BRIDGES, John (1535/6-1618)

The oldest recruit to the Jacobean bench of bishops, Bridges probably had Devonian ancestry, although he was recorded as a Londoner when he matriculated from Peterhouse, Cambridge in 1554. He enrolled as a pensioner, which suggests that his family had some means, acquired a fellowship at Pembroke Hall in 1556, proceeded BA in the following year, and then went to Italy in the entourage of the Protestant exile Francis Russell^†, 2nd earl of Bedford.18 Al. Cant.; Oxford DNB, vii. 583. He had returned to England by 1560, when he proceeded MA and was ordained deacon by Richard Cox^†, bishop of Ely; the date of his ordination to the priesthood is lost, probably as a result of a gap in the diocesan records.19 Al. Cant.; CCEd. Bridges should not be confused with a namesake who was ordained by Edmund Grindal^†, bishop of London in 1562 and thereafter held a series of livings in Essex and Kent until his death in 1591.20 Unlike the future bishop, this John Bridges had no degrees. CCEd.

Bridges was appointed a canon of Winchester Cathedral in 1565, under the patronage of Bishop Robert Horne^†, who also presented him to the rectories of Brightwell, in Berkshire, and Bishop’s Waltham, in Hampshire. In addition, Horne was probably responsible for recommending him as rector of Cheriton, in Hampshire – leased for £300 p.a. in the 1590s – to which cure he was presented by the crown in 1572.21 CCEd; C2/Jas.I/O2/17. At this time Bridges made his first foray into print, publishing an expanded version of a sermon on predestination he had delivered at Paul’s Cross, which he dedicated to William Cecil^†, 1st Lord Burghley.22 J. Bridges, A Sermon Preached at Paules Crosse (?1571), sigs. A2-A3v. In 1573 he published a much longer work in defence of the royal supremacy, which he dedicated to Queen Elizabeth. In return he was evidently appointed a royal chaplain, for in 1599 he claimed to be the longest-serving of the chaplains in ordinary.23 J. Bridges, The Supremacie of Christian Princes (1573), sigs. ¶2-¶4v; HMC Hatfield, ix. 143-4.

In January 1578 Bridges was installed as dean of Salisbury Cathedral, retaining all but one of his other livings in commendam; in 1586 he valued his annual income at £550.24 Fasti, vi. 6. 96; SP12/187/56 His career stalled for many years thereafter, for reasons which are unclear. It was presumably to curry favour with John Whitgift^†, newly appointed archbishop of Canterbury, that he published an attack on classical presbyterianism in 1587. In this tome, which ran to 1,400 pages and developed out of a sermon preached two years earlier, Bridges argued that, while quarrels between Protestants were of little significance compared to their disputes with Rome, the presbyterians’ expanding claims to jurisdiction would ‘mount up to the highest top, even of the prince’s government’. In response, Bridges offered the doctrine of jure divino episcopacy, the first conformist writer to advocate it in print.25 J. Bridges, A Defence of the Gouernment Established (1587), sig. ¶3r-v; P. Lake, Anglican and Puritan? 88-93; A. Milton, Catholic and Reformed, 454-61; Martin Marprelate Tracts ed. J.L. Black, pp. xxiv-xxv. The puritans Dudley Fenner and Walter Travers penned academic rebuttals, but the most memorable riposte was by the pseudonymous Martin Marprelate, whose first publication, commonly known as the Epistle, insisted that ‘all the bishops in England, Wales and Ireland are petty popes and petty antichrists’. Amid Marprelate’s wholesale mockery of Whitgift’s allies, Bridges was dismissed as ‘a very patch [fool] and a dunce when he was in Cambridge’ – specifically, ‘his grace of Canterbury’s fool’. However, the doctrine of jure divino episcopacy was portrayed as treason, for placing bishops above the crown in ecclesiastical matters. Marprelate also accused Bridges of simony, saying that he had paid £100 to procure his deanery, and speculated that his book aimed higher: ‘what would not a dean do to get a bishopric?’26 D. Fenner, Defence of the Godlie Mininsters (1587); W. Travers, Defence of the Ecclesiastical Discipline (1588); Martin Marprelate Tracts, 7-9, 16-17, 20, 41.

