BILSON, Thomas (c.1547-1616)

Bilson’s forebears arrived in England from Germany in the early sixteenth century. They established themselves as brewers at Winchester, but the family also possessed academic ability, as Bilson’s father held a fellowship at Merton College, Oxford in the 1530s. At around the age of 12, Bilson himself secured a scholarship to his prestigious local school, Winchester College, before progressing to Oxford, where he became a fellow of New College. Ordained while at the university, he soon acquired a reputation as ‘a most solid and constant preacher in these parts’.27 Genealogists’ Mag. ix. 501; Al. Ox. In 1572 he returned to Winchester College, first as headmaster, and latterly as warden, his income supplemented by several Hampshire benefices and a prebend at Winchester Cathedral. This financial security enabled him to devote his time to study, and ‘having been infinitely … industrious in poetry, in philosophy, in physic; and lastly (which his genius chiefly call’d him to) in divinity, he became so complete, for skill in languages, for readiness in the Fathers, for judgment to make use of his readings, as he was found to be no longer a soldier, but a commander in chief, in our spiritual warfare’.28 J. Harington, Brief View of the State of the Church of Eng. (1653), 72-3.

Elizabethan theological powerhouse, 1580-1603

Indeed, Bilson’s two main publications during his wardenship established his reputation as one of the principal apologists of the Elizabethan Church settlement, on a par with the great Richard Hooker^†. Commissioned by Elizabeth I as a defence of English armed intervention in the Low Countries, his The True Difference betweene Christian Subjection and Unchristian Rebellion refuted arguments that insurrection was justifiable on purely religious grounds, while maintaining that civil tyranny was a sufficient pretext. Thus the Dutch revolt against Spain deserved support, but Catholic attempts to overthrow Elizabeth did not.29 T. Bilson, The True Difference betweene Christian Subjection and Unchristian Rebellion (1585); P. Lake, Anglicans and Puritans?, 132-3. Having affirmed that civil rulers were divinely appointed, and could not be challenged even by the Church provided that they governed according to God’s laws, Bilson used his next project to defend episcopacy against Elizabethan presbyterians. In The Perpetual Governement of Christes Church, he asserted that just as hierarchy was part of the natural order of God’s world, so too bishops were an essential and permanent component of the true Church. More controversially, he promoted the old Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession, the belief that bishops were the direct spiritual descendants of the original apostles, and thus the physical channels for the grace bestowed through ordination. The Perpetual Government swiftly became the definitive statement of Anglican episcopacy, unchallenged and widely copied.30 T. Bilson, The Perpetual Governement of Christes Church (1593); Lake, 93-5, 132, 134; Fincham, 10; A. Milton, Catholic and Reformed, 464, 474; P. Collinson, Religion of Protestants, 11.

Following the success of these two books, Bilson was himself appointed a bishop in 1596. Although he owed his wardenship to the favour of the queen’s chief minister, William Cecil^†, 1st Lord Burghley, it was the royal favourite Robert Devereux^†, 2nd earl of Essex, Burghley’s political rival, who secured this much greater promotion for Bilson. His first diocese, Worcester, was notoriously under-endowed. However, he transferred to the wealthier and more prestigious see of Winchester less than a year later, again with Essex’s backing, and took his seat in the House of Lords shortly afterwards.31 HMC Hatfield, v. 84; B. Usher, Lord Burghley and Episcopacy, 143, 146. By now, Bilson’s reputation had risen so high that his contemporaries stood in awe of him. Sir John Harington of Kelston, Somerset, for example, described him as ‘one of the most eminent of his rank, and a man that carried prelature in his very aspect’. Even decades after his death, the cynical Anthony Wood thought him ‘as reverend and learned a prelate as England ever afforded, [and] a deep and profound scholar’. Despite his episcopal responsibilities, Bilson continued to devote much of his time to scholarship during the remainder of Elizabeth’s reign. He was still working on his final book, The Survey of Christs Sufferings, when the queen died in 1603. A lengthy defence of one clause in the Apostles’ Creed, it was published a year later.32 Harington, 71; Ath. Ox. ii. 169; T. Bilson, The Survey of Christs Sufferings for Mans Redemption (1604).

