FIELD, Theophilus (1575-1636)

Field’s father was the leading puritan minister of Elizabethan London until his death in 1588, and author of the Admonition, which urged the 1571 Parliament to adopt a presbyterian system of church government. His correspondence was seized by the authorities in the crackdown which followed the Marprelate controversy of 1589-90, and used by Richard Bancroft^* (subsequently archbishop of Canterbury) to discredit radical puritanism, both in Star Chamber and in print.18 P. Collinson, Elizabethan Puritan Movement, 115-21, 135-7, 234-8, 326, 394. Given his parentage, it is hardly surprising that Field began his academic career at Emmanuel College, Cambridge in 1592. However, he transferred to Pembroke, perhaps when Sir Horatio Palavicino became his patron – in an encomium written on the latter’s death in 1600 he acknowledged six years’ financial support – and he was elected to a fellowship in 1598. Pembroke was an unusual choice for someone of his background, as the college’s theological complexion was changing rapidly under the headship of the anti-Calvinists Lancelot Andrewes^* (1589-1605, later bishop of Winchester), and Samuel Harsnett^* (1605-16, ultimately archbishop of York). While Field may not have endorsed their theological views entirely – in 1617 he recounted an unkind tale that Arminius had died of gangrene in his writing hand – he had a personal connection with Andrewes, who combined his Cambridge headship with the vicarage of St Giles Cripplegate, the parish in which Field had been raised. Certainly, by the 1630s Field was able to co-operate with the Laudian agenda for ceremonialism and the restoration of church fabric.19 L. Stone, An Elizabethan: Sir Horatio Palavicino, 3, 13, 37, 190; F.W.Brownlow, Shakespeare, Harsnett and the Devils of Denham, 39-44; Brit. Delegation and the Synod of Dort ed. A. Milton (Church of Eng. Rec. Soc. xiii), 58-9.

Field’s early career is difficult to trace. In 1603 he was ordained by another Pembroke graduate, Thomas Dove^*, bishop of Peterborough, but retained his college fellowship. Some secondary sources claim that he subsequently became rector of Cotton, Suffolk in 1607, and vicar of Mayfield, Sussex in 1610, but this is not borne out by the diocesan records.20 Al. Cant.; Yardley, 108; Oxford DNB, xix. 488. He could, of course, have held a curacy at Cotton and Thornham Magna, Suffolk between 1605 and 1607, when the incumbent, James Wadsworth, was embassy chaplain in Madrid. If so, he may have remained in place after Wadsworth converted to Catholicism. Similarly, at Mayfield, Field could have filled the vacancy between the death of William Whitfield in 1610 and the installation of his successor in the following year; the likeliest source for such an appointment would have been Harsnett, then bishop of Chichester.

Field’s prospects improved considerably upon his appointment as a chaplain to Anne of Denmark, which had occurred by October 1609, when his mistress recommended him to the lord mayor of London for the rectory of St Peter’s, Cornhill, vacant following the death of the incumbent, Dr John Milward. She was misinformed, as Milward had been rector of St Margaret Pattens, and in any case, the corporation chose to appoint a rival candidate, William Spencer.21 LMA, COL/RMD/PA/01/2/361; CCEd. However, Field had greater success 15 months later, when he successfully bid for another post, the vicarage of Lydd, Kent, doubtless supported by the queen. This wealthy living, which included a large tract of marshland grazing worth £200 a year, normally lay in the gift of the archbishop of Canterbury, but as Field was nominated during the vacancy which followed the death of Richard Bancroft, his patron may have been Andrewes, then a contender for the archbishopric.22 CCEd; Al. Cant. (James Wadsworth, William Whitfield); E. Hasted, Kent (2nd edn.), viii. 437-8.

After the queen’s death in 1619, Field became one of the king’s chaplains. Two years later, during the impeachment of Francis Bacon^*, Viscount St Alban, a contemporary source claimed that Field, a party to one of the allegations against the lord chancellor, had been a chaplain in Bacon’s household until 1619; yet this claim seems to have been mistaken, as Bacon’s chaplains in 1618 were Mr Oates and Mr Lewis.23 Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 354; Life and Letters of Francis Bacon ed. J. Spedding, vi. 336; Oxford DNB, xix. 488. Field’s royal chaplaincy undoubtedly assisted him in securing nomination as bishop of Llandaff in May 1619. However, he was put forward by the favourite, George Villiers^*, marquess (and later 1st duke) of Buckingham. Field’s path to Llandaff began with Harsnett’s translation from Chichester to Norwich. Someone in Buckingham’s circle – conceivably Harsnett’s patron Thomas Howard^*, 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel – thereupon suggested Field for the vacancy, but another argued that George Carleton^*, bishop of Llandaff, deserved to be rewarded for his labours at the Synod of Dort. Buckingham concurred, and presently secured the king’s agreement to the translation of Carleton to Chichester, and his replacement at Llandaff by Field, who was licensed to hold Lydd in commendam, together with two other benefices within his new diocese.24 Brit. Delegation and the Synod of Dort, 365; C58/23; Yardley, 108.