While the Marprelate controversy festered for years, Bridges never responded to his critics in print, perhaps through embarrassment. In 1589 Richard Bancroft^* (later bishop of London) took up his jure divino argument, but neither the queen nor Burghley was prepared to pursue it to its logical conclusion, which was to yield control of ecclesiastical policy to Whitgift.27 RICHARD BANCROFT; W. Richardson, ‘Religious Policy of the Cecils, 1588-98’ (Oxf. Univ. D.Phil. thesis, 1993), 45-7, 73-5. Meanwhile, Bridges languished at Salisbury. In 1598 he acquired a fresh Hampshire benefice, probably in return for alienating the manor of Sherborne, Dorset to Sir Walter Ralegh^‡ in the following year, but Ralegh’s gratitude did not lead to his promotion. Neither did an appeal to Sir Robert Cecil^* (later 1st earl of Salisbury) for the bishopric of Hereford in 1602, which was lost amid a large field of contenders.28 HMC Hatfield, ix. 143-4; xii. 109; ROBERT BENNETT. It was only in December 1603 that the new king nominated Bridges as bishop of Oxford, possibly in recognition of his early enlistment as an opponent of presbyterianism, which James had long aspired to eradicate from the Scottish kirk. Although he surrendered his posts at Salisbury, Bridges retained his Winchester canonry (until 1611) and his Hampshire rectories, which almost certainly exceeded his diocesan revenues of £320 per annum. While his payment of first fruits was waived, the financial gain from his promotion must have been relatively modest.29 CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp. 67, 93; CCEd; Trans. Congregational Hist. Soc. (1913-15), vi. 56.

In January 1604, a conference was held at Hampton Court to discuss the future of the Church of England. It is unclear whether Bridges (not yet consecrated as a bishop) was formally invited, but he was one of five deans called into the Privy Chamber by the king on the first day. His explanation of the evidence for the use of the sign of the cross in the early church earned him a royal commendation as ‘a man well travelled in the ancients’; but his doubts about the giving of a ring in marriage were dismissed by James.30 W. Barlow, Summe and Substance of the Conference (1604), 1, 3-4, 68-9, 76. Consecrated on 12 Feb., Bridges attended every sitting of the parliamentary session which followed, but left little trace on its proceedings: he was included on the committees for two drafts of the bill to prevent the import of ‘seditious, popish, vain and lascivious books’; and claimed parliamentary privilege for a servant.31 LJ, ii. 290a, 299b-300a, 301b.

Towards the end of the year privy seal loans were raised from both clergy and laity. While Bridges avoided being charged either in Oxfordshire or Hampshire, he rated 19 of his clergy to pay £430, but only five responded, paying £130 into the Exchequer.32 CUL, Ff.ii.28, ff. 169v-70; E401/2585, f. 90. At the same time, Bancroft, newly appointed archbishop of Canterbury, was, with royal encouragement, pressing nonconformists to subscribe to the three articles included in the 1604 Canons. Oxford diocese, though replete with puritan ministers and their gentry patrons, saw only four or five ministers deprived of their livings, two of them by Bancroft during his metropolitical visitation in 1607. This was a low number by comparison with the adjacent diocese of Peterborough, where there were 17 deprivations, which suggests that Bridges had a hand in limiting the number.33 S.B. Babbage, Puritanism and Richard Bancroft, 212-15; Fincham, 315-16 (which amends Babbage’s research); THOMAS DOVE.

Bridges lived in his diocese, but the absence of an episcopal mansion – he failed to regain possession of the residence allocated to the bishopric under Henry VIII - obliged him to move around a series of rectories.34 Fincham, 310; HMC Hatfield, xvi. 453. He was less active in a pastoral role than most bishops, habitually delegating the institution of ministers to his chancellor, and rarely performing the rite of confirmation. However, in 1613 he consecrated the chapel of the newly founded Wadham College.35 Fincham, 54, 126; Oxon. RO, Oxf.Dioc.Pprs.c.265, pp. 30-1. However, he attempted to improve his diocesan finances, unsuccessfully suing to void a lease of the rectory of Burford, Oxfordshire (acquired from the crown in an exchange of 1590), and to regain the manor of Water Eaton, Oxfordshire.36 HMC Hatfield, xxi. 234; xxiv. 56; C2/Jas.I/M20/67; Lansd. 167, f. 280; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, i. 335.

Parliament was one area in which Bridges played an active role. Always assiduous in his attendance, he was usually included on a handful of bill committees and made occasional speeches, although rarely on the most important issues of the day. In 1606 he was (as in 1604) named to the committee for the bill to prevent the import of seditious books, and to consider the Sabbath bill. He was also included on committees for two items of local legislation, one to confirm the endowment of a new divinity lecture at Oxford University, the other to improve the navigation of the Thames just below Oxford.37 LJ, ii. 380b, 384a, 386b, 393b. He played no recorded part in the Union debates which dominated the 1606-7 session, but was included on three committees to scrutinize bills for concealed lands, a problem of particular significance for his own revenues, following an exchange in 1590.38 Ibid. 471b, 479a, 494a. For the 1590 exchange of episcopal lands for crown rectories, see CPR, 1589-90 ed. L.J. Wilkinson (L. and I. Soc. ccci), 70-1, 177-8. He was also named to committees for the usury bill, and a bill to incorporate the grammar school at Northleach, Gloucestershire, which was administered by Queen’s College, Oxford.39 LJ, ii. 471b, 518a.

