The Black Friars, or Preachers, White Friars, or Carmelites, Grey Friars, or Minors, and the Austin Friars, all had at one period, from the thirteenth century to the era of the Reformation, large establishments within its precincts; besides which, there was a nunnery, and divers hospitals, as they were called, such as the Chapel of the Lady in the Fields, Norman’s Spital, and Hildebrand’s Hospital; and hermitages without number lurked about the corners
of its churchyards, or perched themselves above the gateways of its walls. The greater portion of these have left but a name, or a few scattered fragments, behind to mark their site; but one magnificent relic of the Black Friars monastery, comprising the whole of the nave and chancel of their beautiful church, yet stands in an almost perfect state of preservation,—a noble witness of the wealth and taste of the poor “mendicant” followers of Friar Dominick,—which was rescued from destruction at the period of the general “dissolution,” by the zeal and practical expediency of municipal authorities. Of the two friaries that have ceased to exist even in outline, it may suffice to record, that the Carmelites numbered among them the eminent writer, “John Bale, the antiquary,” as he is wont to be called; the Austin Friars seem to have possessed few particular claims for notice, save their less rigorous injunctions for fasting, but the Friars Minors were the great rivals of the Preachers, and both together, the sore troublers of the peace of the “Regulars,” who looked upon the growing power of this “secular” priesthood with a jealousy and hatred to be conceived only by those who appreciate duly the “loaves and fishes.” As a sample of the feeling existing, the account of Matthew Paris, the monk of St. Albans, may fairly be cited. He says, “The ‘friars preachers’ having obtained privileges from Pope Gregory IX. and Innocent IV. being rejoiced
and magnified, they talked malapertly to the prelates of churches, bishops and archdeacons, presiding in their synods; and where many persons of note were assembled, showed openly the privileges indulged to them, proudly requiring that the same may be recited, and that they may be received with veneration by the churches; and intruding themselves oft-times impertinently, they asked many persons, even the religious, ‘Are you confessed?’ And if they were answered ‘Yes,’ ‘By whom?’ ‘By my priest.’ ‘And what idiot is he? He never learned divinity, never studied the devices, never learned to resolve one question; they are blind leaders of the blind; come to us, who know how to distinguish one leprosy from another, to whom the secrets of God are manifest.’ Many therefore, especially nobles, despising their own priests, confessed to these men, whereby the dignity of the ordinaries was not a little debased.”
Another says: “Now they have created two new fraternities, to which they have so generally received people of both sexes, that scarce one of either remains, whose name is not written in one of them, who, therefore, all assembling in their churches, we cannot have our own parishioners, especially on solemn days, to be present at divine service, &c.; whence it is come to pass that we, being deprived of the due tithes and oblations, cannot live unless we should
turn to some manual labour. What else remaineth therefore? except that we should demolish our churches, in which nothing else remaineth for service or ornament but a bell and an old image, covered with soot.’ But these preachers and minors, who begun from cells and cottages, have erected royal houses and palaces, supported on high pillars, and distinguished into various offices, the expenses whereof ought to have been bestowed upon the poor; these, while they have nothing, possess all things; but we, who are said to have something, are beggars.” Alas! how many a poor curate of this nineteenth century, upon £30 a-year, might subscribe to a like pitiful complaint.
Another accusation against these mendicant friars, in their days of maturity, was that they used to steal children under fourteen years of age, or receive them without the consent of their friends, and refuse to restore them, embezzling or conveying them away to “other cloisters,” where they could not be found. A statute of Henry IV. subjected these friars to punishment for this offence; and the provincials of the four orders were sworn before the parliament, for themselves and successors, to be obedient to this statute.
Kirkpatrick, from whom the above is quoted, says elsewhere, that in 1242, a great controversy arose between the friars minors and preachers, about the
greatest worthiness, most decent habit, the strictest, humblest, and holiest life; for the preachers challenged pre-eminence in these—the minors contradicted, and great scandal arose. And because they were learned men, it was the more dangerous to the church.
“These are they,” says he, “who in sumptuous edifices, and lofty walls, expose to view inestimable treasures, impudently transgressing the limits of poverty, and the fundamentals of their profession; who diligently apply themselves to lords and rich persons, that they may gape after wealth; extorting confessions and clandestine wills, commending themselves and their order only, and extolling them above all others. So that no Christian now believes he can be saved, unless he be governed by the councils of the preachers and minors. In obtaining privileges, they are solicitors; in the courts of kings and potentates, they are councillors, gentlemen of the chamber, treasurers, match-makers, matrimony-brokers; executioners of papal extortions; in their sermons, either flatterers or stinging backbiters, discoverers of confession, or impudent rebukers.”
Making all due allowance for the party feeling of the historian, thus commemorating the factions of the “Mother Church,” enough may be seen of the truth, to form a general idea of the condition of the brotherhoods, one of whose “palaces, supported by high