canonries in St. Patrick's, Dublin, Westminster, Canterbury, and St. Paul's, besides the rectories of Feversham and St. Andrew's, Holborn. His defence is only notable as evidence that he had no sense of the scandalous nature of his pluralities. That was left to the clearer vision of the layman. The House of Commons in 1588 passed a Bill which would have removed this evil from the Church; it prohibited pluralism, except in the case of two small and adjacent livings, and compelled residence. But through the energetic activity of the Bishops it was wrecked in the House of Lords.1

TYPICAL LAY OPINIONS ON PLURALISM AND NON-RESIDENCY.-The evils of pluralism and non-residency are dealt with in two typical works by contemporary laymen; works which form no part of the general ecclesiastical controversies of the time. In A Compendious or briefe examination of certayne ordinary complaints of diuers of our countrey men in these dayes, published in 1581 'cum priuilegio,' the author, W[illiam] S[tafford], who discusses his various topics 'by vvay of dialogues,' summing up his own views in the person of a Doctor; the other characters being a Knight, a Husband [man], a Capper, and a Marchaunt. Replying to the opinion that until ministers reform schisms will continue, the Doctor replies: "How many of vs haue reformed ourselues, yea, so much as in our outwarde duties, whereunto we are bound both by Gods Lawe and our cannons lawes and decrees? how many moe of vs haue resorted to our benefices to be resident thereon, which not onely by the said lawes, but also upon greate penaltyes wee are bound vnto by the lawes of this Realme? How many lesse now than before haue studyed [schemed] to heape Benefice upon Benefice, when wee bee skante able to discharge one of them? What better tryall and examination is there nowe in admyttyng of mynisters of the church? What more exacte search is made by our Bishops, for worthy men to be admitted to the cure of souls? ... Do they ['our Prelates and Bishops'] not lurke in their mansions and manour places far from theyr Cathedrall churches as they were wont, and skant once a yeare wil see their pryncipall church where they ought to be continually resident? . . . How can men be content to pay ye tenth of theyr goods which they get wyth theyr sore laboure and sweate of theyr browes, when they cannot haue for it agayne neither ghostly comforte nor bodely? . . . Is [sic] there not statutes made in parliament for [enforcing] residence,

1 See Strype, Annals, III. pt. ii. 53; Brook, Lives, i. 54; Fuller, Ch. Hist. bk, ix.

and for restraining of pluralitie of benefices?' Therefore, to avoid schism the Doctor' concludes that they, the clergy, must reforme themselves, reside upon their living, content themselves 'wyth one Benefice a piece,' and with its income, without deuising of other extraordinary and unlawfull gaines.' Fol. 51 vers. et seq.

A more celebrated work is The Anatomie of Abuses: Contayning A Discoverie, or Briefe Summarie of such Notable Vices and Imperfections as now raigne in many Christian Countreyes of the Worlde: but (especiallie) in a verie famous Ilande called Aligna of late, as in other places else where. Verie Godly, to be read of all true Christians euerie where; but most needefull to be regarded in Englande. Made dialogue-wise by Phillip Stubbes. Seene and allowed, etc., 1583. In the first part of his book Stubbes gives a formidable account of the dissolute vice attending may-games, church ales, etc. In the second part he takes up his parable against pluralism.

Theodorus: That is an horrible abuse, that one man should haue two or three or halfe a dozen benefices apeece as some haue; may anie man haue so manie liuings at one time, by the lawe of God, and good conscience?'

.

Ampilogus [i.e. Stubbes]: 'As it is not lawful for anie man to haue or enioie two wives at once, so it is not lawfull for any man how excellent soeuer to haue mo benefices, mo flockes, cures or charges in his handes than one at once. . . . No man though he were as learned as Sainte Paule or the apostles themselues, to whom were giuen supernaturall and extraordinarie giftes and graces, is able sufficientlie to discharge his dutie in the instruction of one church, or congregation, much lesse three or foure, or halfe a dozen as some haue. Is it possible for any shepheard though he were neuer so cunning a man to keepe two or three flocks or mo at once, and to feed them wel . . . they being distant from him ten, twentie, fortie, sixtie, and hundred, two hundred or three hundred miles?' Stubbes proceeds to urge that as food for the body so the preached word is needful for the soul, and pluralists, being necessarily absentees, allow the people to starve spiritually. It is true their places are occupied by deputies; but these are fitter to feed hogs than Christian soules.' Possibly they can read the service, but that done, the rest of the week they spend swilling in the tavern. The pluralists avoid the law by buying a dispensation or becoming a nobleman's chaplain. But,' says Stubbes, 'I maruell whether they thinke that these licenses shall be for good paiment at the daie of iudgement?'-Pp. 75-79.

