Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:38:17.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ecclesiastical Policy of King James I

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2014

Kenneth Fincham  and
Peter Lake
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a sermon preached at Hampton Court on September 30, 1606, John King proclaimed that “our Solomon or Pacificus liveth.” James I had “turned swords into sithes and spears into mattocks, and set peace within the borders of his own kingdoms and of nations about us.” His care for the “Church and maintenance to it” was celebrated. All that remained was for his subjects to lay aside contentious matters and join “with his religious majesty in propagation of the gospel and faith of Christ.” The sermon was the last in a series of four preached—and later printed—at the king's behest before an unwilling audience of Scottish Presbyterians. The quartet outlined James's standing as a ruler by divine right and laid down the conceptual foundations of the Jacobean church. A godly prince, exercising his divinely ordained powers as head of church and state, advised by godly bishops, themselves occupying offices of apostolic origin and purity, would preside over a new golden age of Christian peace and unity. A genuinely catholic Christian doctrine would be promulgated and maintained; peace and order would prevail. James I was rex pacificus, a new Constantine, a truly godly prince. As he himself observed in 1609, “my care for the Lord's spiritual kingdom is so well known, both at home and abroad, as well as by my daily actions as by my printed books.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 24 , Issue 2: Politics and Religion in the Early Seventeenth Century: New Voices , April 1985 , pp. 169 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1985

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 King, John, The Fourth Sermon Preached at Hampton Court on Tuesday the last of Sept. 1606 (Oxford, 1607), pp. 46–49Google Scholar.

2 Andrewes, Lancelot, A Sermon Preached before the Kings Maiestie at Hampton Court (London, 1606)Google Scholar (hereafter, unless otherwise noted, city of publication is London); Barlow, William, One of the Foure Sermons Preached before the Kings Maiestie, at Hampton Court in September last (1606)Google Scholar; Buckeridge, John, A Sermon Preached at Hampton Court before the Kings Maiestie (1606)Google Scholar; King.

3 “King James and the English Puritans: An Unpublished Document,” Blackwoods Magazine 188 (1910): 404Google Scholar. This analyzes James's marginalia in a copy of An humble supplication for toleration & libertie to enjoy & observe the ordinances of Christ Iesus in th'administration of his churches in lieu of humane constitutions (1609), which is preserved in the Lambeth Palace Library.

4 Andrewes, pp. 39, 45; Buckeridge, pp. 31–34; King, p. 23.

5 Public Record Office (PRO), State Papers (SP) 14/12/87; British Library (BL), Harleian (Harl.) MS 159, fol. 136r.

6 Tanner, J. R., ed., Constitutional Documents of the Reign of James I (Cambridge, 1952), pp. 54–56Google Scholar. See also Notestein, W., Relf, F. H., and Simpson, H., eds., Commons Debates, 1621, 1 vols. (New Haven, Conn., 1935), 4:7, 5:472Google Scholar; and the remarks of the translators of the Authorized Version: “On the one side we shall be traduced by popish persons at home or abroad … on the other side, we shall be maligned by selfconceited brethren, who run their own ways and giving liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves and hammered on their anvil” (The Holy Bible, conteyning the Old Testament and the New [1611], sig. A2v).

7 PRO, SP 14/170/35; Larkin, J. F. and Hughes, P. L., eds., Stuart Royal Proclamations (Oxford, 1973), 1:599–600Google Scholar.

8 “King James and the English Puritans,” p. 409.

9 BL, Harl. MS 159, fol. 136r–v.

10 Kenyon, J. P., The Stuart Constitution, 1603–1688 (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 132–34Google Scholar.

11 The recent literature on the conference is fairly extensive. See Curtis, M. H., “Hampton Court Conference and Its Aftermath,” History 46 (1961): 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Babbage, S. B., Puritanism and Richard Bancroft (1962), pp. 43–73Google Scholar; Collinson, P., The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (1967), pp. 448–67Google Scholar, and “The Jacobean Religious Settlement: The Hampton Court Conference,” in Before the English Civil War, ed. Tomlinson, H. (1983), pp. 27–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McGrath, P., Papists and Puritans under Elizabeth I (1967), pp. 339–63Google Scholar; Shriver, F., “Hampton Court Re-visited: James I and the Puritans,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 33 (1982): 48–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Shriver, p. 56; Collinson, , “The Jacobean Religious Settlement,” pp. 45–47Google Scholar.

