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: 30 October 2017
At the beginning of James I's reign, a petition campaign, the Hampton Court conference, numerous tracts, and considerable effort in Parliament all failed to overcome the king's adamant defense of the forms and practices of his episcopal church. In a milieu of deprivations and perception of declension, Henry Jacob, one of the organizers of the petitioning, denounced the illegitimacy and dangers of prelatical church government in several tracts between 1604 and 1609, advocated congregationalism, and outlined the basis for a second conference to bring continuing religious disputes to a close. In 1609, having achieved no success, Jacob turned away from scriptural arguments for reform and instead boldly adopted the novel reason-of-state political language to request “toleration” for politically loyal nonconforming Protestants. Jacob relied on “axioms of pollicie” and recent examples to demonstrate that necessity sometimes determined that toleration, while unpalatable, was the most prudent political course (as the new language had it). James's handwritten marginalia on this tract reveal his continuing antipathy toward any reform he believed derogated from his monarchical “interest.” The variety of arguments Jacob employed illustrates both the difficulties facing early Jacobean reformers and the often-unrecognized degree of flexibility and development in their thought and tactics. In asking for toleration as a royal favor, Jacob also illustrates the seventeenth-century nonconformist dilemma of achieving desired ends through doubtful means.
1 The classic account of this is Collinson, Patrick, The Religion of Protestants: The Church in English Society 1559–1625 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982)Google Scholar; also Collinson, , “The Jacobean Religious Settlement: The Hampton Court Conference,” in Before the English Civil War: Essays on Early Stuart Politics and Government, ed. Tomlinson, Howard (London: Macmillan, 1983), 27–51 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See, similarly, Fincham, Kenneth and Lake, Peter, “The Ecclesiastical Policy of King James I,” Journal of British Studies 24, no. 2 (April 1985): 169–207 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Croft, Pauline, King James (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 158–159; Patterson, W. B., King James VI and I and the Reunion of Christendom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 48Google Scholar; Fincham, Kenneth and Lake, Peter, “The Ecclesiastical Policy of James I and Charles I,” in The Early Stuart Church, 1603–1642, ed. Fincham, Kenneth (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1993): 32CrossRefGoogle Scholar, though they also refer to James's “divide and rule” policy (on 33); and Lake, Peter, “Introduction: Puritanism, Arminianism and Nicholas Tyacke,” in Religious Politics in Post-Reformation England: Essays in Honour of Nicholas Tyacke, ed. Fincham, Kenneth and Lake, Peter (London: Boydell, 2006), 1–15 Google Scholar, esp. 10–11.
2 See especially the articles in Guy, John, ed., The Reign of Elizabeth I: Court and Culture in the Last Decade (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Doelman, James, “‘A King of Thine Own Heart’: The English Reception of King James VI and I's Basilikon Doron ,” The Seventeenth Century 9, no. 1 (Spring 1994): 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cromartie, Alan, The Constitutionalist Revolution: An Essay on the History of England, 1450–1642 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 158–159 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Ferrell, Lori Ann, Government by Polemic: James I, the King's Preachers, and the Rhetorics of Conformity, 1603–1625 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998)Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Government).
3 The ideas of a Calvinist “consensus” owe much to the work of Tyacke, Nicholas, especially his “Puritanism, Arminianism and Counter-Revolution,” in The Origins of the English Civil War, ed. Russell, Conrad (London: Palgrave, 1973): 119–143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; further developed in his Anti-Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism c. 1590–1640 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987)Google Scholar. Tyacke published a critique of his critics’ work in “Anglican Attitudes: Some Recent Writings on English Religious History from the Reformation to the Civil War,” Journal of British Studies 35, no. 2 (April 1996): 139–167 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Collinson, Patrick reverted to the idea of “dominance” in place of “consensus” in The Puritan Character: Polemics and Polarities in Early Seventeenth-Century English Culture (Los Angeles: W. A. Clark Memorial Library, 1989), 13Google Scholar, 15. The idea of “dissensus” is in Winship, Michael, “Weak Christians, Backsliders, and Carnal Gospelers: Assurance of Salvation and the Pastoral Origins of Puritan Practical Divinity in the 1580s,” Church History 70, no. 3 (September 2001): 462–481 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This builds on earlier work by Ferrell, who denied James was attempting to establish a locus of “religious consensus” in Government, 6.
