Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:05:34.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Rise and Fall of Bishop Bilson

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

William M. Lamont
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Thomas Bilson, in the eyes of his contemporaries, soared like a Jewel or a Hooker above his fellow writers; unlike Jewel or Hooker his fame has not endured. He seems at first sight to be another writer with a tiny talent, overpraised in his lifetime. If this were all that there was to Bilson, then better to leave him to “such as delight in things obsolete and antique” (as an unsentimental critic said of a later, more prolix, writer).

Yet there are curiosities about the rise and fall of Thomas Bilson. He was born in 1547, became Bishop of Winchester in 1597, and died in 1616. He is a shadowy figure, whose fame rests principally on two works: The True Difference Betweene Christian Subjection and Unchristian Rebellion (1585); The Perpetual Government of Christes Church (1593). If one were to plot a graph of his public reputation, it would show a steady rise after his death, reaching a peak as late as the 1640s, and then followed by a precipitous decline. Now this is not what common sense would have led us to expect. If he had been merely an overvalued mediocrity, one would have expected a redress of the critical balance to follow close on his death. Neither the length of time taken up by the rise nor the abruptness of the fall could have been anticipated. It is true that Bilson lacked the stamina for enduring greatness, but he was not exactly shortwinded either.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , May 1966 , pp. 22 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. A Serious Epistle to Mr. William Prynne (London, 1649), p. 26Google Scholar.

2. Wood, Anthony, Athenae Oxonienses, ed. Bliss, W. (Oxford, 1817), III, 170Google Scholar. For typical instances of the use made of Bilson by resistance apologists on the parliamentary side in the Civil War, see: Bridge, William, The Wounded Conscience Cured (London, 1643), p. 10Google Scholar; Hunton, Philip, A Treatise of Monarchie (London, 1643), p. 59Google Scholar; A Discourse Upon Questions in Debate Between the King and Parliament (London, 1643)Google Scholar, passim.

3. Downame, George, A Defence of the Sermon (London, 1611), p. 26Google Scholar, said of Bilson: “his proofes bee such, as never were, and never wil be answered.” Laud's biographer and friend, Heylyn, Peter, in the Preface to his The Historie of Episcopacie (London, 1642)Google Scholar, emphasized the Anglican debt to both Downame and Bilson; in his A Briefe and Moderate Answer (London, 1637), p. 64Google Scholar, he justified the bishops' defence of the iure divino claim for their order at the trial of John Bastwiclc by direct reference to Bilson; in his Cyprianus Anglicus (London, 1671), p. 57Google Scholar, he linked Bancroft's sermon of 1588, which is commonly held to be the first public statement of the claim that bishops ruled by divine right, with the writings of Bilson as the twin foundations of the new Anglicanism. Cf. Davies, E. T., Episcopacy and the Royal Supremacy (Oxford, 1950), p. 33Google Scholar, for a generous appreciation of Bilson's clericalist contribution.

4. SirWentworth, Peter, A Pack of Puritans (London, 1641), pp. 46–48Google Scholar; Doctor Williams's Library, London, Baxter MSS, 59.2, fol. 213; Geree, John, The Sifters Sieve Broken (London, 1648), pp. 10, 23Google Scholar; Baillie, Robert, A Large Supplement of the Canterburians Self-Conviction (London, 1641), p. 19Google Scholar; Gillespie, George, Aarons Rod Blossoming (London, 1646), pp. 389–97Google Scholar.

5. Reynolds, John, Mr. Downtimes Sermon … Answered and Refuted (London, 1609), pp. 124–25Google Scholar.

6. Bilson, Thomas, The True Difference Betiveene Christian Subjection and Unchristian Rebellion (Oxford, 1585), pp. 128, 166, 173Google Scholar.

7. Hoard, Samuel, The Churches Authority Asserted (London, 1637), p. 7Google Scholar.

8. Downame, George, An Extract of a Sermon (London, 1608), p. xcvGoogle Scholar.

9. Bilson, , The True Difference, p. 218Google Scholar

10. Carleton, George, Jurisdiction Regall, Episcopall, Papall (London, 1610), p. 44Google Scholar.

11. Saunders, Humphrey, An Anti-Diatribe (London, 1655), p. 87Google Scholar; Sydenham, Humphrey, Moses and Aaron (London, 1636), p. 140Google Scholar.

