We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 September 2015
This article is concerned with one aspect of movement between religions in England at the end of the Jacobean period, namely the polemical use which could be made of the convert to Protestantism. The increasing likelihood of a successful conclusion of the Spanish Match negotiations had for some time been threatening the Protestant Establishment. In this climate, prominent changes of religion were of great interest to polemicists of both sides. As in Elizabeth’s reign, Protestants could attack the Church of Rome by focusing on the apostates from it. The point of reference from which this polemical use of conversion will be analysed is the best-selling vitriolic anti-Catholic tract written by the wavering Protestant minister John Gee, entitled The Foot out of the Snare. Gee is familiar to modern historians as a source on Roman Catholic priests in the 1620s but he is important also for the way in which he was employed as an anti-Catholic writer. His tract originated with the clerical group which gathered around Archbishop Abbot, clerics distinguished by their violent opposition to encroaching Roman Catholicism, evident in the likely success of the Spanish Marriage project and the conversions which had started to occur as the political climate changed. Gee’s tract may be used as a starting point to explore some of the politics and literature of conversion at this time.
1 Richardson, R. C., Puritanism in north-west England (Manchester, 1972), pp. 28–9 Google Scholar, 67, suggests that John Gee before his conversion to Catholicism behaved like one of the godly; Harmsen, T. H. B. M., John Gee’s Foot out of the Snare (1624) (Nijmegen, 1992), p. 39 Google Scholar. Harmsen’s work is the fullest study of Gee’s tract and its political and religious context. It appeared just as this article was going to press.
2 Born in 1596, John Gee was the son of John Gee, the holder of the benefice of Dunsford in Devonshire. Two uncles were also clerics, DNB, sub Gee, John, and Gee, Edward.
3 Gee, p. 95. Gee mentions ‘those of the Popish faction, who were my Inciters, Abetters, or Confederates’, Gee, p. 95. Horne alleged that the intention was that one Thomas Dakin should ‘again gain the possession of the said Parsonage house … awarded to [Josiah Horne]’and that Gee should be presented in his place, Public Record Office, Stac. Proc. 8/175/19/7. For the disputes in Winwick before 1623, see M. H. Curtis, ‘The Trials of a Puritan in Jacobean Lancashire’, in The Dissenting Tradition, eds C. R. Cole and M. E. Moody, (Athens, 1975), pp. 78–99.
4 Gee, sig. Alr; he says he has been in contact with London Catholics for at least seven months, Gee, p. 87.
5 The fullest account is in Gouge, William, The Extent of Gods Providence (London, 1631)Google Scholar STC 12116.
6 Gee, sig. Alr; Goad wrote that Gee, having been dragged from the debris, ‘presently returned and used his best strength to draw others out of that snare, which he himself had newly broken … of which fair escape I hope, he will make good use, and often call to mind our Saviour’s caveat, (which since in my hearing hath been rung in his ears) “Vade et ne pecca amplius’”, T.G., The Dolefull Even-Song (London, 1623)Google Scholar STC 11923, sigs Elv-E2r; cf Gee, sig. Alr.
7 Cogswell, T., The Blessed Revolution (Cambridge, 1989), p. 288 Google Scholar; Gee, sigs A3r, A4r, cf. p. 94.
8 PRO, SP 14/131/24, 2 June 1622; for the debates organised to effect the Countess’ reconversion, see Wadkins, T. H., ‘The Percy-“Fisher” Controversies and the Ecclesiastical Politics of Jacobean Anti-Catholicism, 1622–1625’, Church History, 57 (1988), pp. 153–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 British Library, Lansdowne MS. 849, no. 3, fo. 10v; his brother, John Viscount Purbeck, converted at this time, Foley, 7, p. 1099.