13 McIlwain, C. H., ed., The Political Works of James I (1918), pp. 6–8, 23–24Google Scholar. Once he arrived in England, James's public attitude did change in one important respect, for he became a staunch upholder of the jure divino theory of episcopacy (ibid., p. 126). He continued to argue that radical Puritans inside the church were fathers to the Brownists (see A meditation upon the Lords prayer written by the King's Maiestie [1619], pp. 7–17Google Scholar).

14 Kenyon, pp. 132–34; Collinson, , The Elizabethan Puritan Movement, pp. 453–58Google Scholar; McGrath, pp. 342–43; Lake, P. G., “Laurence Chaderton and the Cambridge Moderate Puritan Tradition” (Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1978), pp. 89–110Google Scholar.

15 Shriver, F., “The Ecclesiastical Policy of James I” (Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1967), pp. 56–57, 65Google Scholar.

16 Cardwell, E., A History of Conferences … from the year 1558 to the year 1690 (Oxford, 1840), pp. 179–81, 191–92Google Scholar. See also Usher, R. G., The Reconstruction of the English Church (1910), 2:344, 347Google Scholar.

17 Curtis, pp. 10–12. The promised change to the sixteenth article was of great importance to divines like Laurence Chaderton or John Rainolds who had been involved in doctrinal wrangles in the 1580s and 1590s and now seemed to have gained royal support for their views (see Lake, P. G., Moderate Puritans and the Elizabethan Church [Cambridge, 1982], pp. 201–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dent, C. M., Protestant Reformers in Elizabethan Oxford [Oxford, 1983], pp. 103–25)Google Scholar.

18 Usher, 2:348.

19 Cardwell, pp. 183–84, 201–3; Collinson, P., Godly People (1983), pp. 155–89Google Scholar.

20 Cardwell, pp. 193–203.

21 Ibid., pp. 196–99.

22 Ibid., pp. 210–12; Usher, 2:338.

23 Baildon, W. P., ed., Les Reportes del Cases in Camera Stellata, 1593 to 1609 (1894), p. 191Google Scholar.

24 Larkin and Hughes, eds. (n. 7 above), pp. 87–90.

25 Ibid., pp. 74–77, 87–90; Babbage (n. 11 above), pp. 235–45.

26 Quintrell, B. W., “The Royal Hunt and the Puritans, 1604–1605,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 31 (1980): 41–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Wormald, J., “James VI and I: Two Kings or One?” History 68 (1983): 188CrossRefGoogle Scholar, notes his “acute ability in personal debate.”

28 PRO, SP 14/12/87; Quintrell, p. 54.

29 Sparke, Thomas, A Brotherly Perswasion to Unilie, and Uniformitie in Judgment, and Practise touching the Received and Present Ecclesiasticall Government (1607)Google Scholar. The work was “seen, allowed and commanded by publike authoritie to be printed,” carried the royal coat of arms on the obverse of the title page, and was dedicated to the king.

30 Ibid., sigs. Ar–B3r, pp. 1–15, 82.

31 Quintrell, p. 57.

32 Wilkins, David, Concilia Maynae Britanniae et Hiberniae … (1737), 4:409–10Google Scholar.

33 Lincoln Archives Office (AO), Additional Register 1, fols. 225r–26r; PRO, SP 14/67/58; Historical Manuscripts Commission (HMC), 78 Hastings, 2:54Google Scholar; Clarke, Samuel, The lives of thirty-two English divines (1677), pp. 116–22Google Scholar.

34 PRO, SP 14/77/90. Another example is the removal of Thomas Hooker from Esher, Surrey, on royal orders, presumably for nonconformity (Hampshire Record Office, B/1/A/29 [unfoliated] [June 6, 16221; PRO, SP 16/151/12).

35 BL, Cotton MS, Titus 4, fol. 169, p. artl.y transcribed in Babbage (n. 1 1 above), pp. 252–53.

36 The Journals of the House of Lords (JL), 2:658aGoogle Scholar.

37 Holmes, C., Seventeenth-Century Lincolnshire (Lincoln, 1980), pp. 95–96Google Scholar; BL, Additional (Add.) M S 6394, fol. 29.