Naturally, Buckingham’s patronage came at a price: in 1616 Lewis Bayly^* had paid the favourite £600 for the bishopric of Bangor, worth £120 p.a., so Field was presumably expected to offer at least as much for Llandaff, valued at £140 p.a. This doubtless explains why, at precisely this time, Field attempted to assist Edward Egerton in overturning a Chancery decree awarding possession of a Staffordshire estate to Sir Roland Egerton^‡. When later examined about this transaction, Field revealed that he had been recruited to act as an intermediary between Edward Egerton on the one hand, and Bacon and Buckingham on the other. Moreover, on 13 Mar. 1619 Edward Egerton sealed a bond to pay Field £6,000 upon procurement of a favourable verdict in the court case, a sum intended for distribution as bribes among a range of intermediaries. However, the deal collapsed when Buckingham balked at this transaction, which meant that Field was presumably obliged to offer some other means of recompense for his bishopric.25 SP16/164/23; Trans. Congregational Hist. Soc. vi. 56; C58/23; LJ, iii. 54a-5a, 143a-4a. For the Egerton v. Egerton dispute, see HP Commons, 1604-29, iv. 181-2.

During the 1621 Parliament, Field attended over three-quarters of the Lords’ sittings, although he was excused twice early in the session, once to prepare a sermon for Paul’s Cross, and once because of sickness. However, he was named to only a handful of committees: one to consider bills to restrict the export of iron ordnance and modernize militia arms; another to confirm grants of urban and church lands made to Queen Elizabeth; and three others for bills concerning Welsh issues.26 LJ, iii. 13a, 17a, 21a, 26b, 101b, 114b, 172b, 185b. He might have been more active but for his involvement as an accessory to the charges which led to Bacon’s impeachment, reported to the Lords on 20 March. The most damning evidence in the Egerton bribery case consisted of three letters written by ‘black Dr Field’, which outlined the distribution of the £6,000 Egerton had offered to pay in return for his decree; Field’s share was claimed to be ‘so great, as no court of justice would allow’, although he denied this, insisting ‘that he was not to have had any one denier of a share therein’. When this charge was discussed by the Lords on 27 Mar., Buckingham and Arundel sprang to the defence of their client, arguing that Field should not face censure, while the bishop himself reiterated the innocence of his intent. These arguments found favour, as the case was referred for further investigation, whereupon Field sent Buckingham a fulsome letter of thanks.27 Ibid. 54a, 55a; LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, 51-2; Harl. 7000, f. 57; T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 244. A denier was a small French coin worth a farthing. However, on 16 May the Commons pressed for judgement against Field, and the following day Field himself called for the issue to be resolved. The matter nevertheless dragged on until 30 May, when the examination of witnesses was finally reported. Richard Neile^*, bishop of Durham (later archbishop of York) and George Abbot^*, archbishop of Canterbury, persuaded the Lords that, as no bribe had actually been given, Field should merely be admonished by Abbot in Convocation, which was done on 1 June.28 LJ, iii. 125b, 128a, 143a-4a, 153a; Add. 40085, f. 150; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 354-5, 377.

In July 1621, Field’s discomfiture at his censure was eclipsed by Archbishop Abbot’s embarrassment at accidentally killing a gamekeeper; several new bishops appointed over the following months declined to be consecrated at his hands, and consequently Field was one of those drafted in to perform the task in November.29 J. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata (1693), i. 68; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 407; Works of Abp. Laud ed. J. Bliss, iii. 137. This matter aside, Field now devoted himself to diocesan administration, as he had promised to do in his earlier letter of thanks to Buckingham. It is unlikely that he spent much time in his bishopric, but he certainly attended his primary visitation of 1619 in person. The articles of inquiry which survive for his 1621 visitation are briefer than many others issued by his contemporaries, and focussed on church fabric, the pastoral functions of the parish ministry, the regulation of morals and the suppression of recusancy.30 Fincham, 321; Vis. Articles and Injunctions of the Early Stuart Church I ed. K. Fincham (Church of Eng. Rec. Soc. i), 200-1. In 1622-3 Llandaff diocese raised £140 towards the Palatine benevolence collected in lieu of the subsidy lost at the dissolution of Parliament. This yield, representing more than a clerical subsidy, was rather better than the national performance. However, he may have been less discriminating than some other diocesans in his examination of candidates for the ministry: in 1622 two Somerset curates applied to him, rather than Arthur Lake^*, bishop of Bath and Wells, for ordination.31 Harl. 7000, f. 57; SP14/133/13; Fincham, 179. In 1622 Field published a tract on preparation for communion, which he dedicated to the duchess of Lennox (wife of Ludovic Stuart^*, 2nd duke of Lennox [S] (earl (and later duke) of Richmond in the English peerage) presumably in the hope of attracting a fresh patron; shortly after Lennox’s death in 1624, the same essay was reprinted with a dedication to Buckingham.32 T. Field, A Christians Preparation (1622); Parasceve Paschae (1624).