4 See Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, s.v. “Jacob, Henry.” There is much material in Brachlow, Stephen, The Communion of Saints: Radical Puritans and Separatist Ecclesiology 1570–1625 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988)Google Scholar and in Brachlow, , “The Elizabethan Roots of Henry Jacob's Churchmanship: Refocusing the Historiographical Lens,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 36, (1985): 228–253 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 233–237. See also Rohr, John von, “The Congregationalism of Henry Jacob,” Transactions of the Congregational Historical Society 19, no. 3 (1962): 107–117Google Scholar; Duesing, Jason G., “Henry Jacob (1563–1624): Pastoral Theology and Congregational Ecclesiology,” Baptist Quarterly 43, no. 5 (2010): 284–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Collinson, Patrick, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (London: Jonathan Cape, 1967), 452–454 Google Scholar, 456–457.
5 Jacob, Henry, A treatise of the sufferings and victory of Christ (Middelburg, 1598)Google Scholar. The debate with Johnson led to Jacob, Henry, A defence of the churches and ministery of Englande [. . .] (Middelburg, 1599)Google Scholar.
6 Harleian MS6849, fol. 254, British Library (hereafter cited as BL); MS113, fol. 253, Lambeth Palace Library (hereafter cited as LPL), London. Both documents are printed in Burrage, Champlin, The Early English Dissenters in the Light of Recent Research (1550–1641) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912), 2: 146–148Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Dissenters). Babbage, Stuart Barton, Puritanism and Richard Bancroft (London: S. P. C. K., 1962), 52–53 Google Scholar.
7 Brachlow, “Elizabethan Roots,” 235.
8 HMC Report on the Mss. Of Lord Montagu of Beaulieu (London: Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, 1900), 32–40 Google Scholar (hereafter cited as HMC Beaulieu).
9 Burrage, Dissenters, 2:149–150. The petition is undated, but Burrage suggests it was written “not long before April 3, 1605” (148). In his “subscription,” dated April 4, 1605, Jacob noted that it was “allmost 3. quarters of a yeare since I published . . . Reasons taken out of Gods word” (151). See also Burrage, Champlin, “Lost Prison Papers of Henry Jacob,” The Review and Expositor 4, no. 4 (October 1907): 489–513 Google Scholar.
10 MS113, fols. 242–243, LPL. These documents are printed, in part, in Burrage, Dissenters, 2:148–153.
11 Burrage, Dissenters, 2:166. Jacob confirmed, in A Christian and Modest Offer of a Most Indifferent Conference, or Disputation [. . .] (s.l., 1606), 32, that “the Bishop of Winchester (as is well knowen) undertooke the Answer of M. Iacobs last booke.” Brachlow notes that Thomas Bilson, who knew (of) Jacob from the earlier dispute, was encouraged by Robert Cecil to reply to the Reasons, but that Bilson seems not to have published the proposed piece: Brachlow, “Elizabethan Roots,” 235n37. This seems correct but incomplete: see below, p. 721.
12 The argument may be traced back at least to Daniel Neal, The History of the Puritans [. . .] , 4 vols. (London, 1732–1738). Burrage argued in Dissenters that Jacob was not a separatist. Miler, Perry, Orthodoxy in Massachusetts: A Genetic Study (Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1933)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, generally followed Burrage. Von Rohr argued in “The Congregationalism of Henry Jacob” that Jacob had been convinced by Johnson. Brachlow suggests that Jacob had not really changed his views; he was merely reacting differently in 1604, given the resistance of the Church to reform: Brachlow, The Communion of Saints, 56–62. In chapter 6 of The Communion of Saints and in “Elizabethan Roots,” Brachlow locates Jacob in the tradition of Cartwright, Fulke, and Travers, though he does concede (“Elizabethan Roots,” 241–242) that in his Reasons, Jacob “argued along lines identical with Johnson's” and “privately embraced the same views all along.” See also Goehring, Walter R., “The Life and Death of Henry Jacob,” Hartford Quarterly 7, no. 1 (Fall 1966): 35–52 Google Scholar; Paul, Robert S., “Henry Jacob and Seventeenth-Century Puritanism,” Hartford Quarterly 7, no. 3 (Spring 1967): 92–113 Google Scholar; White, B. R., The English Separatist Tradition from the Marian Martyrs to the Pilgrim Fathers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971)Google Scholar; Tolmie, Murray, The Triumph of the Saints: The Separate Churches of London, 1616–1649 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977)Google Scholar; Yarbrough, Slayden, “The Ecclesiastical Development in Theory and Practice of John Robinson and Henry Jacob,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 5, no. 3 (Fall 1978): 183–197 Google Scholar; and Polly Ha, “Ecclesiastical Independence and the Freedom of Consent” in Freedom and the Construction of Europe, ed. Skinner, Quentin and van Gelderen, Martin, vol. 1, Religious and Constitutional Liberties (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 57–76 Google Scholar.