12. Parker, Henry, The Altar Dispute (London, 1641), p. 61Google Scholar.

13. Prynne, William, A New Discovery of some Romish Emissaries (London, 1656), p. 43Google Scholar. St. Ambrose was not always a villain to Prynne: he hated Jews more than he hated clerics. Therefore Ambrose's defiance of imperial orders on behalf of synagogue-burners won Prynne's approval — for what it was worth. See Prynne, William, A Short Demurrer to the Jewes Long Discontinued Remitter into England (London, 1656), p. 105Google Scholar.

14. Baillie, , Canterburians Self-Conviclion, p. 22Google Scholar. But on another occasion Prynne too had described Bilson as “a fierce Antipuritane” who subscribed to St. Ambrose's clericalist pretensions: see Prynne, William, The Soveraigne Power of Parliaments (London, 1643), Pt. 3, pp. 145, 127Google Scholar. Prynne's attitude to Bilson is hard to discover. He noted with approval that Bilson in The True Difference had refused to identify the Church with its divinely appointed bishops: see his A Quench-Coale (London, 1637), p. 19Google Scholar, and A Breviate of the Prelates Intollerable Usurpations (London, 1637), p. 85Google Scholar. Moreover, when Prynne set out in his The Antipathie (London, 1641)Google Scholar to catalogue the vices of every bishop who ever lived, he stopped his analysis of the see of Winchester at Stephen Gardiner. In that same work, however, he called Bilson “a great Patriot of Episcopacie,” but congratulated him at the same time for not making the iure divino claim for bishops! See ibid., Pt. 2, pp. 465, 460.

15. Bilson, , The True Difference, p. 372Google Scholar.

16. Bilson, Thomas, The Perpetual Government of Christes Church (London, 1593), p. 216Google Scholar.

17. Laud, William, Works (Oxford, 1847–1860), IV, 226Google Scholar; Hall, Joseph, An Humble Remonstrance (London, 1640), p. 26Google Scholar.

18. Carleton, Jurisdiction Regall, Episcopall, Papall, dedicatory epistle.

19. Bilson, , The Perpetual Government, p. 56Google Scholar; Barlow, William, Concerning the Antiquitie and Superioritie of Bishops (London, 1606)Google Scholar, no pagination.

20. Hales, John, A Tract Concerning Schisme (London, 1642), p. 13Google Scholar; Milton, John, Of Reformation (London, 1641), p. 67Google Scholar.

21. Bilson, , The Perpetual Government, p. 64Google Scholar. But, as John Saltmarsh argued, in opposition to the iure divino claim when it came from another quarter in 1646, the claim was an assertion of sovereignty or it was nothing. See Saltmarsh, John, Some Drops of the Viall (London, 1646), Pt. 7, p. 2Google Scholar.

22. Bilson, , The Perpetual Government, p. 64Google Scholar.

23. Leighton, Alexander, An Appeal to the Parliament (London, 1628), pp. 111–12, 26-27Google Scholar, accepted that Bilson was opposed to jure divino claims for episcopacy and yet detected a priestly bias in his writings. He stated the contradiction without attempting to resolve it.

24. Burton, Henry, A Replie to a Relation of that Conference (London, 1640), p. 296Google Scholar. Interestingly enough, the Scottish Presbyterian Robert Baillie did show an understanding of Bilson's desire to maintain clerical independence at one point, but through his preconceptions about Laudianism, he interpreted Laud's actions as a wish to move away from Bilson's position; see Baillie, Robert, The Life of William Now Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Examined (London, 1643), p. 121Google Scholar.

25. Laud, , Works, IV, 310–11Google Scholar.

26. Curtis, Mark H., “Hampton Court Conference and Its Aftermath,” History, new series, XLVI (1961)Google Scholar.

27. Heylyn, Peter, Extraneus Vapulans (London, 1656), p. 168Google Scholar; Boughen, Edward, Mr. Gerees Case of Conscience Sifted (London, 1648), p. 20Google Scholar. Boughen was replying to Geree, The Sifters Sieve Broken. Geree had argued from the writings of Tudor Anglicans that the king could determine the religion of the State. The situation in late 1648 seemed the classic vindication of Bilson's efforts to move beyond his predecessors in their dependence on the monarch. But Bilson was one of the authorities whom Geree called on to support his argument!

28. Downame, George, A Sermon Defending the Honourable Function of Bishops (London, 1608)Google Scholar, Preface; Reynolds, , Mr. Doivname's Sermon, p. 4Google Scholar.

29. See Bosher, R. S., The Making of the Restoration Settlement (London, 1951), passimGoogle Scholar.

30. Bilson, , The True Difference, pp. 479-80, 475Google Scholar.

31. Jacob, Henry, An Attestation (London, 1613), p. 73Google Scholar.