10 Bodleian Library, Rawlinson MS. D 47, fos lr, 15r.
11 Wadkins, p. 156; Bodleian, Rawlinson MS. D 853, fo. 172, Richard Corbet to the Marquis of Buckingham; Buckingham’s wife had also converted to Catholicism, BL, Lansdowne MS. 849, no. 3, fo. 9v
12 PRO, SP 14/96/51, 7 March 1618. Two months later Sir Lewis Lewkenor went to Gondomar’s chaplain to be reconciled, Spain and the Jacobean Catholics 1613–1624, ed. A. J. Loomie (CRS 68, 1978), nos. 37, 38.
13 Ibidem, no. 41, 24 September 1618.
14 Ibidem, no. 51, 18 February 1621.
15 PRO, SP 14/143/22.
16 Foley, 7, pp. 1098–9; this is a far larger number than is recorded after 1623 (even though it did contain converts from previous years).
17 Spain and the Jacobean Catholics, Appendix 3, ‘The “Directions” of James I for Anglican Services in Spain’, 10 March 1623; PRO, SP 14/142/38; Prynne, William, The Popish Royall Favourite (London, 1643) Wing p. 4039, p. 45 Google Scholar. Attempts had been made in Spain to get Charles to convert, BL, Harleian MS. 3888, fo. 9r.
18 Cogswell, T., ‘England and the Spanish Match’, in Conflict in Early Stuart England, eds R. Cust and A. Hughes (London, 1989), pp. 107–33, at p. 118.Google Scholar
19 PRO, SP 14/122/46, 28 July 1621; DNB, sub Hakewill, George; he had been appointed originally to prevent Prince Charles being subject to Roman Catholic influences, Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1611–1618, p. 160; for the tract, see Bodleian, Rawlinson MS. D 853, for. 111r.
20 BL, Harleian MS. 6987, no. 66, fo. 123v.
21 E.g., PRO, SP 14/70/11, 52.
22 Russell, C., Parliaments and English Politics 1621–1629 (Oxford, 1979), p. 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23 Russell, , Parliaments, p. 148 Google Scholar; Cogswell, , The Blessed Revolution, pp. 118–19, 129 Google Scholar; A True Historical Relation of the Conversion of Sir Tobie Matthew, ed. A. H. Mathew (London, 1904), pp. xi–xii.
24 Featley, Daniel, Cygnea Cantio (London, 1629) STC 10731, p. 15.Google Scholar
25 On 28 June 1612 they made a public recantation at the Italian Church in London. But, to the intense annoyance of those exploiting them, they changed their minds about their new ecclesiastical setting, PRO, SP 14/68/103; SP 14/69/71;SP 14/70/l;SP 14/72/39;SP 14/76/9, 18. Efforts were also made to induce Paolo Sarpi and Fulgentio Micanzio, the anti-papal Venetian clerics, to break with the Catholic Church completely, BL, Lansdowne MS. 90, nos 54, 66; cf. Malcolm, N., De Dominis (London, 1984), pp. 37–8.Google Scholar
26 A Declaration of the Reasons (Edinburgh, 1617) STC 6999, p. 4; Neile, Richard, Marcus Antonius De Dominis … his Shiftings in Religion (London, 1624) STC 18421, p. 73.Google Scholar
27 AAW, A, XI, p. 83; AAW, Old Brotherhood MSS, 1, no. 31; PRO, SP 14/81/59. ii and 70.
28 AAW, A, XII, p. 486.
29 PRO, SP 14/76/9.
30 Featley, Daniel, The Fisher Catched in his owne Net (1623)Google Scholar STC 10732; the printing of Abbot’s contribution to the 1620s visibility debate, A Treatise of the Perpetuali Visibilitie and Succession, of the True Church in all Ages (London, 1624) STC 39, was probably Featley’s own project since he wrote the preface, Bodleian, Rawlinson MS. D 47, fos 3v–4v. The work was lifted out of Abbot’s reply to Thomas Hill, of 1604, The Reasons which Doctour Hill hath brought (STC 37), see Fincham, K. C., ‘Prelacy and Politics: Archbishop Abbot’s Defence of Protestant Orthodoxy’, Historical Research, 61 (1988), pp. 36–64 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 58. At the end, to emphasise the purpose of the reprinting, there is added, ‘The Lord direct us in his own ways, and call home such as wilfully, or by ignorance, have gone astray’, Abbot, A Treatise, p. 116. It was produced by Featley’s publisher, Myibourne.