38 Babbage, pp. 81–84, 113–14, 182, 220–23; Sheils, W. J., The Puritans in the Diocese of Peterborough, 1558–1610, Northampton Record Society 30 (1979), p. 82Google Scholar. Nonconformist pamphleteers noted that some bishops were not unsympathetic to their cause (see A Survey of the Book of Common Prayer [1606], p. 6Google Scholar; A Myld & lust Defence of Certeyne Arguments … in behalfe of the Ministers suspended & deprived [1606], p. 8)Google Scholar.

39 Bernard, Richard, The Faithfull Shepherd (1621), sig. A3vGoogle Scholar; Somerset Record Office, D/D/Ca 204 (unfoliated) (September 19, 1617); Marchant, R. A., The Puritans and the Church Courts in the Diocese of York, 1560–1642 (1960), p. 34Google Scholar; Mayor, J. E. D., ed., Materials for the Life of Thomas Morton, Bishop of Durham, Cambridge Antiquarian Society Communications 3 (1864), pp. 12–13Google Scholar; Morton, Thomas, A Defence of the Innocence of the Three Ceremonies of the Church of England (1618), pp. 43–44Google Scholar.

40 Namely, Anthony Lapthorne (in 1618) and John Newton (in 1623) (Lambeth Palace Library, MS 691, fols. 24r–25v; Gloucester Record Office, Diocesan Records 27A, pp. 435–37; PRO, SP 14/138/31).

41 Canon 72. In 1608, Thomas Rogers, chaplain to Archbishop Bancroft, did publish a semiofficial commentary on the Thirty-nine Articles that gave a Calvinist reading to the articles on predestination (The faith, doctrine and religion, professed and protected in the realm of England and dominions of the same [Cambridge, 1607/1608], pp. 74–75Google Scholar). We owe both these references to Nicholas Tyacke.

42 Shriver, , “Hampton Court Re-visited” (n. 11 above), pp. 61–64Google Scholar.

43 Wilkins (n. 32 above), 4:413–14, 440–42; JL, 2:658; Lincoln AO, Additional Register 1, fols. 225r–26r.

44 Cardwell (n. 16 above), pp. 205–6; JL, 2:658. At least four diocesan commissions (Exeter, Gloucester, Salisbury, and Winchester) sat in the southern province between 1603 and 1610, but there is n o evidence that they were active after this date (see P. Tyler's “Additional Bibliography,” in The Rise and Fall of the High Commission, by R. G. Usher [Oxford, 1969]; Gloucester Record Office, Diocesan Records 101; Ingram, M. J., “Ecclesiastical Justice in Wiltshire, 1600–1640” [D.Phil, diss., Oxford University, 1976], p. 22, n. 5)Google Scholar.

45 Babbage, pp. 233–58.

46 See, e.g., Curtis (n. 11 above), pp. 1–16. For further evidence of James's desire to carry out church reform, see Munden, R. C., “James I and ‘the Growth of Mutual Distrust’: King, Commons and Reform, 1603–1604,” in Faction and Parliament, ed. Sharpe, K. (Oxford, 1978), pp. 57, 66–68Google Scholar.

47 The career of Samuel Hieron illustrates the local dimension. Hieron, one of the framers of the Millenary Petition, escaped deprivation at the hands of Cotton of Exeter through “the mediation of his potent friends” and went on to write a series of anonymous tracts against the ceremonies (Doctor Williams Library [DWL], RNC 38.34, pp. 60–61, 85; Pollard, A. W. and Redgrave, G. R., comps., A Short-Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland and Ireland, and of English Books Printed Abroad, 1475–1640 [STC] [1926], 6814, 13395)Google Scholar. For the nature of Puritan scruples on conformity, see the response of Laurence Chaderton (Lake, , Moderate Puritans and the Elizabethan Church [n. 17 above], pp. 243–61Google Scholar).

48 The pamphlet warfare had died out by 1611, and no books against Presbyterianism were licensed for the press between 1611 and 1618 (Tyacke, N. R. N., “Puritanism, Arminianism and Counter-revolution,” in The Origins of the English Civil War, ed. Russell, C. [1973], p. 125)Google Scholar.