Field managed to keep out of trouble during the 1624 Parliament, leaving little trace on its proceeding despite attending over three-quarters of the sittings. He was named to the committee for a bill to allow subjects to retain possession of land when their title was challenged by the crown, and to consider three private estate bills. His name was also included on the committee for another estate bill, but deleted, probably because too many bishops had been selected.33 LJ, iii. 253a, 257b, 305b, 317b; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f.31. At the start of the session he excused the absence of John Thornborough^*, bishop of Worcester, while on 5 Apr. he was allowed leave of absence himself, granting a proxy to Thomas Morton^*, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, which was never used, as he continued to attend.34 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 14; Add. 40088, f. 10; LJ, iii. 288b. His decision to remain at Westminster may have been swayed by the arrival of a petition, read in the Lords on 8 May, concerning a dispute between George and William Matthew over a long lease of the manor of Llandaff, Glamorgan, which both men claimed to hold from the bishopric. Field put in his own plea as ‘poor bishop of miserably spoiled Llandaff’, but the report on 28 May offered him nothing, merely referring the Matthew family’s dispute to arbitration.35 LJ, iii. 363a, 417a, 420a; HMC 3rd Rep. 32b; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, f. 104.

Shortly after the prorogation, an unfounded report of Field’s death circulated in London. Field returned to Westminster in the following spring, holding the proxies of John Bridgeman^*, bishop of Chester and John Hanmer^*, bishop of St Asaph, and attending every day of the parliamentary sitting, although he was nominated to only one committee, for the inns and alehouses bill. He was excused from the Oxford sitting ‘for want of health’.36 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 569; Procs. 1625, pp. 88, 130, 590.

Field hardly missed a day of the 1626 Parliament, when he was one of four bishops who jointly held the proxy of bishop Dove of Peterborough. He was named to committees ordered to scrutinize bills for free fishing off the North American coasts, to prevent the export of wool, and to restrict the wearing of expensive apparel. On 15 Apr. he joined several other bishops in criticizing the bill to allow secular courts to hear appeals against scandalous ministers, moving ‘rather to pass a law to enable the bishops to convent and punish disordered ministers … and to bar all appeals from them’. Under normal circumstances such a motion, which subverted the intention of the bill, would have barred Field from membership of the bill committee, but as he couched it as a proviso he was allowed to be included.37 Procs. 1626, i. 10, 128. 231, 265, 267-8. The second half of the session was dominated by the impeachment of Buckingham and the charges levelled against the favourite by John Digby^*, 1st earl of Bristol: in a debate over the latter’s cause, the 1621 proceedings against Field were raised as a precedent for allowing the accused to retain his seat in the House during an investigation. One of the allegations Bristol made against Buckingham was that the duke had hastened the death of King James by inept medical treatment; the Commons cited this in their charges, and it was one of the factors which led King Charles to arrest two of their spokesmen. On 15 May many of the Lords protested that the king had mistaken the intentions of this charge, while Field (like several other bishops) admitted merely that he found the allegation incomprehensible. He later claimed to have deplored the attitude of ‘the inconsiderate multitude’ who had ‘yelped against the duke’ during this Parliament.38 Ibid. 320-1, 478, 483; iv. 174; C. Russell, PEP, 306-7; CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 326.