31 Musgrave, Christopher, Musgraves Motives (London, 1621)Google Scholar STC 18316. The title describes Musgrave as having just returned to England, thus suggesting a recent conversion; yet it appears that his pardon, following conversion, was granted in May 1608, CSPD 1603–1610, p. 431.
32 Texeda, Ferdinand, Texeda Retextus (London, 1623)Google Scholar STC 23923. Admittedly, Texeda assisted in translating the English Liturgy into Spanish, PRO, SP 14/154/87; Spain and the Jacobean Catholics, Appendix 3, p. 185, but he attached himself to Secretary Conway, who, despite his loyalty to Buckingham, had strongly Protestant and pro-Dutch sympathies, Cogswell, , The Blessed Revolution, pp. 80–1, 88–92.Google Scholar
33 Bodleian, Rawlinson MS. D 47, fos 32v–3r.
34 Texeda, Texeda Retextus, sig. A4r.
35 It also has a clear anti-Spanish tinge, Texeda Retextus, p. 24.
36 T.G., The Dolefull Even-Song, sig. D2v.
37 Gee, sig. 14r.
38 Bodleian, Tanner MS. 290, fo. 49r; Richard Sheldon also dealt with it; detail on Newton is supplied by Harmsen, John Gee’s Foot out of the Snare, pp. 182–3.
39 Gee, pp. 39–40; AAW, A, XII, p. 309; Gee, p. 60; Anstruther, G., The Seminary Priests, 4 vols, (Ware and Great Wakering, 1968–77), 2, p. 143.Google Scholar
40 For other convert tracts, of a type similar to Gee’s and printed by Myibourne, see Robinson, Thomas, The Anatomie of the English Nunnery at Lisbon in Portugall (London, 1623)Google Scholar STC 21124, and Owen, Lewis, The Running Register (London, 1626)Google Scholar STC 18996. Both Myibourne and Featley were attacked by William Laud and Richard Neile in 1625 for their collusion in producing two nonconformist Protestant tracts, Featley, Cygnea Cantio, pp. 2–15, 39–41.
41 Alumni Oxonienses, ed. J. Foster (Liechtenstein, 1968), 1, p. 555; Harmsen, , John Gee’s Foot out of the Snare, p. 55.Google Scholar
42 This was later published as A Sermon preached at Paules Crosse: laying open the Beast, and his Marks (London, 1625) STC 22398.
43 P. Lake, ‘Anti-popery: the Structure of a Prejudice’, in Conflict in Early Stuart England, eds Cust and Hughes, p. 98.
44 PRO, Stac. Proe. 8/175/19/7.
45 Gee says he has been subject to the accusation ‘that the book is none of my writing’, but rejects such slander, Gee, p. 100.
46 Clarke, Thomas, The Recantation of Thomas Clarke (London, 1594)Google Scholar STC 5366, sigs Bvir–viv; Price, Daniel, The Defence of Truth (Oxford, 1610) STC 20292, p. 322 Google Scholar; King, Henry, A Sermon of Deliverance (London, 1626) STC 14968, p. 70.Google Scholar
47 Gee, p. 92.
48 Gee, p. 6.
49 R. Clifton, ‘Fear of Popery’, The Origins of the English Civil War, ed. C. Russell (London, 1973), pp. 144–67, at pp. 146, 148.
50 Harsnet attacked the exorcisms organised by the Jesuit William Weston in 1585–6, practices which had had the additional effect of converting spectators; for Gee’s extensive use of Harsnet and Sheldon, see Harmsen, John Gee’s Foot out of the Snare.