13 Goodare, Julian, The Government of Scotland 1560–1625 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Croft, Pauline, King James (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), 17–18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 28–30, 36–38, 41–42; Wormald, Jenny, Court, Kirk, and Community: Scotland 1470–1625 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981)Google Scholar, esp. 147–148; Patterson, W. B., King James VI and I and the Reunion of Christendom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997)Google Scholar, esp. 3–11; Ellis, Steven G., The Making of the British Isles: The State of Britain and Ireland, 1450–1660 (London: Routledge, 2013)Google Scholar, esp. 230–267, 270; Lee, Maurice Jr., “James VI and the Revival of Episcopacy in Scotland, 1596–1600,” in The Inevitable Union and Other Essays on Early Modern Scotland, ed. Lee, Maurice Jr. (East Linton: Tuckwell, 2003), 83–85 Google Scholar; J. Wormald, “Ecclesiastical Vitriol: The Kirk, The Puritans and The Future King of England,” in Guy, Reign of Elizabeth I, 171–191; and MacDonald, Alan R., “James VI and I, the Church of Scotland, and British Ecclesiastical Convergence,” The Historical Journal 48, no. 4 (2005): 887CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14 Sommerville, J. P., ed., King James VI and I: Political Writings (hereafter cited as King James) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 4–5 Google Scholar.
15 Ibid., 26–27.
16 Ibid., 30, 26–27, 44; and Rhodes, Neil, Richards, Jennifer, and Marshall, Joseph, eds., King James VI and I: Selected Writings (hereafter cited as King James Selected Writings) (Farnham: Ashgate, 2003), 225Google Scholar. In 1609, James publicly congratulated himself for having “depressed all their popular piety” in Scotland: quoted in Cromartie, Constitutionalist Revolution, 158.
17 “A Proclamation concerning such as seditiously seek reformation in church matters,” 24 October 1603, in Documentary Annals of the Reformed Church of England, ed. Cardwell, Edward (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1839), 2:43–47Google Scholar; and James to Whitgift, 29 October 1603, Additional MS38139, fol.183, BL.
18 Sommerville, King James, 22–23.
19 Rhodes, King James Selected Writings, 225 and 225n71.
20 Sommerville, King James, 27, 7, 6.
21 Ibid., 64; Cramsie, John, “The Philosophy of Imperial Kingship and the Interpretation of James VI and I,” in James VI and I: Ideas, Authority, and Government, ed. Houlbrooke, Ralph (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), 44–46 Google Scholar; J. Wormald, Court, Kirk, and Community, 147–148; Sommerville, J. P., Royalists and Patriots: Politics and Ideology in England 1603–1640 (London: Longman, 1999), 10Google Scholar, 48, 250; Sommerville, , “James I and the Divine Right of Kings: English Politics and Continental Theory,” in The Mental World of the Jacobean Court, ed. Levy, Linda Peck (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 58Google Scholar; and Lake, Peter, “The King (The Queen) and the Jesuit: James Stuart's True Law of Free Monarchies in Context/s,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 14 (2004): 243–260 Google Scholar, esp. 254–260.
22 Sommerville, King James, 73–74.
23 Ibid., 64–65, 78–79, 74.
24 “Proclamation . . . seditiously seek reformation,” in Cardwell, Documentary Annals, 2:43–47.
25 William Barlow, The Summe and Substance of the Conference . . . at Hampton Court Jan. 14, 1603 (s.l., 1604), 4 (hereafter cited as Summe).
26 Ibid., 22–23, 31–34, 35–36, 40–43.
27 Ibid., 53–54, 60–63, 69–70.
28 Cramsie, “Philosophy of Imperial Kingship,” 45, 48; and Sommerville, King James, 138.
29 John Guy, “Introduction: The 1590s: The second reign of Elizabeth I?” in Guy, Reign of Elizabeth I, 11–13 (hereafter cited as “Introduction”); Guy, “The Elizabethan Establishment and the Ecclesiastical Polity,” in Reign of Elizabet I, ed. Guy, esp. 126–129, 132–135; Sommerville, J. P., “Richard Hooker, Hadrian Saravia, and the Advent of Divine Right of Kings,” History of Political Thought 4, no. 2 (Summer 1983)Google Scholar: esp. 236–243; Lake, Peter, “‘The Monarchical Republic of Elizabeth I’ (and the Fall of Archbishop Grindal) Revisited,” in The Monarchical Republic of Early Modern England: Essays in Response to Patrick Collinson, ed. McDiarmid, John F. (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), esp. 137–138Google Scholar; Kelley, Donald R., “Elizabethan Political Thought,” in The Varieties of British Political Thought 1500–1800, ed. Pocock, J. G. A. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 73Google Scholar; and Gajda, Alexandra, “Political Culture in the 1590s: The ‘Second Reign of Elizabeth,’” History Compass 8, no. 1 (2010): 91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
30 Quoted in Cromartie, Constitutionalist Revolution,136; and Guy, “Elizabethan Establishment,” esp. 128–129.
31 Jacob, Henry, Reasons taken Out of Gods Word and the Best Humane Testimonies Proving A Necessitie of Reforming Our Churches in England (Middelburg, 1604), 74–75 Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Reasons).
32 Ibid., sigs. A2v, A4.
33 Ibid., sig. A4v.
34 Ibid., p. 16, sigs. A2v, A4v, p. 2, emphasis added.
35 Ibid., 4, 9, 11, 14, 16–17, 24; and HMC Beaulieu, 32–36, 37–40. See, similarly, An Abridgment of That Booke Which the Ministers of Lincoln Diocess delivered to his Maiestie upon the first of December last (s.l., 1605), 31–32.
36 Jacob, Reasons, 5, 18. Both Thomas Cartwright and Walter Travers had come close to this position, but they had hedged it with ambiguous statements about the authority of synods and conferences: Webster, Tom, Godly Clergy in Early Stuart England: The Caroline Puritan Movement c.1620–1643 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 289–290 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Jacob's brief catechism from this period also reflected his view of a church as “a free mutuall consent of Believers [was] joyning & covenanting to live as Members of a holy Society togeather”: Burrage, Dissenters, 2:157. For William Bradshaw's similar ideas, see esp. his English Puritanisme Containeing. The maine opinions of the rigidest sort of those that are called Puritanes (s.l., 1605).
37 Jacob, Reasons, 38, 45.
38 Ibid., 31, 33. Polly Ha notes that in his An Attestation of Many Divines (s.l., 1613), Jacob did argue that synods could pronounce on errors but still not excommunicate without the local congregation's consent: Ha, , English Presbyterianism 1590–1640 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2011)Google Scholar, 222n40.
39 Jacob, Reasons, 5, 7–8, 65, 25, 18, 23, 59–63.
40 Ibid., sig. A3, pp. 76, 50, 80. As he edged toward his own “semi-separatism,” Jacob seems to have become less harsh in his approach to separatists. In 1612, while noting their over-strictness, he argued that he held “Separation to be very farre off from being so evil as commonly they are held to be”: Jacob, A Declaration and Plainer Opening of Certain Points [. . .] (Leiden, 1612), sigs. A3–A3v.
41 Jacob, Reasons, 37.
42 Ibid., 37–38, 28. Jacob did not make clear whether the original authority, which rested with the congregation, was transferred irrevocably to the pastor, once called by the congregation. For the view that church officers were “potentially immune to discipline” by the congregation, see Brachlow, The Communion of Saints, 187–190; and Brachlow, “Elizabethan Roots,” esp. 245–250. Polly Ha argues that while Jacob allowed the pastor “ordinary sway,” he also lodged “the weight of ecclesiastical power and authority with the people”: Ha, English Presbyterianism, 78.
43 Jacob, Reasons, 27.
44 Ibid., 42–43, 56–57.
45 Ibid., 37–38, 28. In 1610, however, Jacob argued that congregational church government “is that mixt government which the learned do judge to be the best government of all”: Jacob, The divine beginning of Christs church (Leiden, 1610), sig. A3v, emphasis added.
46 Jacob, Reasons, 39–40, 26.
47 MS113, fols. 241–241v, LPL, in Burrage, Dissenters, 2:161–165. “The Lambeth Palace MS Calendar” notes suggest “Possibly by Henry Jacob” and that “the corrections appear to be in his hand.” This very short piece (two folio sides) may have been co-produced. A marginal note (Burrage, Dissenters, 2:162) on the “Princes authority” reads “See our Protestacion of the Kings Supremacie,” a work of 1605 by William Bradshaw. Bradshaw may have been using the royal “our” or it may be that he and Jacob, who were of very close mind at this time on congregationalism and the necessity of expressing political loyalty, in some way worked together on the Protestation and so the “our” is a plural. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry on Jacob also suggests the possibility of a Jacob-Bradshaw connection. Bradshaw does not seem to have developed an argument based on reason-of-state.