Field approached Buckingham for further preferment when the latter was installed as chancellor of Cambridge University in July 1626. He attended the duke over the following weeks, and concluded with a letter begging either the see of Bath and Wells, vacated by the death of Bishop Lake, or that of Ely, where Nicholas Felton^* was ailing.39 Harl. 7000, f. 195; Works of Abp. Laud, iii. 193-4. In the event, Bath and Wells was granted to William Laud^* (later archbishop of Canterbury). It was probably in the aftermath of this disappointment that Field offered £25 to a royal serjeant-at-arms to assist his cause – a bribe which only came to light a decade later. How effective this inducement proved to be is unclear, but in September 1627 Field succeeded Laud at St Davids.40 PC2/46, ff. 19v-20; CSP Dom. 1634-5, pp. 409-10. Although he dedicated a published sermon to the king in gratitude for his promotion, Field privately thanked the favourite for this preferment. The see was worth £410 a year, but as Field was required to surrender Lydd and his two Monmouthshire livings, in return for a cathedral prebend at St Davids (which he does not seem to have taken up), the transaction probably left him little better off than he had been at Llandaff.41 T. Field, A Watch-Word, or, The Allarme (1627/8), sigs. A2-A4; CSP Dom. 1627-8, pp. 326, 452; Trans. Congregational Hist. Soc. vi. 56; C58/31. Nevertheless, this promotion seems to have dispelled any taint that lingered from his 1621 censure.

Field played a more prominent role in Parliament in 1628 than he had done in previous assemblies, attending almost 90 per cent of the Lords’ sittings, and being quicker to express his views. Named to the committee for privileges at the start of the session, he attended the conference with the Commons which resolved that the Petition of Right should have the full status of a statute.42 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 73, 679. In a debate over a billeting riot in Banbury, Oxfordshire on 2 Apr., he was reluctant to place all the blame on the soldiers, ‘because they fight for us’, and suggested that the chief miscreant was the parish constable. On 23 Apr., during negotiations on preservation of the liberties of the subject, he hoped that it would be possible to resolve the differences between the Houses, ‘to maintain the liberty of the subject and preserve the prerogative of the king’, a formula habitually used by those sympathetic to the crown.43 Ibid. 140, 142, 334, 336. Other speeches considered more mundane business: on 24 Mar., he urged that the constables of London and its suburbs be ordered to prevent drinking and gambling during the general fast day then being planned; while on 6 May, he agreed with the majority of the House that in courts of law a peer should be entitled to make a protestation upon his honour, rather than swear an oath.44 Ibid. 97-9, 385. See also ibid. 153. He was included on bill committees considering measures for clergy stipends, episcopal leases and preaching; and several for local measures including the enfranchisement of copyholders on the crown manor of Bromfield and Yale, Denbighshire, and a Monmouthshire estate bill.45 Ibid. 73, 117, 120, 389, 565, 579.

A fresh round of episcopal promotions in the summer of 1628 saw Laud moved to London. Field, having preached in the Chapel Royal on 18 May, urged Buckingham for deliverance from ‘my banishment into remoter Wales’, appealing to be translated instead to Bath and Wells. However, this did not happen, and Field’s hopes for preferment vanished with the duke’s assassination the following August.46 LC5/132, p. 6; Add. 34274, f. 158. He missed almost all of the opening fortnight of the 1629 parliamentary session, perhaps because he was preparing another court sermon, scheduled for 1 Feb., and when he did appear, he was named to only one committee, for the modernization of militia arms.47 LC5/132, p. 72; LJ, iv. 37b. In the early 1630s Field sent the king a verse petition, purporting to be from the infant Prince Charles (Stuart^†), asking for a further translation. Nothing came either of this plea, or of his efforts to secure a reversion of the rectory of Abergwili, Carmarthenshire from the canons of Windsor, which were frustrated by the existing lessee, Sir Thomas Canon^‡.48 CSP Dom. 1631-3, pp. 216, 507-8; 1633-4, pp. 37-8.

Field eventually worked his way into favour with Laud, promoted archbishop of Canterbury in 1633, by devoting himself to his diocese, proceeding against a handful of nonconformist ministers, promoting the restoration of churches, consecrating a new church in Herefordshire under a commission from the diocesan, Matthew Wren^† (later bishop of Ely), and discovering concealed arrears of the Palatine benevolence for Carmarthenshire, which were assigned to the repair of St Paul’s Cathedral.49 Works of Abp. Laud, v. 320, 328-9, 335-6; PC2/44, ff. 111v, 263; 2/45, f. 199; Add. 38915. At Christmas 1635 he succeeded Wren at Hereford, valued at £690 a year, a much more lucrative see than St Davids. He apparently felled a large amount of timber on arrival, presumably to pay first fruits. He died on 2 June 1636, before he could make an impact on his new diocese, and was buried in his cathedral, where a bust was erected in his memory. No will or administration has been found.50 Trans. Congregational Hist. Soc. vi. 56; HMC Cowper, ii. 198; Yardley, 109.