Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T21:05:04.131Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Who Can't Pray With Me, Can't Love Me”: Toleration and the Early Jacobean Recusancy Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2014

John J. LaRocca S.J.
John J. LaRocca S.J.*
Affiliation:
Xavier University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On March 24, 1603, the day on which Elizabeth was both dead and alive, James VI not only inherited the English throne, but also the Queen's Catholic subjects and the policy which she and her council had devised to contain and render neutral a potentially rebellious minority. Unlike religious minorities on the continent, however, the recusants were not an armed force waiting to defend their freedom to worship. Rather, they were a minority considered dangerous because of their potential as rebels. In dealing with that potentially rebellious group James's policy differed from continental solutions to the problem of religious minorities. His policy was based on his firm belief that the human conscience was inviolable and that “force never helped in religious matters and that gallant men should not be forced to die as martyrs.” These beliefs led James to attempt to introduce religious toleration in England. Previous treatments of the first three years of James's reign and previous analyses of the Oath of Allegiance of 1606 have failed to see that James was using the oath as the basis of religious toleration. The oath solved both the problem of religious authority and the problem of fidelity to a monarch with whom one differed in religion, because the oath recognized the King's God-given authority as a monarch while not denying that the Bishop of Rome did have a spiritual authority over the Englishmen who belonged to his church. If Catholic subjects accepted that oath, James would grant them a limited form of toleration.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , Spring 1984 , pp. 22 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1975

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 Notestein, Wallace, The House of Commons, 1604–1610 (New Haven, 1971), p. 281Google Scholar.

2 The function of religion in bonding political society is discussed in Russell, Conrad, “Arguments for Religious Unity in England, 1530–1650,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History, XVIII (October, 1967), 201–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; p. 205 where Russell analyzes the relationship of religious deviance and political loyalty describes the situation in which James found himself; i.e. how could he grant toleration and still ensure the loyalty of the recusants.

3 The following authors have analyzed James's recusant policy and stated that it favored toleration, but he abandoned it shortly after his accession because of English pressure and the powder plot. They do not see the 1606 oath as an attempt to induce toleration. Vide: Willson, D. H., King James VI and I (New York, 1967), pp. 227–28Google Scholar; Jordan, W. K., The Development of Religious Toleration in England: From the Accession of James I to the Convention of the Long Parliament, 1603–1640 (Cambridge, Mass., 1936), pp. 22, 56, 57, 61, 70, 72, 77, 78, 80 n. 1, 81–82, 83, 511–12, 516–17, 520Google Scholar; Thomas H., Clancy S.J., Papist Pamphleteers: The Allen-Persons Party and the Political Thought of the Counter-Reformation in England, 1572–1615 (Chicago, 1964), pp. 89–90Google Scholar; Ross, Elliot, Cases of Conscience: Alternatives Open to Recusants and Puritans Under Elizabeth I and James I (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 55, 57, 231Google Scholar. In all of the above James is seen as favoring toleration, but abandoning it shortly after his accession because of English pressure and the powder plot. They do not see the 1606 oath as an attempt to introduce toleration.

4 Bossy, John, “Some Elementary Forms of Durkheim,” Past and Present (no. 95, May, 1982), 3–18Google Scholar.

5 Bossy, John, The English Catholic Community 1570–1850 (London, 1975), pp. 37–39Google Scholar.

6 Coakley, Thomas Malcolm, “The Political Position and the Domestic Policy of Robert Cecil,” (Ph.D. thesis, University of Minnesota, 1959), p. 222Google Scholar; Gardiner, Samuel R., History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War, (London, 1900), i, 82Google Scholar; Acts of the Privy Council 1585–1586, J. R. Dasent, ed. H. M. Stationery Office (London, 1896), p. 9 (20 Feb.), 15–16 (27 Feb.); Walker, F. X., “The Implementation of the Elizabethan Statutes against Recusants 1581–1603,” (Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1961), pp. 209–13Google Scholar; LaRocca, John J., “English Catholics and the Recusancy Laws 1558–1625: A Study in Religion and Politics,” (Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers University, 1977), pp. 1–100Google Scholar.

7 Coakley, , “Robert Cecil,” p. 220Google Scholar. There are two possible interpretations of Cecil's statement. First, Cecil could have really believed that loyalty was the principal issue here and that the law had been passed for that reason. I tend to accept that interpretation since it fits well with what I believe to be an accurate analysis of the nature of the recusant policy at the close of the previous reign. If that analysis is correct, then Robert Cecil, in this as in so much else, was the transitional link between reigns and the man responsible for similarities in policy. The second possible interpretation is that Cecil did not view the recusant problems as basically a problem of political loyalty but as a religious issue. Cecil framed his advice on recusancy to the King in terms of political loyalty because he realized that James would accept his advice if it involved political loyalty, but that James would not listen to his advice if he thought that it was religious persecution. In this instance, the corrrespondence would say nothing about the formation of the recusancy policy under the late Queen, but it would indicate that for James recusancy was a problem which centered around political loyalty.

8 Coakley, , “Robert Cecil,” p. 221Google Scholar; Gardiner, , History of England, i, p. 82Google Scholar.

9 Gardiner, , History of England, i, p. 100Google Scholar.

10 Dodd, C. (Hugh Tootell), The Church History of England Chiefly with Regard to Catholics: 1500–1608, ed. Tierney, M. A., (London, 1861), iv, 36Google Scholar, n. 1 and Garnet to Parsons, p. lxiv, 7.

11 Coakley, , “Robert Cecil,” p. 221Google Scholar; Gardiner, , History of England, i, 82Google Scholar; Tierney's Dodd, iv, lvii-lx; Calendar of Salisbury Manuscripts, XV, ed. H. M. Stationery Office (London, 1830), 24–51Google Scholar, 19/29 September 1603; Calendar of State Papers, Venetian 1603–1607, Brown, Horatio J., ed., H. M. Stationery Office (London, 1900), pp. 38–42Google Scholar, 25 May, pp. 70–71, 30 July; Loomie, Albert J. S.J., Toleration and Diplomacy [Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, Vol. III, Pt. 6] (Philadelphia, 1963), 26Google Scholar; Willson, , King James, p. 218Google Scholar.

12 Coakley, , “Robert Cecil,” p. 222Google Scholar; Tierney's Dodd, iv, 36–37, n. 1; James, I, “Premonition” or “Monitory Preface,” The Political Works of James I, ed. McIllwain, Charles H. (Cambridge, Mass. 1918), p. 127Google Scholar; Willson, , King James pp. 219–20Google Scholar.

13 Calendar of State Papers, Venetian 1603–1607, pp. 24–28, 15 May 1603Google Scholar.

14 Vide: n. 11 supra.

15 Searle, R., The Counter Reformation (London, 1973), pp. 99–139Google Scholar; Loomie, Albert J. S.J., Spain and the Jacobean Catholics, Vol. i, 1603–1612, [Catholic Record Society, Vol. LXIV] (London, 1973), pp. 27, 56–57, 70–71Google Scholar.

16 Tierney's Dodd, iv, lx-lxi, #5.

17 Gardiner, , History of England, i, 143–145Google Scholar.

18 Calendar of State Papers, Venetian 1603–1607, pp. 39–42, 15 May; pp. 910, 24 April.

19 Tierney's Dodd, iv, lxxii–lxxiv.

20 Gardiner, , History of England, i, 114–115Google Scholar.

21 Calendar of State Papers, Venetian 1603–1607, pp. 95–96.

22 The growth is apparent for many reasons. Vide: LaRocca, , “English Catholics,” pp. 195–96Google Scholar.

23 Tierney's Dodd, iv, lvii-lx, #4.

24 Tierney's Dodd, iv, lxxxii–lxxxvii.

25 Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1603–1610, p. 125.