The Hampton Court Conference and 1604 parliamentary session

Bilson’s theories on monarchy and episcopacy broadly coincided with the new monarch’s own convictions, and he was chosen to preach at James I’s coronation in July 1603. Largely recycling the arguments of The True Difference, Bilson strongly affirmed the divine right of kings, while upholding the principle of limited resistance: ‘when princes cease to command for God, or bend their swords against God, whose ministers they are, we must reverence their power, but refuse their wills’.33 A Sermon Preached at Westminster before the King and Queenes Majesties, at their Coronations (1604), sigs. A3v, B3; P.E. McCullough, Sermons at Court, 104. James’s reaction to this caveat is not known, but Bilson was a long-term client of the king’s leading adviser, Lord Cecil (Robert Cecil^*, later 1st earl of Salisbury), and he remained a trusted crown servant.34 HMC Hatfield, xi. 386; xii. 527. In the following December, he was sent down to Winchester to interview Henry Brooke^†, 11th Lord Cobham and Sir Walter Ralegh^‡, two of the main suspects in the Bye and Main Plots. However, the bishop, who was in poor health, proved no match for the quick-witted Ralegh, and failed to extract from him a full confession.35 Carleton to Chamberlain ed. M. Lee, 48; HMC Hatfield, xv. 304-5; Add. 6177, ff. 169r-v, 171.

Bilson raised strong initial objections to the king’s proposal for a disputation to thrash out puritan objections to the established Church, pleading that ‘the bishops (being esteemed the … pillars of the Church, for gravity, learning and government, … both at home and in foreign parts) might not be so disparaged as to confer with men of so mean place and quality’. James curtly dismissed his reasoning, and Bilson duly participated in the Hampton Court Conference in January 1604.36 F. Shriver, ‘Hampton Court Re-visited: Jas. I and the Puritans’, JEH, xxxiii. 56; N. Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, 15. Ahead of the debates, he was expected to prove one of the most formidable defenders of Anglican conformity. In the event, he made only a handful of ‘mild and good answers’, and although generally considered to be the participant who spoke ‘most learnedly’, he found himself overshadowed by the more combative bishop of London, Richard Bancroft^* (later archbishop of Canterbury). While essentially Calvinist in his beliefs, Bilson nevertheless repeatedly defended practices retained from the pre-Reformation Church, such as confirmation, the sign of the cross, and emergency baptism by laypeople, arguing that these were sanctioned by longstanding Christian tradition. In another sideswipe at the English Reformation, he also complained that clergy standards had been driven down because bishops could not now prevent lay patrons from presenting poor-quality candidates to benefices.37 Tyacke, 15-16, 18; Carleton to Chamberlain, 57; R.G. Usher, Reconstruction of the Eng. Church, ii. 340; T. Fuller, Church Hist. of Britain, v. 273, 279-80, 288, 293, 303. A month after the conference, the archbishop of Canterbury, John Whitgift^†, died. Bilson was spoken of as a possible successor, but while he was hugely respected for his ‘eminence of merit and learning’, the post went to Bancroft, who was seen by James as more likely to maintain good order in the Church.38 Harington, 10-11; CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 138.

Bilson apparently failed to exert any electoral influence when the first Jacobean Parliament was summoned in January 1604, but he was an active figure in the Lords. Present for all but 12 of the first session’s 71 sittings, and not absent at all from 28 May to 26 June, he was one of five bishops appointed to exercise the proxy of William Overton^*, bishop of Lichfield. As bishop of Winchester, Bilson was automatically nominated by the crown at the start of the Parliament to the prestigious role of a trier of petitions from England, Scotland and Ireland. During the session he attracted a further 39 appointments.39 HP Commons, 1604-29, i. 145; LJ, ii. 263a-b.

