers at Oxford chose silence; others distanced themselves publicly to preserve their positions. The university that had nurtured Wycliffe now became a place where his name was dangerous to mention in sympathy.

Meanwhile, bishops throughout England were instructed to seek out and discipline those who held “Lollard” beliefs. Orders were issued against preaching without episcopal license, against owning or reading certain English books, and against gatherings perceived as unauthorized religious meetings. Threats of imprisonment, excommunication, and in some cases harsher penalties loomed over those who continued to spread Wycliffe’s teachings.

In this new atmosphere, Wycliffe retired more fully to Lutterworth, the parish where he still served as rector. There, confined by ecclesiastical censure but not crushed, he devoted his remaining strength to writing. Deprived of the Oxford pulpit, he turned increasingly to the pen, producing treatises that further articulated his views on Scripture, the Church, and the sacraments. His influence, though outwardly curtailed, continued to flow through manuscripts copied and carried by others.

The Peasants’ Revolt had not been his doing, but it had provided his enemies with the occasion they desired. Social upheaval, fear of further rebellion, and the determination of men like William Courtenay combined to push Wycliffe to the margins of ecclesiastical life. Yet even at the margins, he remained a formidable presence—a man whose trust in the authority of God’s Word outlived noble favor, academic honor, and institutional acceptance.

What his opponents could not foresee was that, despite his dismissal and their condemnations, Wycliffe’s ideas would continue to move quietly through England and across Europe, carried by those who loved the Bible more than they feared the wrath of bishops.

You May Also Enjoy

Wycliffe’s Vision for a Bible for the Common People

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS