Licensing, censorship, and religious orthodoxy in early Stuart England

Historical Journal

Volumn 41, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 625-651

  Milton, Anthony ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33746658389     PISSN: 0018246X     EISSN: 14695103     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0018246X98007948     Document Type: Article

References (176)

1. A.J. Fletcher, Reform in the provinces (Yale, 1986);
2. M. Braddick, 'The early modern English state and the question of differentiation, from 1550 to 1700′, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 38 (1996), pp. 92-111;
3. C. Haigh, English reformations (London, 1993);
4. M. C. Questier, 'Sir Henry Spiller, recusancy and the efficiency of the Jacobean exchequer', Historical Research, 66 (1993), pp. 251-66.
5. S. Lambert, 'State control of the press in theory and practice: the role of the Stationers' Company before 1640', in R. Myers and M. Harris, eds., Censorship and the control of print in England and France, 1600-1910 (Winchester, 1992), pp. 1-32, at pp. 7-9;
6. idem, 'Richard Montagu, Arminianism and censorship', Past & Present, 124 (1989), pp. 36-68, at p. 58;
7. A. B. Worden, 'Literature and political censorship in early modern England', in A. C. Duke and C. A. Tamse, eds., Too mighty to be free: censorship in Britain and the Netherlands, Britain and the Netherlands, IX (Zutphen, 1987), pp. 45-62;
8. Christopher Hill, 'Censorship and English literature', in Hill, The collected essays of Christopher Hill, I: Writing and revolution in 17th century England (Brighton, 1985), ch. 2;
9. N. Tyacke, Anti-Cakinists (2nd edn, Oxford, 1990), pp. xiii, 184.
10. Lambert, 'Richard Montagu', pp. 58-68;
11. idem, 'State control', pp. 9-23;
12. idem, 'The printers and the government, 1604-1637′, in R. Myers and M. Harris, eds., Aspects of printing from 1600 (Oxford, 1987), pp. 1-29;
13. Peter White, Predestination, policy and polemic (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 287-307.
14. Lambert, 'Richard Montagu', p. 67;
15. H. S. Bennett, English looks and readers, 1603 to 1640 (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 40-1;
16. L. Kirschbaum, Shakespeare and the stationers (Columbus, OH, 1955), p. 36.
17. Bennett, Books and readers, p. 42;
18. W. W. Greg, Some aspects and problems of London publishing between 1550 and 1650 (Oxford, 1956), p. 113.
19. See also William Prynne, A briefe survey and censure of Mr. Cozens his couzening devotions (1628), pp. 91-2, on the methods supposedly used by John Cosin to secure publication of his Collection of private devotions. As a result of such abuses, Bennett argues that it was directed that a book might be licensed only with the proviso that every sheet should be individually revised and allowed by the authorities, but the example that he cites for this procedure is Turquet's General history of Spain continued up to the present (E. Arber, ed., A transcript of the records of the Company of Stationers, 1554-1640 (5 vols., London, 1875-94), III, p. 176) (hereafter Arber) which may well have received unusually careful attention because of its political sensitivity.
20. Edward Maie, The communion of saints (1621), passim. See also the discussion of Maie in my Catholic and reformed (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 70, 199, 351-2. For a further allusion to the controversy surrounding Maie's 'affections to papistry' see Hampshire Record Office, MS 44M69/L30/54: Henry Sherfield to 'Mr Maye', 2 Aug. 1620.
21. For example, Maie agreed to insert the words 'to weet, in a sacramentall and mysticall sense', but chose to omit the word 'up' from the phrase 'They make up the mysticall body of Christ': Richard Sheldon, Christ on his throne (1622), sigs. A3v-A4r. For Featley's identity as the licenser see Arber, IV, p. 18. The second impression also included one Featley-stipulated passage which had been omitted from the first edition, which added to the sentence 'The preaching of Laicks can convert no more than a good morall sentence out of Seneca' the Protestant face-saver' setting aside the efficacie of inspired Scripture': Sheldon, Christ, sig. a2r.
22. N. Tyacke, The fortunes of English puritanism, 1603-1640 (London, 1989), pp. 8-9;
23. Sheffield University Library (SUL), Hartlib MS 29/2 fo. 59V.
24. E.g. Edward Elton, Gods holy minde (1625), pp. 106-7, 111-12, 119. A copy of what appears to be a royal proclamation requiring the burning of Elton's work (Cambridge University Library (CUL), MS Gg/1/29 pt 11 fo. 33) lists eight alleged errors in the book, including extreme Sabbatarian and potentially sectarian positions regarding the sacraments. Probably the most significant listed error is that of opposing marriage with papists, which either consciously referred to the French Match, or could be taken by Elton's and Featley's opponents to be so directed. I am grateful to Dr Michael Questier for alerting me to this manuscript. It is understandable that Featley's later account of subsequent exchanges in James's presence concerning Elton's book should not have referred to the matter of the French marriage.
25. Daniel Featley, Cygnea cantio (1629), pp. 45, 11, 12-19.
26. Tyacke, Fortunes, p. 15; Bodleian Library, Oxford (Bodl.), Tanner MS 71 fo. 35r (Thomas Gataker to Samuel Ward, 11 Feb. 1630).
27. It was reported that some sections of the Be republica ecclesiastica regarding church government and jurisdiction were stayed at the press by authority and required to be amended: Calendar of State Papers Domestic (CSPD) 1611-18, pp. 423, 432.
28. Yet this denoted no lack of officical favour towards the archbishop: he still continued to receive advancement, and indeed King James ordered that many copies of the De republica should be distributed among dignitories abroad: W. A. Jackson, ed., Records of the court of the Stationers' Company, 1602-1640 (London, 1957), pp. 362-4.
29. M. E. Dever, 'Moderation and deprivation: a reappraisal of Richard Sibbes', Journal of Ecclesiastical History (JEH), 43 (1992), pp. 396-413 at pp. 406-8;
30. Tyacke, Fortunes, pp. 11-12. An example of the same phenomenon may be the conforming puritan lecturer Robert Hill, who edited the works of the notorious nonconformist Samuel Hieron. I am grateful to Dr Julia Merritt for this point. Dr Merritt is completing an important article on Hill's activities.
31. Bodl., Tanner MS 73 fo. 29 (Robert Jenison to Samuel Ward, 26 May 1621);
32. Dever, 'Sibbes', p. 408. While not stated in his letter to Ward, the book under discussion is clearly Jenison's The height of Israels heathenish idolalrie (1621), of which the sermon in question is the third -'Idolators blind zeale' (originally preached in March 1615, but printed with a dedication to Ward dated 19 Apr. 1621: Jenison, Height, iii. sig. Z2). It is not clear whether the printed copy which survives represents any reworking on Sibbes's part: it still retains the odd swipe at the Spanish (iii. p. 24), and warns against the dangers of tolerating idolaters 'and if you will, Papists' (iii. p. 7). Not surprisingly, it was Featley whom Sibbes sought out to license Jenison's work. Four years later Jenison asked Sibbes to write an introduction for another of his books.
33. Bodl., Tanner MS 71 fo. 30 (Jenison to Ward, 29 Jan. 1629/30);
34. Tanner MS 72 fo. 260V (Jenison to Ward, 20 Mar. 1627/8).
35. Gataker wrote a preface to Elton's Gods holy minde, although he claimed to have had only a 'short view' of Elton's work. Gouge's involvement in Finch's work got him into trouble, however, when the notorious tract was seized and the author imprisoned: CSPD 1619-23, pp. 247, 248;
36. Henry Finch, The worlds great restauration or the calling of J ewes (1621), title-page;
37. W. R. Prest,' The art of law and the law of God: Sir Henry Finch (1558-1625)', in D. Pennington and K. Thomas, eds., Puritans and revolutionaries (Oxford, 1978). I am grateful to Dr Julia Merritt for drawing my attention to this episode. Dr Merritt is preparing a study of the activities of the London puritan preachers' network.
38. Andrew Willet, Synopsis papismi (1600), pp. 235-7, 240;
39. Milton, Catholic and reformed, p. 16.
40. Kevin Sharpe, Criticism and compliment: the politics of literature in the England of Charles I (Cambridge, 1987), p. 39.
41. Thomas Cogswell, The blessed revolution (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 40-6, 281-94.
42. Thomas Beard, Antichrist the pope of Rome (1625).
43. Bodl., Tanner MS 72 fo. 260V (Jenison to Ward, 20 Mar. 1627/8). The text of Joshua 7: 8-9 refers to the sin of Achan. Jenison's particular concern was with the desirability or otherwise of a dedication to the king, for which he asks Ward's advice. Jenison assumed that he should probably entreat leave first for such a dedication, or present a copy before first presuming to print it, but was clearly reluctant, as this would lead to its being suppressed at the press.
44. On conflicts between the 'Arminian' and 'Calvinist' factions in the 1620s over licensing, see Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, chs. 6 and 7; Lambert, 'Richard Montagu', pp. 56-61.
45. The correspondence of John Cosin, I, ed. G. Ornsby (Surtees Society, 52, 1868), pp. 27, 29, 34-5, 37, 39-40, 43, 51. 54, 61, 65, 67, 84; Milton, Catholic and reformed, pp. 194-5, 214.
46. William Twisse, Of the morality of the fourth commandment (1641), p. 3;
47. Cosin, Correspondence, pp. 220-1;
48. A. I. Doyle, 'A new Cosin letter', The Durham Philobiblon, 1 (1954), pp. 64-6;
49. William Prynne, Lame Giles his haultings (1630), p. 2;
50. Henry Burton, The Lords Day the Sabbath Day (2nd edn, 1636), p. 3. Prynne also suggests that this was done with the two editions of Cosin's Collection of pricate devotions: Prynne, Briefe survey, pp. 96-7.
51. Featley, Cygnea, p. 40;
52. Lambert, 'Richard Montagu', p. 65 n. 106;
53. Prynne, Briefe survey, p. 98.
54. Featley, Cygnea, p. 40.
55. Featley, Cygnea, p. 40 - 'The printer to the reader' by Robert Mylbourne. 'The informer' is identified by the pun that he had 'Cousened himselfe': see also Lambert, 'Richard Montagu', p. 65 n. 106.
56. Another example of Cosin's activities against puritan publications is the attack on The originall of idolatries (1624), attributed to Isaac Casaubon, which was called in due to the efforts of Cosin, Bishop Neile, and Casaubon's son Meric: Cosin, Correspondence, p. 32.
57. Eg. W. Notestein and F. H. Relf, eds., Commons debates for 1629 (Minneapolis, 1921), pp. 58, 99-100, 125, 138, 140, 191.
58. See also Prynne, Briefe survey, sig. Air-v. Sir Edward Coke suggested that book licensing should henceforth be done by Convocation: Conrad Russell, Parliaments and English politics, 1621-1629 (Oxford, 1979), p. 240.
59. Milton, Catholic and reformed, pp. 20-1, 23.
60. For the earlier debate on the degree of censorship in the 1630s, see Greg, Some aspects, chs. 1 and 3;
61. F. S. Siebert, Freedom of the press in England, 1476-1776 (Urbana, 1952), chs. 5 and 6;
62. F. B. Williams, 'The Laudian imprimatur', Library, 5th ser., 15 (1960), pp. 96-104;
63. Bennett, English books, chs. 3 and 8.
64. White, Predestination, pp. 250-4, 298-9, 303-4;
65. Lambert, 'Richard Montagu', pp. 56, 58-9;
66. G. Bernard, 'The Church of England, C. 1529-C.1642′, History, 75 (1990), pp. 181-206, at p. 190.
67. White, Predestination, pp. 287-94;
68. Lambert, 'Richard Montagu', pp. 62, 68;
69. Tyacke, Anti- Calvinists, p. xiii;
70. I. Green, '"For children in yeeres and children in understanding": the emergence of the English catechism under Elizabeth and the early Stuarts', JEH, 37 (1986), pp. 397-425. at pp. 411-12 and n. 65.
71. Williams, 'Laudian imprimatur'; Lambert, 'Richard Montagu', pp. 66-7; Lambert, 'The printers'.
72. Lambert, 'Richard Montagu', pp. 64-6;
73. idem, 'State control', p. 23.
74. On Hungerford's tract, see William Prynne, Canterburies doome (1646), pp. 252-4.
75. The works of William Laud, ed. W. Scott and J. Bliss (7 vols., Oxford, 1847-60), v, p. 166;
76. J. Sparrow, 'John Donne and contemporary preachers', Essays and Studies, 16 (1931), pp. 144-78, at p. 154. I owe the latter reference to Arnold Hunt.
77. Ussher, Works, xv, p. 500.
78. Laud, Works, v, pp. 39-40.
79. See, for example, the unsubstantiated claim that Edmund Reeve's Communion book catechisme was called in, and then a second time published (Burton, Lords Day, p. 3). By 1640, as the Laudian regime crumbled, anti-Laudian writers used the fact of Laudian texts being called in to emphasize their illegitimacy: e.g. Robert Baillie, Ladensium AYTOKATAKRISIS (1640), p. 47.
80. SUL, Hartlib MS 30/4 fo. 82V. Abbot's work survives in Bodl., MSS e Musaeo 10-13.
81. Note, for example, the claim by Thomas Bedford that in his A treatise of the sacraments published in 1638 'there was both castration, and interpolation used by a hand not mine', which included the specific passage objected to later by Richard Baxter: Richard Baxter, Plain scripture proof of infants church-membership and baptism (3rd edn, 1653), p. 348.