26 Tierney's Dodd, iv, 38–42; Gardiner, , History of England, i, 222Google Scholar.

27 Loomie, , Toleration and Diplomacy, pp. 21–26, 29–32, 37–40, 46–59Google Scholar.

28 Calendar of State Papers, Venetian 1603–1607, pp. 227–31.

29 James thought that it was necessary for the Pope himself to give up publicly the pretended right to depose anointed kings or that the recusants themselves must deny on oath before God the Pope's pretended deposing power. He was never entirely satisfied with the modus vivendi worked out by the recusants whereby they occasionally attended the Established Church; nor would he have been satisfied with the theological justification for occasional conformity worked out by the continental causists because neither occasional conformity nor the causists who justified it denied the papal deposing power even though both recognized occasional conformity as a sign of political loyalty. Vide: Rose, , Cases of Conscience, pp. 242–50Google Scholar; Holmes, Peter, Resistance and Compromise: The Political Thought of Elizabethan Catholics (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 100–08Google Scholar.

30 The King and Council arrested and executed only those who took part in the plot. They did not use the plot as a reason to persecute Catholics in England. They did not scruple, however, to use the plot to prove that all priests were disloyal and powers of sedition; Calendar of Salisbury Manuscripts, XVII, Giuseppi, M., ed. H. M. Stationery Office (London, 1938), p. 511Google Scholar; Calendar of Salisbury Manuscripts, XVIII, Giuseppi, M., ed. H. M. Stationery Office (London, 1940), p. 246Google Scholar, #37; p. 269, #20; p. 281, #28, p. 265.

31 Tierney's Dodd, iv, 10–13; Calendar of State Papers, Venetian 1603–1607, pp. 323–24.

32 Tierney's Dodd, iv, 69, n. 1; 10–13, n. 1.

33 Ibid., pp. 10–13, n. 1; p. 61.

34 Calendar of Salisbury Manuscripts, XVII, pp. 518–19; Calendar of Salisbury Manuscripts, XVIII, 9, 31, 436; Loomie, , CRS LXIV, 70, 84, 109Google Scholar.

35 For a complete list of all the works written for or against the oath of allegiance, see McIllwain, Charles H. (ed.), The Political Works of James I (Cambridge, Mass., 1918), pp. lxii–lxviiGoogle Scholar.

36 Tierney's Dodd, iv, 72, n. 1.

37 James, I, “Premonition to All Most High Monarchs,” The Political Works of James I, p. 152Google Scholar.

38 Bossy, , The English Catholic Community, pp, 37–38Google Scholar.

39 Clancy, , Papist Pamphleteers, p. 91Google Scholar.

40 De fide is a technical theological term. In the seventeenth century it meant that the article presented for belief had not been defined by a church council (de fide definita), but, in the opinion of theologians was a tenet which must be believed. Clancy, , Papist Pamphleteers, p. 91Google Scholar.

41 Calendar of State Papers Venetian 1603–1607, pp. 390–91, 447; Calendar of Salisbury Manuscripts XIX, Giuseppi, M. S. and Lockie, D. McM., eds., H. M. Stationery Office (London, 1965), pp. 159–60, 162–213Google Scholar.

42 Notestein, , The House of Commons, p. 281Google Scholar.

43 Tierney's Dodd, iv, cxxxvi; Ryan, Clarence J., “The Jacobean Oath of Allegiance,” Catholic Historical Review, XXVIII (July, 1942), pp. 166–67Google Scholar; Foley, H., Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus … in the Sixteenth Centuries Series i, (London, 1882), i, 63–65Google Scholar.

44 Tierney's Dodd, iv, cxc-cxci; McIllwain, , Political Works, p. 73Google Scholar.

45 McIllwain, , Political Works, p. 73Google Scholar; Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, 1603–1607, pp. 363–64, 456–57, 512.

46 Calendar of State Papers Domestic, 1603–1610, pp. 327. 333, #35, #37; Calendar of Salisbury Manuscripts, XVIII, pp. 313–14, 319, 333, 409; Tierney's Dodd, iv, lxxv-lxxix, #ixa. The dating of this document is incorrect. Tierney dates it as 1605, but the statute which allowed the King to seize two-thirds of a recusant's property was not passed until 1606.

47 Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, 1607–1610, Brown, Horatio F., ed., H. M. Stationery Office (London, 1904), p. 46Google Scholar.

48 Ibid., p. 46.

49 Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, 1607–1610, pp. 63–64; Loomie, , CRS LXIV, p. 127Google Scholar.

50 McIllwain, , Political Works, pp. 73, 91, 96, 97Google Scholar; Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, 1607–1610, pp. 97–98.