49 The Holy Bible … (n. 6 above), sig. A2v.

50 Collinson, P., The Religion of Protestants (Oxford, 1982), pp. 48–49, 87–88Google Scholar; King, Henry, A Sermon preached at Pauls Crosse (1621), p. 62Google Scholar. Another was Smith of Gloucester, remembered for having filled his diocese “with the plentifull preaching of the gospell” (Smith, Miles, Sermons [1632], sig. Pp 3iv)Google Scholar.

51 Ball, Thomas, The Life of the renowned Doctor Preston, ed. Harcourt, E. W. (Oxford, 1885), pp. 68–69, 98Google Scholar.

52 McIlwain, ed. (n. 13 above), pp. 151, 274–76; Patterson, W. B., “King James I's Call for an Ecumenical Council,” in Councils and Assemblies: Studies in Church History, vol. 7, ed. Cuming, G. J. and Baker, D. (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 267–75Google Scholar; Bodleian Library (Bodl.), Tanner MS 73, fol. 236. We owe this latter reference to Nicholas Tyacke. See also LaRocca, J. L., “‘Who Can't Pray with Me, Can't Love Me’: Toleration and Early Jacobean Recusancy Policy,” Journal of British Studies 23, no. 2 (1984): 22–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 Patterson, passim.

54 Both Robert Cecil and Archbishop Hutton of York subscribed to this view (PRO, SP 14/10/64, 66).

55 A Letter written from Paris by the Lord Cardinall of Peron, to Monsr. Casaubon in England (St. Omer, 1610), pp. 39–45Google Scholar; The Answere of Master Isaac Casaubon to the Epistle of the most Illustrious and most Reverend Cardinal Peron (1612), p. 28Google Scholar. We owe both these references to Johann Somerville.

56 McIlwain, ed., pp. 149–50; Spain and the Jacobean Catholics, vol. 2, 1613–1624, ed. Loomie, A. J., Catholic Record Society, 68 (1978), p. 146 (hereafter cited as 1613–1624)Google Scholar. See his comment in ca. 1601–2: “I will never agree that any should die for error in faith against the first table, but I think they should not be permitted to committ works of rebellion against the second table” (Bruce, J., ed., Correspondence of King James VI of Scotland with Sir Robert Cecil and others in England, Camden Society, 1st ser., vol. 78 [1861], p. 37)Google Scholar. We are grateful to Robert Beddard for alerting us to this correspondence.

57 See, e.g., the attitude of Archbishop Abbot, who referred to Catholics in 1608 as “vassals of the Antichrist … and … adorers of the beast” (Abbot, George, “A Preface to the Reader,” in The Examinations, Arraignment & Conviction of George Sprot, by SirHart, William [1608], pp. 5–6)Google Scholar.

58 Compare his remarks in McIlwain, ed., pp. 124–26, with his statement in November 1613 that Rome was a true church and only the papal powers of deposition separated it from the English church, an opinion that offended, among others, Abbot and Ellesmere (Loomie, ed., pp. 15–16).

59 Hakewill, George, An Answere to a Treatise written by Dr Carier by way of a letter to his Maiestie (1616), sigs. a3, a3ivGoogle Scholar; pp. 20–21.

60 See Sec. VI below.

61 McIlwain, ed., pp. 275, 323, 341; Larkin and Hughes, eds. (n. 7 above), 1:70–73, 142–45, 245–50, 591–93.

62 Hakewill, pp. 37–38; McIlwain, ed., p. 341.

63 Dures, A., English Catholicism, 1558–1642 (1983), pp. 40–42Google Scholar.

64 See his remark early in the reign: “Na, na, gud faiyth, we's not need the papists noo” (quoted in Collinson, , “The Jacobean Religious Settlement” [n. 11 above], p. 28Google Scholar).

65 “King James and the English Puritans” (n. 3 above), p. 407.

66 Patterson (n. 52 above), p. 268.

67 Howell, T. B., ed., A Complete Collection of State Trials (1816), 2:267–68, 337, 344Google Scholar. An extended version of Northampton's speech was printed later that year (STC, 11618).