Unsurprisingly, the largest component of Bilson’s business related to religion. Named to scrutinize both versions of the bill against witchcraft, the initial draft proving defective, he was also appointed to confer with the Commons over concerns raised by the lower House about ecclesiastical matters, and included in the subsequent joint committee to address the same topic.40 LJ, ii. 269a, 271a, 275a, 282b, 302a. Having been nominated to the committee for the bill to prevent the circulation of popish books, another measure which was found to be flawed, he was chosen to help draft a new version, and then appointed to its committee.41 Ibid. 290a, 297a, 301b. He was also named to consider both versions of the bill to enforce the recusancy laws, and was appointed to the conference at which both Houses debated the latter measure and other ecclesiastical issues.42 Ibid. 313b, 324b, 332b. In addition, he was nominated to the committees for bills on bigamy, ecclesiastical courts, and episcopal estates.43 Ibid. 279a, 298b, 323a.

Bilson was closely associated with many key issues relating to the crown. Named to two conferences on wardship, he was also appointed to confer with the Commons about purveyance, and then nominated to the joint committee established to prepare reform proposals on the latter issue.44 Ibid. 266b, 290b, 292a, 303a. Having been named to a bill committee concerning the funding of the king’s household, he was subsequently selected for conferences on the tunnage and poundage bill, and a measure to entail certain properties to the crown.45 Ibid. 298a, 323a, 341b. Another two conference appointments related to James’s proposals for Anglo-Scottish Union, and he was also nominated to confer with the Commons about the controversial book on the Union by the bishop of Bristol, John Thornborough^*.46 Ibid. 277b, 274a, 309a. Bilson was twice named to attend the king in connection with the revival of the dormant barony of Abergavenny.47 Ibid. 283a, 303b.

With his London residence located in the disorderly suburb of Southwark, Bilson may well have taken an interest in the bills to repress drunkenness and restrict the number of poor people in the capital. He will certainly have had views on the bill to ban married men from residing in Oxford and Cambridge colleges, given that as bishop of Winchester he was the visitor of five of these establishments, a larger number than any single prelate. His views on Sir Thomas Shirley’s^‡ case are not known, but he was named to the committee for the bill to settle this complex saga of debt and parliamentary privilege.48 Ibid. 274a, 284b, 332a, 333b.

Declining influence, 1604-10

The session ended without a grant of supply, and in late July Bilson reported to the Privy Council on his efforts within his diocese to promote the government’s alternative strategy, a benevolence. He himself offered to pay £200, while pointing out that he already owed the crown another £1,200 in pre-existing obligations, and had spent an equivalent sum that year in the course of his official duties. Bilson was clearly looking for sympathy, but despite these burdens he remained wealthy enough to purchase the Hampshire estate of West Mapledurham in 1605.49 HMC Hatfield, xvi. 194; VCH Hants, iii. 89. In general the bishop was careful to comply with royal policy in all aspects of Church government, but as his health declined he found it increasingly difficult to take on additional tasks. Requested by the king at the end of 1604 to reply to a pamphlet attacking episcopacy, he agreed with extreme reluctance, explaining to Cecil: ‘dispatch of former labours hath much weakened my body and impaired my health; so as I find myself exceedingly possessed with the sciatica, with a continual singing in my head, as also with many obstructions and extreme windiness’. Bilson had sketched out a draft response by the following April, but was prevented by illness from completing the project.50 SP14/13/73; HMC Hatfield, xvi. 421-2; xvii. 141; Hatfield House, CP 97/139.

When Parliament resumed in November 1605, Bilson was again a very familiar face in the Lords, with an attendance record of 85 per cent. He once more attracted 40 appointments, the earliest of which addressed the concerns raised by the Gunpowder Plot. In January 1606 he was named to a select committee to review existing laws for preservation of true religion and the state. When it emerged that the Commons were working on a related bill, Bilson was appointed to a conference to establish a uniform agenda between both Houses.51 LJ, ii. 360b, 367b. He was also a member of the select committee which recommended attainting the plotters, and was nominated to scrutinize both of the subsequent bills drafted for that purpose.52 Ibid. 363a, 367a, 401a. In addition he was named to the committees for four bills aimed at clamping down on Catholic ideas and practices.53 Ibid. 380b, 419b, 427a.