In February 1610, Bridges was included on the large delegation which heard the lord treasurer, Robert Cecil, now earl of Salisbury, lay out the problem of the royal finances, the negotiations over which dominated the session. However, he is not recorded as having played any further part in these debates. Early in the session, the Commons complained about the absolutist tone of a legal textbook by John Cowell, Regius professor of civil law at Cambridge University. This was an oblique attack on Bridges’ patron, Archbishop Bancroft, and therefore Bridges was unsurprisingly among those named to attend a conference to resolve the issue.40 Ibid. 550b, 557b; RICHARD BANCROFT. Throughout the session, the Commons sent a series of bills to the Lords which advocated radical ecclesiastical reform. These included a bill to reduce clerical pluralism and non-residence, which received its second reading in the Lords on 30 April. Bancroft exploded with rage, moving to commit this bill to ‘the uttermost pit of Hell’, and was followed by George Abbot^*, bishop of London, who offered a more measured critique. He in turn was followed by Bridges, who pointed out that he would lose his commendams under this proposal. He admitted that it was ‘better a mischief to me than a general inconvenience to the church’, but protested that he made good provision for his curates, and observed that the Commons should first have addressed the broader question of clerical incomes, many of which were kept low by lay impropriators. He also suggested that the bill might affect the royal prerogative, presumably because it would have denied the king the opportunity to bolster the value of poorly-endowed livings such as his own bishopric.41 Procs. 1610 ed. E.R. Foster, i. 72-3, 225-6; RICHARD BANCROFT.

Bridges returned to Westminster promptly for the start of the autumn session of 1610, but left little trace on proceedings, apart from attending two conferences at which the Lords pressed the Commons to make their views about financial reform known.42 LJ, ii. 671a, 678a. He played a slightly larger role in the Addled Parliament of 1614, which was dominated by the Commons’ determination to rehearse their case for the illegality of impositions on trade, which the king had already rejected in 1610. The Commons asked the Lords for a conference over this issue, but the Privy Council was determined to prevent this. When the issue came to a head on 24 May, Bridges and almost all the other bishops present voted en bloc against it.43 Chamberlain Letters, i. 533. For the bishops’ attendance, see LJ, ii. 706b-7a. He was also active in the debates over the Sabbath bill, being named to the committee and to a conference with the Commons about amendments to the draft. At this meeting he moved to add a proviso ‘that there might be no servile work done, neither buying nor selling’, and complained that, in London, bailiffs arrested churchgoers on the Sabbath.44 LJ, ii. 708b, 713b; HMC Hastings, iv. 278. Following the unhappy dissolution, George Abbot (now archbishop of Canterbury) proposed that the clergy demonstrate their loyalty to the crown by raising a benevolence. As in 1604, Bridges avoided making any contribution himself, while the clergy of his diocese raised under £100, the only significant donation being from William Laud^*, president of St John’s College (later archbishop of Canterbury).45 E351/1950; GEORGE ABBOT.

Though well into his seventies, Bridges was still actively preaching in 1614, when John Howson^* (his successor as bishop of Oxford) heard a sermon from him at Great Milton, in Oxfordshire. In an interview before the king, Howson recalled that on this occasion Bridges had welcomed the arrival of a parishioner, under the mistaken impression that he was a recusant come to conform. Howson claimed that Bridges’ informant had been Abbot, who had probably intended his remarks as a slur on Howson’s own heterodox views on predestinarian theology; but when confronted about this incident, Abbot airily commented that ‘the bishop of Oxford was old, and knew not what he said or did’, which seems unfair.46 ‘John Howson’s Answers to Abp. Abbot’s Accusations’ ed. N. Cranfield and K. Fincham, Cam. Misc. XXIX (Cam. Soc. 4th ser. xxxiv), 339. Bridges’ health was presumably declining by 1616, when the new royal favourite, George Villiers^* (later 1st duke of Buckingham) was offering a reversion of the see of Oxford to Dr Richard Field, dean of Gloucester; when he died a few months later, John Howson was given the same option.47 N. Field, Short Memorials Concerning … Doctor Richard Field (1717), 16; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 118. Bridges eventually died on 26 Mar. 1618, and was buried at Marsh Baldon, Oxfordshire. Administration of his goods was granted to his widow, Jane, who retired to Chippenham, Wiltshire.48 Ath. Ox. ii. 509; PROB 6/9, f. 164; PROB 11/159, ff. 65v-6. While George Carleton^*, then bishop-elect of Llandaff, was a contender for the vacancy at Oxford, it ultimately went, as promised, to Howson.49 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 160.