68 Peck, L. L., Northampton: Patronage and Policy at the Court of James I (1982), pp. 6–22Google Scholar.

69 McIlwain, ed., p. 285.

70 Ibid., pp. 71–72.

71 Dures, pp. 45–51.

72 Larkin and Hughes, eds. (n. 7 above), 1:245–50; Notestein et al., eds. (n. 6 above), 4:74.

73 Dures, pp. 40–54.

74 Aveling, J. C. H., The Handle and the Axe (1976), pp. 124–25Google Scholar; Loomie, A. J., “A Jacobean Crypto-Catholic: Lord Wotton,” Catholic Historical Review 53 (1967): 328–45Google Scholar.

75 Birch, T., ed., The Court & Times of James the First (1848), 1:45–46Google Scholar; Spain and the Jacobean Catholics, vol. 1, 1603–1612, ed. Loomie, A. J., Catholic Record Society, 64 (1973), p. 157Google Scholar.

76 Peck, p. 82; McClure, N. E., ed., The Letters of John Chamberlain (Philadelphia, 1939), 1:390, 396Google Scholar; PRO, SP 14/90/24. In 1618, Abbot remarked that Northampton's conformity had been only nominal, for “in truth he was never freed from that his old leaven” (PRO, SP 105/95/43v). We owe our knowledge of this latter correspondence to Simon Adams.

77 See Sec. IV above; Foster, A. W., “A Biography of Archbishop Richard Neile, 1562–1642” (D.Phil, diss., Oxford University, 1978), pp. 35–36, 74Google Scholar; Collinson, , Godly People (n. 17 above), pp. 489–90Google Scholar. Foster notes (pp. 131–32) that, when Neile took up James's distinction between moderate and radical Catholics in the parliament of 1621, he was denounced as a friend to the papists.

78 Tyacke (n. 48 above), p. 125; Somerville, J. P., “Jacobean Political Thought and the Controversy over the Oath of Allegiance” (Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1981), pp. 53–72Google Scholar.

79 Fuller, Thomas, The Church History of Britain, from the birth of Jesus Christ until the year MDCXLVIII, ed. Brewer, J. S. (Oxford, 1845), 5:370–74, 390–91Google Scholar; Pollard, A. W., ed., Records of the English Bible (Oxford, 1911), pp. 48, 331Google Scholar.

80 Trevor-Roper, H. R., “James I and His Bishops,” in Historical Essays (1957), pp. 130–45Google Scholar; Kautz, A. P., “The Selection of Jacobean Bishops,” in Early Stuart Studies, ed. Reinmuth, H. S. (Minneapolis, 1970), pp. 152–79Google Scholar. Kautz does suggest (p. 176) that James chose “most of the men elevated and translated in the period 1611–1619,” but he adduces no evidence to support this.

81 No single source for this assertion can be cited; it will be documented in extenso elsewhere. Laud is one distinguished example (Laud, William, Works, ed. Bliss, J. and Scott, W. [Oxford, 1853], 3:133–34)Google Scholar.

82 Isaacson, Henry, The Life & Death of Lancelot Andrewes (1829), p. 32Google Scholar; Bodl., Carte MS 74, fol. 361; HMC, 9 Hatfield House XX, pp. 86–87.

83 PRO, SP 14/109/60, 144.

84 PRO, SP 14/61/107; Welsby, P. A., George Abbot: The Unwanted Archbishop (1962), pp. 35–37Google Scholar.

85 Welsby, pp. 19–20, 30–33, 39; Calderwood, David, History of the Kirk of Scotland, ed. Thomson, T. (Edinburgh, 1845), 7:152Google Scholar. In 1615 John Howson claimed that Bancroft had regarded Abbot as a Puritan for his opposition to the restoration of the cross (PRO, SP 14/80/113). We owe this reference to Nicholas Tyacke. A similar gesture was made by Bishop Morton of Chester, who missed preferment to Lincoln in 1617 because of his leniency with Puritan nonconformists. In order to win back royal favor, Morton published a defense of ceremonial conformity the following year, and as the book went to press, he was promoted to Coventry and Lichfield (Mayor, ed. [n. 39 above], p. 17; Morton [n. 39 above]; McClure, ed., 2:163).

86 Heylyn, Peter, Cyprianus Anglicus (1668), pp. 62–64Google Scholar; Trevor-Roper, pp. 135–36; Welsby, p. 38; Kautz, pp. 178–79.

87 See Sec. II above.

88 Somerville, J. P., “The Royal Supremacy and Episcopacy Iure Divino, 1603–1660,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 34 (1983): 548–58Google Scholar. For evidence that James monitored the writings of his divines on these controversies, see the correspondence between James Mountagu and Isaac Casaubon in BL, Burney MS 365, fols. 229–38.

