'405 
FISHER. 
FISH'ER (John), a learned Englifh catholic prelate, 
born at Beverley, in Yorklhire, in 1459, at which place he 
firft received that knowledge of grammar-learning which 
qualified him for the univerfity. In 1484 he was entered 
at Michael-houfe, now Trinity-college, in Cambridge, 
where he took his degrees in 1488, and 1491. After 
being elected a fellow of his houfe, he was appointed one 
of the prortors of the univerfity in 1495. As a divine, 
he foon acquired diftinguifhed reputation; and, on ac¬ 
count of his learning and eminent worth, he was in a 
fliort time made vice-chancellor of the univerfity. That 
office he held for two years ; when the fame of his great 
learning, piety, and virtue, having reached the ears of 
Margaret countefs of Richmond, the king’s mother, file 
Chofe him for her chaplain and confelfor. His condurt 
and behaviour in that fituation fo entirely gained him the 
approbation, confidence, and efteem, of the pious countefs, 
that die committed herfelf and family to his government 
and direction. By his advice fhe was induced to efiablifh 
divinity profefibrfiiips at Oxford and Cambridge, and to 
found Chrift’s and St. John’s colleges in the latter uni¬ 
verfity. In 1502, Filher, after taking the degree of dortor 
in divinity, was appointed firft divinity profefibr in Cam¬ 
bridge ; and, in 1504, was raifed to the fee of Rochefter, 
chiefly in confequence of the favourable idea which the 
king had been led to entertain of his character, from the 
frequent recommendation and honourable mention made 
of him by Dr. Fox, bifiiop of Winchefter. Afterwards 
he was offered to be tranflated to more valuable bifiioprics, 
particularly thofe of Lincoln and Ely ; but he declined 
the exchange upon the rrioft difinterefted and noble prin¬ 
ciples. In the fame year in which Dr. Filher was ad¬ 
vanced to the epifcopal dignity, he waschofen chancellor 
of the univerfity of Cambridge, and retained that high 
office for many years, during which he Was a zealous pro¬ 
moter of difcipline and good morals among the Undents, 
and a liberal encourager of literature and learned men. Fie 
invited the celebrated Erafmus to Cambridge, and was 
the means of the appointment of that illuftrious character 
to lady Margaret’s profelforlhip of divinity, and afterwards 
to the Greek profeflor’s chair. Through his perfuafion 
and entreaty, likewife, Dr. Richard Croke fettled at Cam¬ 
bridge, where he was the firft Greek profefibr after Eraf¬ 
mus. When Luther commenced his oppofition to the 
Corruptions and errors of popery, bifhqj> Filher was one 
6f the firft who in this country entered the lifts againft 
him. He not only endeavoured to prevent the propaga¬ 
tion of Lutheranifm in his own diocefe, and in the uni¬ 
verfity of Cambridge, but alfo preached and wrote with 
great zeal and earneftnefs againft that daring reformer. 
By fome he has been thought to have had a principal 
hand in compofing the treatife which Henry VIII. pnb- 
Fiftied in his own name, in defence of the Seven Sacra¬ 
ments, againft Luther, which procured for that monarch 
the title of Defender of the Faith. Bifiiop Fifher continued 
in great favour with Henry VIII. until the bufinefs of his 
divorce began to be agitated, in 1527. On that occafion, 
the king, who entertained a high reverence for his inte¬ 
grity and learning, applied to him for his opinion on the 
lubjert of his marriage with Catherine, his brother’s wi¬ 
dow. Without fuffering his mind to be influenced by 
any other motives than a regard to what he deemed to 
be the caufe of truth and virtue, he honeftly anfwered, 
“ that there was no reafon at all to queftion the validity 
of the marriage, fince it was good and lawful from the 
beginning.” This opinion no confiderations could ever 
afterwards make him renounce, and Jus adherence to it 
proved the firft ftep towards his lofs of the king’s favour, 
and his fubfequent ruin. When, in 1529, the affair of the 
divorce came to be tried before the two legates, Campeggi 
and Wolfey, bifiiop Fifher was one of the queen’s council, 
and exerted himfeif with great zeal on her behalf, pre- 
fenting the legates at the fame time with a book which 
he had written in defence of the marriage. In 1530, lie 
was twice in imminent danger of his life. His firft efcape 
Vol.VII. N0.436. 