48 Burrage, Early English Dissenters, 2:163.
49 Ibid., 2:161–164.
50 Ibid., 2:162.
51 Henry Jacob, A Christian and Modest Offer of a Most Indifferent Conference, or Disputation [. . .] (s.l., 1606) (hereafter cited as Modest Offer.) It was published by William Jones, who produced a series of works critical of the early Jacobean Church, including some by William Bradshaw. On Jones, see Curtis, Mark, “William Jones: Puritan Printer and Propagandist,” The Library, 5th ser., 19, no. 1 (1964): 38–66 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
52 The changes are listed in A History of Conferences [. . .], ed. Cardwell, Edward (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1849), 143–144 Google Scholar. See also Shriver, Frederick, “Hampton Court Re-visited: James I and the Puritans,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 33, no. 1 (1982): 61–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a stinging contemporary reaction, which alleged that many matters had become worse, see Tyacke, Nicholas, “Wroth, Cecil and the Parliamentary Session of 1604,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 50, no. 121 (1977): 122CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Both Thomas Sparke and John Burgess feared that infant baptism was now seen as necessary for salvation: Alan Cromartie, “King James and the Hampton Court Conference” (hereafter cited as Cromartie, “King James and Hampton Court”), in Houlbrooke, James VI and I, 72, 54.
53 See, for example, “A proclamation enjoining conformity,” 16 July 1604, in Cardwell, Documentary Annals, 2:61–64; James to the Council, [1604], Cecil Papers CP134/52, BL (accessed via British Library internal electronic system, July 28, 2015); and Cromartie, “King James and Hampton Court,” 62.
54 Jacob, Modest Offer, sig. *3. Modern assessments give numbers of deprived ministers but no totals of ministers temporarily suspended: see Fincham, Kenneth, Prelate as Pastor: The Episcopate of James I (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 46–48 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
55 Chaderton expressed his views at length in (separate) correspondence with Walter Jones and Thomas Brightman: MS2550, LPL; discussed in Lake, Peter, Moderate Puritans and the Elizabethan Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 248–261 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, quotation at 248.
56 Jacob, Modest Offer, 26.
57 Ibid., sig. *2.
58 Ibid., sigs. *, *v, *3v. Even Burghley had likened the High Commission's use of the ex officio oath to the methods of the Spanish Inquisition: Collinson, Elizabethan Puritan Movement, 270–271.
59 Jacob, Modest Offer, 21, 15–16, 18.
60 Ibid., sig. *3, pp. 6–8, 21.
61 Ibid., sig. *2.
62 Ibid., sig. *2, *2v, pp. 2, 26.
63 Cromartie, Constitutionalist Revolution, 131; and Guy, “Elizabethan Establishment,” 148
64 Jacob, Modest Offer, sig. *. For conformist criticisms, see, for example, Powel, Gabriel, A Consideration of the deprived and silenced ministers arguments [. . .] (London, 1606), 58Google Scholar, who argued that even if the ceremonies were eliminated, the reformists would be “restles still, until they had altogether brought in their New Discipline” which would then invade the state; The Answere of the Vicechancelour, the Doctors, both the Proctors, and other the Heads of Houses in the Universitie of Oxford [. . .] To the humble Petition of the Ministers of the Church of England [. . .] (Oxford, 1603)Google Scholar, p. 28, sig. ¶¶2; and Oliver Ormerod, The Picture of a Puritane (London, 1605), sigs. D2v, Lv, L3, who even tied the reformists to Thomas Müntzer and “Iohn of Leyden.”
65 Jacob, Modest Offer, 28–30.
66 Even reformists such as John Burgess thought another conference unlikely: Hunt, Arnold, “Laurence Chaderton and the Hampton Court Conference,” in Belief and Practice in Reformation England, ed. Wabuda, Susan and Litzenberger, Caroline (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1995), 209Google Scholar; and Lake, Peter, “Moving the Goal Posts? Modified Subscription and the Construction of Conformity in the Early Stuart Church,” in Conformity and Orthodoxy in the English Church, c.1560–1660, ed. Lake, Peter and Questier, Michael (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2000), 179–205 Google Scholar.