89 Grayson, C., “James I and the Religious Crisis in the United Provinces, 1613–19,” in Reform and the Reformation: England and the Continent, c. 1500–1750, ed. Baker, D. (Oxford, 1979), pp. 195–219Google Scholar.

90 Cardwell (n. 16 above), p. 181.

91 Memorials of Affairs of State … from the original papers of … Sir Ralph Winwood (1725), 3:459Google Scholar.

92 See, e.g., Clarke, A., “Dr Plume's Notebook,” Essex Review (Colchester) 15 (1906): 20Google Scholar; McClure, ed., 1:295. James also bullied Andrewes into writing a defense of the Oath of Allegiance (McClure, ed., 1:264).

93 PRO, SP 105/95/4r, 28v; Andrewes, Lancelot, Works, ed. Bliss, J. (Oxford, 1841), 3:32, 328Google Scholar.

94 PRO, SP 105/95/16r, and SP 14/109/60.

95 Tyacke (n. 48 above), p. 120.

96 Tyacke, ibid., pp. 126–27, 130–31, and “Arminianism and English Culture,” in Britain and the Netherlands, 7, ed. A. C. Duke and C. A. Tamse (The Hague, 1981), pp. 95–96, 98.

97 PRO, SP 105/95/9v. See also PRO, SP 14/89/35.

98 BL, Add. MS 39948, fol. 184r.

99 Howell (n. 67 above), 2:806–50, esp. 815, 817, 823–24, 827, 829, 833–45.

100 Ibid., pp. 809,821.

101 Ibid., pp. 829–30; McClure, ed., 1:478.

102 Howell, 2:834–45. Neile, Buckeridge, and Andrewes were anti-Calvinists who counted on the support of the crypto-Catholic Northampton and “the house of Suffolk,” no friends of Abbot (ibid., p. 839).

103 Heylyn (n. 86 above), pp. 54, 60–61, 66–67; Laud (n. 81 above), 3:133–35.

104 PRO, SP 14/80/113; Memorials of Affairs of State … (n. 91 above), 3:459Google Scholar; PRO, SP 105/95/4r, 28v.

105 Ball (n. 51 above), pp. 45–56.

106 PRO, SP 14/80/113. We hope to print this document elsewhere.

107 For an analysis of John Howson's stormy rule as vice-chancellor of Oxford in 1602–3, see Dent (n. 17 above), pp. 208–18.

108 See Sec. IV above.

109 See Sec. V above.

110 This attitude may account for James's willingness to listen to accusations of Sabbatarianism leveled at Morton of Chester in 1617, which ended with the publication of the Book of Sports (Barwick, John, The fight, victory and triumph of S. Paul, accommodated to the right reverend father in God Thomas late L. Bishop of Duresme [1660], pp. 80–82)Google Scholar.

111 See, e.g., Calendar of State Papers, Domestic (CSPD), 1611–18, pp. 148, 178–79, 221, 227, 285, 303, 315, 320–21, 458, 485, 495.

112 Joseph Hall made this point in a famous letter to Laud: “To day you are in the tents of the Romanists, tomorrow in ours … our adversaries think you ours, we theirs” (Heylyn, pp. 54–55).

113 Howson, John, Certaine Sermons made in Oxford, Anno. Dom. 1616. Wherein, is proved, that Saint Peter had no Monarchicall Power over the rest of the Apostles, against Bellarmine, Sanders, Stapleton, & the rest of that Companie. Published by Commandement (1622)Google Scholar.

114 DWL, RNC 38.34, pp. 188–98; Featley, Daniel, Cygnea Canlio: or learned decisions … delivered by … King James … a few weekes before his death (1629), p. 38Google Scholar. For James's similar role in balancing court faction in pursuit of the Spanish match, see Schreiber, R. E., The Political Career of Sir Robert Naunton, 1589–1635 (1981), pp. 68–88Google Scholar.

115 Bancroft patronized both Arminians such as Samuel Harsnett and William Barlow and strict Calvinists such as Robert Abbot and Thomas Ravis.