Meanwhile, the Commons continued to raise concerns about ecclesiastical government, such as the treatment of nonconforming clergy, and the use of commissions to impose discipline. Bilson was named three times to conferences on these issues, and he twice reported back to the Lords on the discussions relating to commissions. Subsequently he was nominated to the committee for a bill to restrain the use of excommunication by ecclesiastical courts.54 Ibid. 411a, 416b, 418b, 422a, 424a, 428a, 437a. He was also appointed to three bill committees concerned with blasphemous swearing and Sabbath day observance.55 Ibid. 365a, 381a, 384a.

As in 1604, the Commons sought reform of purveyance, their demands prompting several conferences with the Lords, to two of which Bilson was appointed. In addition, he was named to the committees for bills to entail certain estates to the crown, and to confirm the king’s grants of letters patent.56 Ibid. 393b, 413a, 414b; Bowyer Diary, 116-17. Bilson was nominated to the committee which considered both the bill to assure the jointure of Frances Howard, the newly-married countess of Essex, and that to confirm the attainder of Lord Cobham. The latter measure proved contentious, and two new versions were drafted, Bilson being named to scrutinize each of them.57 LJ, ii. 379a, 395b, 403a. His presence on the committee list for the estate bill promoted by Corpus Christi College, Oxford is explained by his status as the college’s visitor.58 Ibid. 371b; PA, HL/PO/PB/1/1605/3J1n30. Of his remaining committee appointments, he may well have taken an interest in the bills to restrict new buildings in London, to reform the Marshalsea prison in Southwark, and to confirm the king’s patent augmenting the stipend for the reader in divinity at Oxford University.59 LJ, ii. 386b, 389a, 436b.

In the opening phase of the third parliamentary session, which commenced in November 1606, Bilson was again assiduous in his attendance, missing just three days prior to the Christmas recess. During these early weeks, he was appointed to a conference with the Commons about the latest Union proposals, and received nominations to three bill committees, concerned with buildings in the London suburbs, free trade, and fines levied in the Westminster courts.60 Ibid. 452b-3a, 460b, 464b. He then missed the whole of the second phase, from February to Easter 1607, presumably through illness, awarding his proxy to Archbishop Bancroft.61 Ibid. 449a.

Having resumed his seat in April 1607, Bilson was recorded as absent on only seven more occasions prior to the end of the session. During these final months he attracted 13 more committee appointments. Of these three concerned St Saviour’s parish, Southwark, the Marshalsea prison, and the city of Southampton, all locations within his diocese.62 Ibid. 513b, 516b, 526a. Named to scrutinize the bill for a property exchange between the crown and the archdiocese of Canterbury, he was also nominated for a similar bill involving his patron Cecil, now 1st earl of Salisbury, and James I. Two other legislative committees related to the repeal of hostile laws between England and Scotland, and the Commons’ bid to obstruct the 1604 Canons, which had been introduced without parliamentary approval.63 Ibid. 503a-b, 511a, 520b.

In August 1606 the king had visited Bilson at his other episcopal seat in Surrey, Farnham Castle, which included extensive hunting grounds. James was much taken with the property, and by the end of the year demanded a lease of it from the diocese. The bishop held out for the most favourable terms that he could secure, and the deal was not finally concluded until May 1608, by which time another chase at Hambledon, Hants had been included in the bargain.64 J. Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, ii. 95; HMC Hatfield, xix. 19; xx. 58-9; CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp. 376, 431. Meanwhile, Bilson extracted his own concession from the crown, a commission which enabled him to oversee Winchester College, much to the annoyance of the current warden.65 HMC Hatfield, xix. 435-6. However, such an intervention was unusual. Although the bishop made a point of presiding over his diocesan ecclesiastical commission whenever it met, and kept a close eye on ecclesiastical patronage, he delegated to subordinates almost every other administrative duty, including visitations, and stopped attending the Hampshire quarter sessions after 1607. Bilson seems to have viewed his elevation to the episcopate as a reward for past services, rather than an opportunity to practice the principles that he had outlined in print. Moreover, as he moved into old age, his health continued to decline, and by February 1608 he was battling arthritis in his hands and feet, and also attacks of vertigo.66 Fincham, 98, 109, 113, 165-6, 170, 292, 322; HMC Hatfield, xx. 58-9.