67 Jacob, Modest Offer, sig. *v, pp. 13, 24–25, 27, 30.
68 Ibid., 31.
69 Sommerville, King James, 7.
70 Jacob, Modest Offer, pp. 12, 19, sig. *3v.
71 Ibid., 38–39, emphasis added.
72 Ibid., 28–30, 3–7, 9.
73 Ibid., 41–42, 6.
74 Ibid., 14, emphasis added; 3, 35–36.
75 Among much else, see Malcolm, Noel, Reason of State, Propaganda, and the Thirty Years’ War: An Unknown Translation by Thomas Hobbes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bouwsma, William, The Waning of the Renaissance 1550–1640 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2002), 86–92 Google Scholar; Jones, David Martin, “Aphorism and the Counsel of Prudence in Early Modern Statecraft: The Curious Case of Justus Lipsius,” Parergon, 28, no. 2, 2011, 55–85 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 69–71 (hereafter cited as “Aphorism”); and Burke, Peter, “Tacitism, Scepticism, and Reason of State,” in The Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450–1700, ed. Burns, James H. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 481Google Scholar.
76 Skinner, Quentin, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, vol. 2, The Age of the Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 244–254 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
77 Lipsius produced an edition of Tacitus in 1574 (English editions were produced in 1591 and 1598) and a Latin edition of Seneca's prose works (1605): Bouwsma, Waning of the Renaissance, 113–114, 121, 154–156; Burke, “Tacitism,” 494–496; Tuck, Richard, “Scepticism and Toleration in the Seventeenth Century,” in Justifying Toleration: Conceptual and Historical Perspectives, ed. Mendes, Susan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 23–24 Google Scholar; Tuck, Richard, Philosophy and Government 1572–1651 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. xiii, 51; Condren, Conal, “Reason of State and Sovereignty in Early Modern England: A Question of Ideology,” Parergon 28, no. 2 (2011): 5–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Morford, Mark, “Tacitean Prudentia and the Doctrines of Justus Lipsius,” in Tacitus and the Tacitean Tradition, ed. Luce, Torrey J. and Woodman, Anthony J. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993), 142–143 Google Scholar. There was also contemporary anti-Tacitean reaction: Bradford, Alan T., “Stuart Absolutism and the ‘Utility’ of Tacitus,” Huntington Library Quarterly 46, no. 2 (1983): 127–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
78 Justus Lipsius, Sixe Bookes of Politickes (London, 1594), 11, 41, 59–61; and Tuck, Philosophy and Government, 64.
79 Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, 2:279, 281–282; and Worden, Blair, “Constancy,” London Review of Books 5, no. 1 (January 1983): 13Google Scholar.
80 Burke, “Tacitism, Scepticism, and Reason of State,” 481.
81 Lipsius, Sixe Bookes of Politickes, 70, 80, 62–63.
82 Ibid., 80.
83 Ibid., 64–65. Tuck, Philosophy and Government, 58–59; and Jones, “Aphorism,” esp. 69–71.
84 Hindle, Steve, The State and Social Change in Early Modern England, c.1550–1640 (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000)Google Scholar, esp. 26–31; and Peltonen, Markku, Classical Humanism and Republicanism in English Political Thought, 1570–1640 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 124–125 Google Scholar, 135.
85 Essex himself may have written the introduction to Henry Savile's translation of part of Tacitus's Histories (1591): Hammer, Paul, “The Smiling Crocodile: The Earl of Essex and Later Elizabethan ‘Popularity,’” in The Politics of the Public Sphere in Early Modern England, ed. Lake, Peter and Pincus, Steven (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007), 97–98 Google Scholar; Smuts, Malcolm, “Court Centred Politics and the Uses of Roman Historians, c.1590–1630,” in Culture and Politics in Early Stuart England, ed. Sharpe, Kevin & Lake, Peter (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1994), 21–43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tuck, Philosophy and Government, 109–110; Guy, “Introduction,” 15–17; and Dickinson, Janet, Court Politics and the Earl of Essex, 1589–1601 (London: Pickering and Chatto, 2012), 104Google Scholar.
86 Tenney, Mary F., “Tacitus in the Politics of Early Stuart England,” The Classical Journal 37, no. 3 (December 1941), 157 Google Scholar; and Bradford, “Stuart Absolutism and the ‘Utility’ of Tacitus,” 131.
87 Doran, Susan, “Polemic and Prejudice: A Scottish King for an English Throne,” in Doubtful and Dangerous: The Question of Succession in Late Elizabethan England, ed. Doran, Susan and Kewes, Pauline (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2014), 225CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Rhodes, King James Selected Writings, 251n156.
88 Sommerville, King James, 75. In a speech to the English Parliament on March 21, 1610, James reiterated that while he was deeply bound to the “fundamentall Lawes of his Kingdome,” laws were “properly made by the King onely”: Rhodes, King James Selected Writings, 329–330. See also Sommerville, “James I and the Divine Right of Kings,” 57; Cramsie, “Philosophy of Imperial Kingship,” 47; and Cromartie, Constitutionalist Revolution, 150.