was from poifon, which a wretch, who was acquainted 
with his cook, found means privately to throw into the 
gruel intended for his dinner. The bifliop’s abfiinence 
on that day, however, preferved him from the effects of 
the mixture, which proved fatal to two perfons of his 
houfehold, and effentially injured the health of feveral 
others who had eaten of it. His other narrow efcape was 
from a cannon-ball, which, being ftiot from the other fide 
of the Thames, pierced through his lictife in Lambeth, 
and came very near his ftudy, where he ufed to fpend the 
greateft part of his time. Whether the latter circumftance 
was the effeft of accident, or defign, does not feem ever 
to have been afeertained ; but the bifiiop, confidering it 
in the latter view, thought it prudent to remove from 
that fituation, and retired to Rochefter. When, in 1531, 
the queftion about giving king Henry VIII. the title ol 
Supreme Head of the Church of England, was debated in con¬ 
vocation, bifiiop Fifher oppofed it with all his might, and 
in-fuch a manner as to render himfeif very obnoxious to 
the court. Not long afterwards the bifiiop Hill farther 
expofed himfeif to the refentment of the king, by his 
credulity in being feduced to give fome credit to the en- 
thufiaftic vifions and impofttires of Elizabeth Barton, the 
pretended holy maid of Kent. The intention of thofe who 
carried on the impofttires of which ffi.e was the inftrumenf, 
was to alienate the afiertions of the people front king Henry, 
and to excite infurrections againft his government. It is 
but juftice to bifiiop Fiflier, however, to acknowledge, that 
there is no evidence of his being at all privy to their cri¬ 
minal defigns. His attention was drawn to her in ccnfe- 
quence of her efpoufing the caufe of queen Catherine, to 
whole interefts he was warmly attached. In 1534, a bill 
of attainder having palled againft Elizabeth Barton and 
her accomplices, bifhop Fifher, refufing to make fubmif 
fion, was adjudged guilty of mifprifion of treafon, and 
condemned to forfeit his goods and chattels to the king, 
and to be imprifoned during his majefty’s pleafure. Ac¬ 
cording to Dr. Hall, who wrote his Life under the name 
of Bailey, he was releafed upon paying three hundred 
pounds for his majefty’s ufe; but bifiiop Burnet fays, 
that he does not find that the king proceeded at all againft 
him upon this art. In the fame feftion of parliament an 
adt was made, which annulled the king’s marriage with 
Catherine of Arragon as contrary to the law of God; 
confirmed his marriage with Anne Boleyn ; entailed the 
crown upon her iffue ; and enjoined all perfons whatfo- 
ever to maintain the fame, under the penalty attached to 
misprifion of treafon. I11 purfuance of it, on the day of 
the prorogation of the parliament, an oath of allegiance to 
the king and his heirs, according to the limitation of that 
ftatute, and virtually approving of its contents, was taken 
by both houfes; but bifiiop Fiflier, inftead of joining 
them, retired to his houfe at Rochefter. A few days af¬ 
terwards, he was fummoned by the archbifhop of Canter¬ 
bury, and other commiffioners, who were authorifed un¬ 
der the great feal to tender the oath, to attend them at 
Lambeth., and on his appearance was prefented with the 
fame. After having at his own requeft been indulged 
with fome days for confideration, and in vain endeavour¬ 
ing to obtain fuch alterations in it as might fatisfy his 
confcience, he finally determined abfolutely to refufe the 
oath. The confequence was his immediate commitment 
to the Tower, where no endeavours were fpared in order 
to bring him to compliance. With this defign the lord- 
chancellor Audley, and others of the privy-council, fe- 
cretary Cromwell, and fome of the biftiops, waited upon 
him, and after much folicitation from them he at length 
declared, that he was willing “ to fwear to the fuccefiion, 
and never difpute more about the marriage ; and he pro- 
mifed allegiance to the king; but his confcience could 
not be convinced that the marriage was againft the law 
of God.” Archbifhop Cranmer earneftly advifed that his 
offer Ihould be accepted ; but the king would not admit 
of it, and was determined that the oath ftiould be taken 
precifely in the preferibed form. As bifhop Fiflier conti- 
5 L nued 