51 Gee, pp. 1–3, 12, 21, 25–6, sig. L2r, chapter eleven.
52 Gee, pp. 1, 25, 62, 23.
53 Cf. Clarke, The Recantation, sig. Bv; Sheldon, Richard, The Motives of Richard Sheldon (London, 1612)Google Scholar STC 22397, sig *1r; Higgons, Theophilus, Mystical Babylon (London, 1624)Google Scholar STC 13455; Gage, Thomas, The Tyranny of Satan (London, 1642) Wing G 116, p. 24.Google Scholar
54 Something Written by occasion. … (London, 1623), pp. 6–7; the author of this tract, unlike Gee, seems almost to deny that Catholics, as the agents of Antichrist, can be converted at all, ibidem, p. 28.
55 Gee, sig Av.
56 Marcus Antonius de Dominis Archbishop of Spalato, Declares the cause of his Returne, out of England (St. Omer, 1623) STC 7000, A&R 272, pp. 43–4; high church divines like Richard Corbet did not doubt that Rome was rife with superstition, and he used it to try and dispel Buckingham’s doubts about the Church of England, Bodleian, Rawlinson MS. D 583, fo. 175r. Cf. Milton, A., ‘The Laudians and the Church of Rome c. 1625–1640’ (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1989), p. 82.Google Scholar
57 Gee, p. 13.
58 E.g., Gee, pp. 44–5, sig. L2r, sig. K4v.
59 Gee, p. 75.
60 Ibidem.
61 Gee, pp. 39–41; Anstruther, , The Seminary Priests, 2, pp. 37–8.Google Scholar
62 The Friers Chronicle (London, 1623) STC 11510, sigs. Blr–v.
63 Gee, p. 92.
64 Principally between sigs E2r and Nlv.
65 Gee, p. 34; exorcism was a recognised part of the Catholic missioners’ campaign to make converts, Bossy, J., The English Catholic Community (London, 1975), p. 266.Google Scholar
66 Gee, sig. L1r.
67 E.g., the attempt to convert one Francis Netlam, Gee, pp. 73–5. Almost the entire ‘Gentle Excuse’ to Musket is concerned with such instances of clerical conversion activity, as is much of New Shreds of an Old Snare (London, 1624) STC 11706, Gee’s sequei to his first tract.
68 Bellarmine, Robert, Disputationes Roberti Bellarmini, 4 vols, (Ingoldstadt, 1590),Google Scholar 2, bk. IV, ch. 4.
69 Bodleian, Jones MS. 53, no. 3, fos 230r–1r.
70 Vane, Thomas, A Lost Sheep Returned Home (Paris, 1649) Wing V 85, pp. 71–2.Google Scholar
71 Vane, pp. 256–9; cf. Pickford, John, The Safeguard from Ship-wracke (Douai, 1618)Google Scholar STC 19073, A&R 647; Pickford thinks Hartwell is significant because, despite his Protestant prejudices, Hartwell ‘confesses’ that this conversion of Congo [in his Report of the Kingdome of Congo (London, 1597) STC 16805] was accomplished (by massing priests) and after the Romish manner’ (including miracles), Picford, , The Safegarde, p. 253.Google Scholar
72 Justus Lipsius, J. Lipsii Diva Virgo Hallensis … (1604); Justi Lipsii Diva Sichemiensis sive Aspricolli … (1605).
73 Numan, P., Miracles Lately Wrought (Antwerp, 1606)Google Scholar STC 18746, A&R 577, sig. A4r.
74 Milward, P., Religious Controversies of the Jacobean Age (Scolar Press, 1978), pp. 143–7, 216–27.Google Scholar
75 John Floyd scored a polemical point by discussing the hopes of salvation for the Protestants who were present, A Word of Comfort (St. Omer, 1623) STC 11118, A&R 333, p. 34f.
76 He claims to have already reconverted John Mathew, a grandson of Archbishop Mathew, through a demonstration of Catholic fraud, Gee, sigs L3v-4r; cf. Mathew, A. H., The Life of Sir Tobie Matthew (London, 1897), pp. 271–2 Google Scholar, suggesting that Gee’s success with Mathew was only temporary.
77 Gee, pp. 21, 98.