89 McCrea, Adriana, Constant Minds: Political Virtue and the Lipsian Paradigm in England, 1584–1650 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997), 117CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sommerville, King James, 48; Rhodes, King James Selected Writings, 251n156; Schellhase, Kenneth C., Tacitus in Renaissance Political Thought (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976), 147Google Scholar; and Salmon, J. H. M., “Stoicism and Roman Example: Seneca and Tacitus in Jacobean England,” Journal of the History of Ideas 50, no. 2, 1989, 223–224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
90 Tuck, Philosophy and Government, 80; Pattison, Mark, Isaac Casaubon: 1559–1614 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1892), 280–281 Google Scholar; and Bradford, “Stuart Absolutism and the ‘Utility’ of Tacitus,” 138, 147.
91 In 1610, Jacob commented that “the chiefest Prelates in the land [did] refuse openly the tryall heereof by a reasonable Conference or Disputation”: Jacob, The divine beginning of Christs church, sigs. *5v–*6.
92 Henry Jacob, To the right High and Mightie Prince, James . . . An humble Supplication for Toleration and libertie [. . .] (hereafter cited as Humble Supplication) (s.l., 1609), sig. A3.
93 Ibid., 44.
94 Gajda, “Political Culture in the 1590s,” 90.
95 Guy, “Introduction,” 11.
96 Jacob, Humble Supplication, 6.
97 Dawson, Jane, “John Knox, Christopher Goodman and the Example of Geneva,” in The Reception of the Continental Reformation in Britain, ed. Ha, Polly and Collinson, Patrick, Proceedings of the British Academy 164, (Oxford: Oxford University Press/British Academy, 2010), 131Google Scholar.
98 [Henry Ainsworth and Francis Johnson], An Apologie or Defence of Such True-Christians as are commonly (but iniustly) called Brownists ([Amsterdam?], 1604), 37, 39.
99 Questier, Michael, “The Politics of Religious Conformity and the Accession of James I,” Historical Research 75, no. 174 (1998): 14–30Google Scholar.
100 Holmes, Peter, Resistance and Compromise: The Political Thought of the Elizabethan Catholics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 61Google Scholar.
101 Peck, D. C., ed., Leicester's Commonwealth: The Copy of a Letter Written by a Master of Art of Cambridge (1584) and Related Documents (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1985), 67–68 Google Scholar, 184–185, 79. The criticism of “certain busy fellows [Scottish ministers] . . . to use such insolency towards their king and prince as is not only undecent but intolerable” (170) is prescient of James's own attitudes, as displayed in his response to Jacob: see below, p. 722–725.
102 Kingdon, Robert M., ed., The Execution of Justice in England by William Cecil and A True, Sincere, and Modest Defence of English Catholics by William Allen (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press/Folger Shakespeare Library, 1965), 261Google Scholar, 203, 265.
103 Holmes, Resistance and Compromise, 61–62, 195–196.
104 Ibid., 213.
105 N. D. [Robert Persons], A Temperate Ward-Word, To the Turbulent and Seditious Wach-Word of Sir Francis Hastings [. . .] (s.l., 1599), 124, 128.
106 [Robert Persons], Newes from Spayne and Holland Conteyning An information of Inglish affayres in Spayne [. . .] (s.l., 1593), fol. 22 (hereafter cited as Newes). See also Pauline Kewes, “The Puritan, the Jesuit and the Jacobean Succession,” in Doran and Kewes, Doubtful and Dangerous, 60–62.
107 [Persons], Newes, fols. 22, 23–26v.
108 Ibid., fols. 27v, 30.
109 Akrigg, G. P. V., ed. Letters of King James VI and I (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 301–302 Google Scholar.
110 Ibid., 204–205.
111 SP14/1/56, The National Archives, London.
112 John Colleton, A Supplication to the Kings most excellent Maiestie, Wherin severall reasons of State and Religion are briefely touched [. . .] ([Douay?], 1604), sigs. A3, A2v, pp. 5–6, 8, 9.
113 Burrage, Dissenters, 2:149–151; and Jacob, Reasons, 50.
114 Jacob, Reasons, 40.
115 Jacob, Humble Supplication, 21.
116 Ibid., 8.
117 Ibid., 8–9, 10–12. See, similarly, Bradshaw, William, A protestation of the Kings supremacie [. . .] (London, 1605)Google Scholar.