116 This argument should be put alongside Patrick Collinson's emphasis of the stability of the church in the dioceses under Abbot (The Religion of Protestants [n. 50 above], pp. 89–90, 283).

117 Adams, S. L., “Foreign Policy and the Parliaments of 1621 and 1624,” in Sharpe, , ed. (n. 46 above), p. 147Google Scholar.

118 Patterson, W. B., “King James I and the Protestant Cause in the Crisis of 1618–22,” in Studies in Church History, 18, ed. Mews, S. (Oxford, 1982), pp. 319–34Google Scholar.

119 PRO, SP 14/113/33–34. Abbot organized the clerical benevolence, but James appointed Neile and Andrewes as his assistants, presumably to check his zeal. We owe this point to Andrew Foster.

120 PRO, SP 14/118/39; Larkin and Hughes, eds. (n. 7 above), 1:495–96, 519–21.

121 PRO, SP 14/118/39, 120/13, 122/46, 123/105, 129/35–36; Birch, ed. (n. 75 above), 2:226, 232, 237, 265–67; Roberts, G., ed., Diary of Walter Yonge Esq., Camden Society, 1st ser., vol. 41 (1847), p. 41Google Scholar; Camden, William, “The annals of King James I,” in A Complete History of England (1706), 2:654, 658Google Scholar; Ball (n. 51 above), pp. 59–60; Lake, P. G., “Constitutional Concensus and Puritan Opposition in the 1620s: Thomas Scott and the Spanish Match,” Historical Journal 25 (1982): 805–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

122 Loomie, ed., 1613–1624 (n. 56 above), p. 145; BL, loan MS 29/202, fol. 52. We owe this latter reference to Clive Holmes.

123 PRO, SP 14/129/58, 62; 130/106, 138–39; Birch, ed., 2:329–30.

124 Cardwell, Edward, Documentary Annals of the Reformed Church of England (Oxford, 1839), 2:146–54Google Scholar; see Hacket's, John analysis in Scrinia Reserata: a memorial offered to the great deservings of John Williams (1693), 1:86–90Google Scholar.

125 PRO, SP 14/137/27; 142/8, 22; 153/20, 38; Hacket, p. 90.

126 McIlwain, ed. (n. 13 above), p. 6.

127 PRO, SP 14/112/10; à Wood, Anthony, Athenae Oxonienses, ed. Bliss, P. (1815), 2:529Google Scholar.

128 Dictionary of National Biography (DNB), s.v. “Matthew Sutcliffe”; Roberts, ed., p. 41; Camden, p. 657.

129 STC, 12610, 12618; Hakewill, George, The auncient ecclesiasticall practise of confirmation confirmed by arguments (1613), p. 9Google Scholar, and King Davids vow for reformation of himselfe, his family, his kingdome (1621), sig. A3ir; PRO, SP 14/122/46, 48; CSPD, 1611–18, p. 160; Camden, p. 658.

130 Weldon, Anthony, The court and character of King James. Whereunto is now added the court of King Charles (1651), pp. 217–18Google Scholar; Welsby (n. 84 above), pp. 108–10; Hacket, 1:143. Among the clergy imprisoned for their public disapproval of the match were three other royal chaplains—Andrew Willet, Daniel Price, and Thomas Winniffe (DNB, s.v. “Andrew Willet”; Birch, ed., 2:265–67; PRO, SP 14/129/35).

131 See, e.g., Downame's, John commendation of Archbishop Abbot in A Guide to Godlynesse (1622), sig. A4Google Scholar.

132 Loomie, ed., 1613–1624 (n. 56 above), p. 113.

133 Birch, ed., 1:447; PRO, SP 14/122/46.

134 HMC, 9 Hatfield House XVII, p. 271; Heylyn (n. 86 above), p. 125.

135 For young, see Ball (n. 51 above), pp. 53, 64; Richard Neile, M. Ant. De Dnis Arch-Bishop of Spalato, his shiftings in Religion (1624), passim; for Montaigne, see Ornsby, G., ed., The correspondence of John Cosin, D.D. Lord Bishop of Durham, Surtees Society, 52 (1869), 1:100Google Scholar; DNB, s.v. “John Young.”