Bilson failed to attend either of the parliamentary sessions of 1610, presumably through illness. On both occasions he appointed Bancroft as his proxy, adding for the fifth session George Abbot^*, bishop of London (later archbishop of Canterbury), Richard Neile^*, bishop of Rochester and Samuel Harsnett^*, bishop of Chichester (both later archbishops of York). Bilson evidently followed at least some events at Westminster, for in June 1610, when the Lords intervened to ensure that preaching took place in two Hampshire parishes, he sent a representative to take custody of the bond imposed on the incumbent.67 LJ, ii. 548a, 622a, 666a.

Political intrigues and loss of reputation, 1610-15

Despite his comparatively lacklustre record during the previous five or six years, Bilson continued to command considerable respect on account of his earlier publications, and when Bancroft died in November 1610 he was immediately seen as a contender for the vacant see of Canterbury. Indeed, by the following February, his appointment was widely anticipated, and even one of his rivals, Bishop Lancelot Andrewes^* of Ely (later bishop of Winchester), reportedly said that Bilson ‘had but his desert’ if he secured this ultimate promotion. However, as in 1604 the king wanted his next archbishop to be a tough administrator, and his choice fell on George Abbot, a man noted for his firm stance on recusancy, who had until 1609 been Bilson’s subordinate as dean of Winchester.68 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, iv. 245; HMC Downshire, iii. 28, 32; Fincham, 29; S.M. Holland, ‘George Abbot: the Wanted Bishop’, Church Hist. lvi. 184.

This outcome must have been particularly galling for Bilson, who not only coveted the archbishopric, but had also quarrelled with Abbot while the latter was still his junior.69 State Trials ed. T.B. Howell, ii. 817. However, he responded by immersing himself in scholarship again. In the spring of 1611 the finishing touches were being put to the King James Bible, which had first been proposed at the Hampton Court Conference. Although Bilson had not been employed in the early stages of the project, perhaps because of his reluctance at that juncture to take on major literary challenges, he was now brought in with Miles Smith^*, bishop of Gloucester, to provide summaries at the start of each chapter, and running headers on each page. Bilson is also generally credited with the bible’s dedicatory epistle, a sycophantic paean proclaiming the benefits showered on the realm in the person of the king, ‘the wonder of the world in this later age’.70 A. Nicolson, When God Spoke English, 216-18.