118 Jacob, Humble Supplication, 20.
119 For example, Jacob, Reasons, 16; Jacob, Modest Offer, 36.
120 Jacob, Humble Supplication, 8–10.
121 Ibid., 13–14.
122 Ibid., 21–23, emphasis added.
123 Ibid., 26–27.
124 Curtis, “William Jones: Puritan Printer,” 41–42; and Healy, Simon, “Debate in the House of Commons, 1604–1607,” in Parliament, Politics and Elections, 1604–1648, ed. Kyle, Chris R., Camden Fifth Series, vol. 17 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 79Google Scholar, citing Sir Edward Mountagu's parliamentary diary.
125 Jacob, Humble Supplication, 29.
126 Ibid., 30, 32. On the various contemporary meanings of “moderation,” see Shagan, Ethan, The Rule of Moderation: Violence, Religion and the Politics of Restraint in Early Modern England (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
127 Jacob, Humble Supplication, 32, 23, emphasis added.
128 Ibid., 33–34.
129 Ibid., 34–35, 28.
130 Ibid., 31–32, 20.
131 Ibid., 33–34.
132 Ibid., 32.
133 Ibid., 34.
134 There is a burgeoning literature on early modern toleration. A useful recent literature review is Walsham, Alexandra, “Cultures of Coexistence in Early Modern England: History, Literature and Religious Toleration,” The Seventeenth Century 28, no. 2 (2013): 115–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See, among others, Kaplan, Benjamin J., Divided by Faith: Religious Conflict and the Practice of Toleration in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Glaser, Eliane, ed., Religious Tolerance in the Atlantic World: Early Modern and Contemporary Perspectives (London: Palgrave, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Laursen, J. C. and Nederman, C. J., ed., Beyond the Persecuting Society: Religious Toleration before the Enlightenment (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 1–10; Coffey, John, Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England, 1558–1689 (Harlow: Longman, 2000)Google Scholar, esp.1–20; and Creppell, Ingrid, Toleration and Identity: Foundations in Early Modern Thought (New York: Routledge, 2003)Google Scholar.
135 Jacob, Humble Supplication, 46.
136 Cecil to the Bishop of Winchester, [1604], Cecil Papers CP109/82, BL.
137 Quoted in Babbage, Puritanism and Richard Bancroft, 141.
138 Bishop of Winchester to Cecil, 16 April 1605, CP108/115, BL. Jacob seems not to have known about this: see above, n11.
139 Sir Thomas Lake to Cecil, 15 October 1609, Cecil Papers, CP128/6, BL; and Lake to Cecil, 11 October 1609, CP127/173, BL.
140 Lake to Cecil, 22 October 1609, Cecil Papers, CP128/15, BL. This calls into question Brachlow's claim that James was at times contemptuous but “mostly amused” by Jacob's Supplication: Brachlow, The Communion of Saints, 260; see also Brachlow, “Elizabethan Roots,” 236.
141 Archbishop of Canterbury to Cecil, 22 October 1609, Cecil Papers, CP128/16, BL.
142 James's marginal comments were published (though with numerous minor errors) by Maitland, S. R. in a reprint of the Humble Supplication (London: Rivingtons, 1859)Google Scholar. They were also largely transcribed in “King James and the English Puritans: An Unpublished Document,” Blackwood's Magazine 188, no. 1139 (September 1910): 402–413 Google Scholar, but they were not connected to the passages upon which James was commenting. Jordan, Wilbur K. made some slight use of them: The Development of Religious Toleration in England From the Accession of James I to the Convention of the Long Parliament (1603–1640) (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1936)Google Scholar, 239n2, 241n3. I have taken James's comments from the original annotated Lambeth Palace copy of the Humble Supplication.
143 Jacob, Humble Supplication, 33, 44.
144 Ibid., 32.
145 Ibid., 8.
146 Ibid., 8.
147 Ibid., 33, 20, 45, 30.
148 Ibid., 47, 38, 37.
149 James had made clear in 1605 his intention to deprive ministers who did not subscribe ex animo: Newton, Diana, The Making of the Jacobean Regime: James VI and I and the Government of England, 1603–1605 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2005), 79–80 Google Scholar.
150 Jacob, Humble Supplication, 21, 42, 15–17, 28.
151 Ibid., 41, 46, 13, 42.
152 Ibid., 23, 29, 16.
153 Ibid., 34.
154 Ibid., 19.
155 Ibid., 37, 35.
156 Newton, Making of the Jacobean Regime, 89–91, quotation at 91.
157 The commonly named “Toleration Act” of 1689 was formally entitled “An Act for exempting Their Majestyes Protestant Subjects, dissenting from the Church of England, from the Penalties of certaine Lawes.”