136 Laud (n. 81 above), 3:136, 151–53; Eagle (Cambridge) 17 (1893): 147Google Scholar; PRO, SP 14/137/5.

137 Hacket, 1:97; PRO, SP 14/122/94; Welsby, pp. 94–95.

138 Tyacke, , “Puritanism, Arminianism and Counter-revolution” (n. 48 above), pp. 131–32Google Scholar.

139 Mountagu, Richard, A Gagg for the new gospell? No: A New Gagg for an old Goose (1624)Google Scholar (hereafter cited as A New Gagg), and Appello Caesarem: a iust appeale from two iniust informers (1625).

140 CSPD, 1611–18, p. 552.

141 Mountagu, , “To the Reader,” in A New Gagg, pp. 110, 157–72 (esp. pp. 158, 171), 177–88, 323–25Google Scholar.

142 Of the forty-seven allegedly Anglican doctrines cited by the Gagger, Mountagu admitted eight or nine belonged to the English church. He claimed that moderate men on both sides could reach agreement on many of the points at issue if the extremists (both Puritans and Jesuits) could be silenced. (See “To the Reader,” pp. 50, 269–70, 319–21, and also Appello Caesarem, pp. 15, 110, 204.)

143 Mountagu's denial that the pope was Antichrist took up James's earlier pronouncements and suited his present polemical needs (A New Gagg, pp. 73–77).

144 Patterson, W. B., “The Peregrinations of Marco Antonio de Dominis, 1616–24,” in Studies in Church History, 15, ed. Baker, D. (Oxford, 1978), pp. 242, 248–52Google Scholar. See also Malcolm, N., De Dominis (1560—1624): Venetian, Anglican, Ecumenist and Relapsed Heretic (1984)Google Scholar. Neile refuted the rumor that de Dominis was acting as James's envoy to the pope in his published account of the defection while making no attempt to conceal de Dominis's complaints against “over-strict Calvinists” among the bishops. We owe this point to Andrew Foster. (Neile, pp. 2, 11–13, 48.)

145 A Treatise, written by M. Doctor Carier, wherein he layeth downe sundry learned and pithy considerations, by which he was moved, to forsake the Protestant congregation, and to betake himselfe to the Catholike Apostolike Roman Church (Brussels, 1614), pp. 3–5, 19–24, 27, 29–31Google Scholar.

146 Loomie, ed., 1613–1624 (n. 56 above), p. 14. A Treatise written by M. Doctor Carier …, pp. 5–6, 14, 36. In 1615, John Howson claimed that Archbishops Abbot and King of London had effectively hounded Carier out of the English church (PRO, SP 14/80/113).

147 Shriver, , “The Ecclesiastical Policy of James I” (n. 15 above), pp. 195–98Google Scholar. According to the Spanish ambassador, there were at least five other royal chaplains with views similar to those of Carier (Loomie, ed., 1613–1624, p. 14).

148 Ornsby, ed. (n. 135 above), 1:27–29, 65–66; Bodl., Rawlinson MS C 573.

149 Mountagu, , Appello Caesarem, pp. 6–7, 25, 39, 41–42, 44–45, 60, 72, 111, 118, 142, 305, 308Google Scholar.

150 The Arminian nature and novelty of many of Mountagu's opinions have been recently questioned by Peter White. It is clear that Mountagu's personal views came closest to the remonstrant position on the doctrine of perseverance, although he was careful to distance himself and the English church from their opinions. To do otherwise, in the light of the king's support for the counterremonstrant cause at and after Dort, would have been foolhardy. The novelty lay in Mountagu's combination of an established anti-Puritan rhetoric that went back to Whitgift and Bancroft with a more risky and marginal anti-Calvinism. (White, P., “The Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered,” Past and Present 101 [1983]: 36, n. 9, 45–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar)

151 Lake, P. G., “The Elizabethan Settlement,” in Queen Elizabeth I: Most Politick Princess, ed. Adams, S. L., History Today Special (1984), pp. 16–19Google Scholar.

152 Wormald (n. 27 above), pp. 187–209.

153 DWL, RNC 38.34, p. 191.

154 See his triumphant letter to Northampton at the close of the conference (Cardwell, , A History of Conferences … [n. 16 above], pp. 160–61Google Scholar).

155 Ashton, Collinson, The Religion of Protestants (n. 50 above), pp. 89–90, 283Google Scholar; Robert, , The English Civil War: Conservatism and Revolution (1978), p. 110Google Scholar.