In May 1611 Bilson, as visitor of St John’s College, Oxford, found himself called upon to investigate the disputed election by which William Laud^* (later archbishop of Canterbury) secured the college presidency. A month later the bishop reported to the king that ‘illegal methods’ had been used to manipulate the voting, but James, after a lengthy personal inquiry, wearily concluded that the election was no more corrupt than usual, and that the result should stand.71 C. Carleton, Abp. William Laud, 17-19; CSP Dom. 1611-18, pp. 43, 66, 75. Bilson accepted this verdict without question, and the king found him just as compliant in the summer of 1613. The countess of Essex was seeking a divorce, in order to marry the royal favourite, Robert Carr^*, Viscount Rochester (later earl of Somerset). James, eager for this outcome, set up a commission to hear the case, only to find that Archbishop Abbot was unpersuaded by the countess’ evidence. Determined to have his way, the king added Bilson and three other clergy to the commission. Abbot, mindful of their former disagreements, convinced himself that Bilson had been brought in precisely because he still begrudged him becoming archbishop, and feared that his own judgement would be called into question if he stood out against Bilson’s ‘gravity and learning’. Rumours circulated that the bishop had been promised a place on the Privy Council and a knighthood for his son if he did the king’s bidding. Suppressing any initial doubts about his selection, Bilson played a decisive role when the commission resumed its deliberations, blocking the presentation of evidence unfavourable to the countess’ case, and bullying his fellow commissioners ‘with scoffs and imperious behaviour’. When, on 25 Sept., the final verdict went narrowly in favour of an annulment, it was Bilson who publicly pronounced the sentence, whereupon a delighted James declared him to be ‘the worthiest man in the kingdom’. A month later, as predicted, the bishop’s son Thomas Bilson^‡, received a knighthood, but by now the king’s manipulation of the divorce commission was common knowledge, and the young man was quickly nicknamed ‘Sir Nullity Bilson’, a mocking comment on his father’s subservience. As late as mid December, there was still talk of the bishop joining the Council. Although nothing came of this in the short term, he was now recognized as a client of the Howard faction at court. This connection dated back at least to 1607, when Bilson appointed Rochester’s mentor, Henry Howard^*, earl of Northampton as keeper of the bishopric of Winchester’s liberties. It seems likely, therefore, that the bishop was Rochester’s client prior to the divorce.72 Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, i. 469, 478, 484; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 53; State Trials, ii. 817, 823, 827-8; C.S. Clegg, Press Censorship in Jacobean Eng. 205; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 200; Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 153; Newsletters from the Archpresbyterate of George Birkhead ed. M.C. Questier (Cam. Soc. 5th ser. xii), 33; Arundel Castle, G 1/8.

In the elections for the 1614 Parliament, Bilson finally achieved a small measure of electoral success, securing the junior seat at Winchester for his son Sir Thomas^‡. His son-in-law, Sir Richard Norton^‡, then sheriff of Hampshire, allegedly influenced the outcome of the shire election, but seems not to have been acting on the bishop’s behalf.73 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 145; iii. 231; v. 527. Bilson attended the Lords for all but two or three days of this short session, being formally excused on 9 May due to illness.74 LJ, ii. 700b. Once again appointed a trier of petitions from England, Scotland and Ireland, he attracted just four other nominations. Named to the conference with the Commons about the bill to confirm the Elector Palatine’s children in the royal line of succession, he was also selected for legislative committees concerned with wasteful consumption of gold and silver, preservation of timber stocks, and legal challenges to wills.75 Ibid. 686b, 691a, 692b, 694a, 697b. Bilson’s three speeches all related to the controversy over impositions. On 24 May he rejected the proposal for a conference with the lower House on this issue: ‘This is a great matter and not fit to be spoken of without the king’s leave, and so I have observed to be always used in matter of great weight’. However, when Bishop Neile made an inflammatory attack on the Commons in connection with impositions, Bilson seemed anxious about the reaction in the Lords, urging the House on 28 May not to punish Neile purely on the basis of ‘common fame’; although the bishops were ‘no noblemen’, he hoped that they might still enjoy the protection of parliamentary privilege accorded to all peers, and be allowed to speak in their own defence. That said, when the House took steps on 31 May to establish exactly what words Neile had used, Bilson pleaded for his fellow bishop to be allowed more time to prepare his account of events.76 HMC Hastings, iv. 263, 269, 274. When the Parliament collapsed without a grant of supply, he again contributed generously to the ensuing benevolence, donating £238 and a gold cup.77 HMC Downshire, iv. 431; E351/1950.