5. An Unlearned Ministry.-Vitally connected with the Episcopal policy of exacting a narrow conformity in external things, and sequestrating large numbers of able and effective preachers and faithful pastors, was the crying evil of filling the pulpits, which were not annexed by the pluralists, with

The

men unworthy for various reasons to occupy them. petitions from parishes cited on an earlier page sorrowfully testifies to this, and every reforming tract of the time refers to the scandal. Had the people the simple Christian right of choosing their own minister, there is no doubt that the greater part of the evil would have been avoided. But whatever views the Bishops entertained in regard to this natural remedy for the wrongs against which the people petitioned and protested, they were entirely overshadowed by their dread of 'popularity '-democracy, as we should term it. They sparingly acknowledge the facts which the laymen were bringing before their notice. That some lewd and unlearned ministers haue bene made, it is manifest: I wil not seeme to defend it,' says the Bishop of Winchester. 'I confesse freely,' says R. Some, an official apologist, 'that their entrance into the priesthoode and ministerie, and continuance in it most absurdly was and is a greevous sinne. . . You write [he is answering Penry] that ignorant ministers, whome you call senseless men, doe sell them selues bodie and soule to euerlasting destruction. Your speech is true: Illi viderint. Let them, if they be not gracelesse and shamelesse, looke vnto it.'

1

,2

The persons who naturally might be expected to 'looke vnto it' were not the unsuitable and unworthy beneficiaries, but the Bishops who consented to ordain them. The majority of the Bishops were guilty in a greater or less degree of opening the door of the ministry to such men; while some of their lordships were utterly reckless and unprincipled in the matter. In all parts of the country complaints were heard of men devoid of character and ability entering into benefices, yet duly furnished with Episcopal letters of ordination; how blasphemous such ordinations must have been it is only necessary to read the ritual prescribed to realise. Aylmer, Bishop of London, when his purblind gate-porter was no longer fit for service, appointed him to the cure of Paddington. In a conference

8

1 Admonition, 99, 100 [Arber's ed. 82.] 2 A Godly Treatise, 194, 195. 3 See HAY ANY WORKE, sig. 2 rect.

with her Bishops and some of her chief Ministers of State, convened by the Queen for the purpose of receiving the episcopal subsidies, Elizabeth complained that some of the wiser and more discreet members of the House of Commons had a 'just cause of grievance' against some of the Bishops, because they had not greater care in making Ministers'; adding that some be of such lewd life and corrupt behaviour, whereof we know of some such, that be not worthy to come into any honest company.' Burleigh, one of those present, renewed the accusation before the assembly dispersed. 'Her Majesty hath declared to you,' said he, 'a marvellous great fault, in that you make in this time of Light so many lewd and unlearned Ministers.' He admitted that he was not accusing any of those then present. 'It is,' he proceeded, 'the Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry that I mean, who made lxx Ministers in one day, for Money; some Taylors, some shoemakers, and other Craftsmen. I am sure the greater part of them are not worthy to keep horses.' The Bishop of Rochester admitted that he had heard of one that had made seven in one day'; for his part he had 'never made above three in one day.' Whitgift would make no such admission; in his judgment there were never a greater number of learned ministers; but that the country could not yield a learned minister for each of the thirteen thousand parishes. 'Jesus!' ejaculated the Queen, 'thirteen thousand! It is not to be looked for.' But she brought back the evasive Archbishop to the gravamen of the charge by remarking that she did not require him to make only learned ministers, since that was impossible, but that those ordained should be honest, sober, and wise men, and such as can reade the Scriptures and Homilies well unto the People.' And with that clear common-sense utterance' she rose, thanked the Bishops and bad them fare well.'1 Bishop Cooper, in a written annotation in the margin of a tract entitled, An Answere to certain Pieces of a sermon made at Pauls Cross, etc., by Dr. Cooper bishop of Lincoln, in which 1 S. P. Dom. Eliz., 1585, No. 69 [27th Feb. 1584-85]. later transcript of No. 68, which is in a contemporary hand.

No. 69 is a

he was charged with 'maintaining of an ignorant and unlearned ministry,' rebuts the charge. 'I did not allow them, nor shew myself to like well of them, but bewailed the cause, and wished the continuance only in respect of necessity. And in comparison of papistical priests, I somewhat diminished the grievousness of the crime.' This was a plea in mitigation which apparently he had used in his sermon, and the writer of the criticism refers to it with some measure of contempt.1

6. Whitgift's Character and Opinions. In the earlier pages of this Introduction, and in the frequent reference to him in the TRACTS, there is evidence drawn from various sources as to the character of Whitgift, who, during the greater part of the reign of Elizabeth, was the chief persecutor of the Nonconformists and of all who advocated any reform of the established order of religion. It is really necessary to know this man in order to understand both the appearance and the special character of Martin Marprelate's writings, as well as to understand the intense hatred with which he was regarded by all classes of the reforming party. The gentlest of them was fired with instant indignation at the mention of his name.

2

Whitgift was one of the most consistent of men. Throughout his even career of promotion there is only one single wayward note; all else is subjected to the chief aims which he set before him in life. No folly, no human weakness, no sentimental yielding to the cry of intellectual or physical suffering, no perilous subjugation to woman's beauty or passion, hindered his progress. Nor, it may be said, did threats or the open opposition of men of place and power intimidate him or turn him aside in his way; he budged not an inch to the best of them. He had no love

1 Strype, Annals, 11. i. 287, 291.

2 When the disturbance arose at Cambridge over the question of Vestments in 1565, several of the Heads and other notables, fearing the departure of many of the learned from the university and the consequent reduction in the number of the students, sent a petition to Burleigh asking for a little relaxation of the royal edict. Among others it was signed by Whitgift. But he, finding it was ill received, soon apologised to the Queen, and never repeated his error.-Strype's Parker, i. 386, iii. 125.