In mid-1615 Bilson surprised his contemporaries by once again plunging into the murky world of court politics. The royal favourite Carr, now earl of Somerset, was struggling to maintain his hold over the king, and sought to prevent key offices from falling into the hands of his enemies. Bilson had remained one of Somerset’s clients since the Essex divorce case and, despite being in his late sixties, he was persuaded to cooperate with the earl’s schemes. On 15 June the newsletter-writer John Chamberlain revealed that ‘the bishop of Winchester is in the way to be lord privy seal, that he may be a counterpoise for many purposes, but specially to keep the seals from some that pretend interest in them’. The general reaction was one of incredulity. As Chamberlain noted a fortnight later, while Bilson lingered hopefully in London:

it is thought a strange ambition for a man of his wisdom, years and infirmities to aspire to a place with so many difficulties which he cannot long enjoy, and to suffer himself to be led along after other men’s humours and uncertain promises: but he hath his reward, and the world doth descant on him at large, and there was a bill clapped up upon the New Exchange [in the Strand], that the bishop of Winchester, (describing the man by all marks and circumstances) was privily run out of his diocese no man knew whither, but if any could bring tidings of him to the crier he should be well rewarded for his labour.78 S.R. Gardiner, Hist. of Eng. ii. 327-8; Chamberlain Letters, i. 602-4.

James himself refused to contemplate such an appointment and, when Bilson sought permission to wait on him, dismissed his request as ‘extremely absurd’. Nevertheless, the king still valued the old man’s past service, and after a month gently ended all the speculation ‘with good words’, saying that he ‘perhaps meant to bestow the place upon him, but he would take his own time and not do it at other men’s instance’.79 Letters of King Jas. VI and I ed. G.P.V. Akrigg, 341; Chamberlain Letters, i. 606, 609.

Death and legacy, 1615-16

By way of compensation, and at Somerset’s request, Bilson was admitted in late August 1615 to the Privy Council, one of just seven bishops appointed by James during the course of his reign.80 Carew Letters ed. J. Maclean (Cam. Soc. lxxvi), 15; Fincham, 35. This appointment was generally seen as a bid to maintain the existing political balance at court, though in fact it did nothing to prevent Somerset’s own fall in the following November.81 HMC Downshire, v. 334; Chamberlain Letters, i. 614. Nevertheless, for ten months Bilson attended meetings on a fairly regular basis, though he probably contributed relatively little to the debates. In September, with the Council considering whether to summon a new Parliament, Bilson commented ‘that he knew of his own knowledge that the meddling in elections had done hurt, and likewise the conceit that the last Parliament was called at the instance and solicitation of private persons’. In terms of encouraging a future grant of supply, he advised ‘that the people might be instructed and taught that relief to their sovereign in necessity was due jure divino’, a reference back to the sentiments of his coronation sermon.82 APC, 1615-16, p. 283 et seq.; Letters and Life of Francis Bacon ed. J. Spedding, v. 202.

On 6 June 1616 Bilson delivered a report to the Council, upholding the crown’s right to grant benefices in commendam.83 APC, 1615-16, pp. 595-7. He died of apoplexy 12 days later, and was buried in Westminster Abbey. In the absence of a will, administration of his estate was granted on 25 June to his widow, who was subsequently obliged to pay £1,000 to his successor, James Montagu^*, for dilapidations to episcopal property.84 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 375; HMC Downshire, v. 534-5; Westminster Abbey (Harl. Soc. Reg. x), 113; PROB 6/9, f. 73; Fincham, 53. Bilson’s fame as an outstanding theologian long outlasted any memories of his fumbling political career, but his scholarship was latterly appropriated in ways that he could scarcely have anticipated. At the York House Conference of 1626 the Arminian Richard Montagu^* (later bishop of Norwich) cited him to justify appeals to tradition as a way of validating doctrine or church practices. More seriously, his arguments about Christian insurrection in The True Difference were used extensively during the Civil War to justify resistance to Charles I. Indeed, Anthony Wood believed that there was ‘not any book that the presbyterians have made more dangerous use of against their prince’. Thus the work that first made his name under Elizabeth, a carefully nuanced defence of royal policy, became in a later generation a potent weapon for attacking the crown. By the Restoration, Bilson’s name was indelibly tarnished, and his once lofty reputation never recovered. Of all the leading bishops in the Jacobean Church, he remains one of the least known.85 Tyacke, 177; Ath. Ox. 169-70; W.M. Lamont, ‘Rise and Fall of Bishop Bilson’, JBS, v. 22-32.