82. An example working the other way is observable in Simon Patrick's claims that the supposed discrepancies between the different editions of a work of Richard Sibbes were due to the nefarious inclusion of new material by Sibbes's puritan editors: Works of Richard Sibbes, ed. A. B. Grosart (7 vols., London 1862-4), 1, pp. 290-4. I am grateful to Dr Dever for drawing this example to my attention.
83. Baillie, Ladensium (1640), pp. 101-2. Baillie was similarly suspicious of the posthumous publication in the 1630s of works by Andrewes and Overall.
84. Featley, Cygnea, p. 40;
85. Sharpe, Personal rule, p. 652;
86. Harold Love, Scribal publication in seventeenth-century England (Oxford, 1993), p. 188.
87. Mede submitted copies of his The name altar to John Cosin and others in the Cosin circle at Durham, requesting Cosin's intercession on his behalf with Laud, to whom he also wrote (see Cosin's reply, dated 4 Aug. 1637, in Cosin, Correspondence, 1, pp. 220-1).
88. Note also Cosin's copious annotations to his copy of Mede's The name altar: Durham University Library, Cosin Library shelfmark N.IV.17/7. A letter from Cosin to Mede in 1637 enclosed corrections to Mede's Churches that is appropriate places along with the draft of the work, as well as an accompanying letter which refers to an earlier review of Mede's The name altar: Doyle, 'A new Cosin letter'. The substance of Cosin's amendments to Mede's Churches is recorded in CUL, Adv. d. 38.1 (I am grateful to Dr David Cockburn for drawing this volume to my attention). The corrections seem mostly to have aimed at refining remarks concerning private congregations, independent parishes, and 'Idolatrous Chappells' which were possibly susceptible to a puritan gloss (see the marginal annotations on pp. 15, 30, and 70).
89. More substantive changes would appear to have been made to Mede's Diatribae (1642) - described in annotations in the same CUL volume which drew upon the author's own copy - in which passages which emphasized that bishops did not constitute a separate order from ministers and deacons were removed for the 1642 version (pp. 109, 110) but replaced in the edition of Mede's Works published in 1677 (p. 26).
90. Many, but not all, of the marginal annotations to the 1642 Diatribae in CUL, Adv.d.38. I were inserted into the 1677 edition of the Works (for annotations omitted in the 1677 edition too, see pp. 28, 45, 93, 110, 118, 131, 147, 195, 197). I hope to deal with Mede's position in more detail elsewhere.
91. Laud, Works, VI, pp. 572-8 (Hall), 326 (Potter).
92. E.g. Laud, Works, v, pp. 204-7;
93. Public Record Office (PRO), SP 16/417/31, 418/41, 442/84 and 138, 216/107.
94. See for example, Sharpe, Personal rule, pp. 647-8, 653-4.
95. Bodl., Tanner MS 71 fo. 153 (Davenant to Samuel Ward, 15 Jan. 1632/3;
96. British Library (BL), Harleian MS 7038 p. 88;
97. Tyacke, Anti-Calvinisls, p. 39. This example strongly qualifies Peter White's assertion (Predestination, p. 307).
98. Ussher, Works, xv, p.419. Although the printed edition of Ussher's letters gives this letter a date of 1628, internal evidence clearly dates the letter to 1638: see Amanda L. Capern, 'The Caroline church: James Ussher and the Irish dimension', Historical Journal (HJ), 39 (1996), pp. 57-85
99. at p. 80 n. 113. On censorship see also Ussher, Works, XVI, pp. 46-7.
100. SUL, Hartlib MS 29/2 fo. 54r.
101. SUL, Hartlib MSS 29/2 and 29/3, passim; The diary of Thomas Crosfield, ed. F. S. Boas (Oxford, 1935), p. 89;
102. L. B. Larking, ed., Proceedings in Kent (Camden Society, 80, 1862), p. 32.
103. Thomas Gataker was reporting in 1630 that 'some bookes offered for license handling the points in orthodoxam partem have at the Archbishops ben refused': Bodl., Tanner MS 71 fo. 35r (Gataker to Ward, 11 Feb. 1629/30).
104. Burton claimed explicitly in his Seven vialls that, while it would be objected against him that he had not gained a licence for his book, this was not his fault, as he could no longer expect orthodox books to be licensed. Only popish and Arminian books, he claimed, were licensed, whereas refutations of them were not allowed (sig. × 3V). It was reported that Arthur Hildersham had omitted all material relating to the sabbath from his Lectures on Psalm 51 (1635) because otherwise it would not have been passed at the press: SUL, Hartlib MS 29/3 fo. 2or (this should qualify Peter White's observation that Hildersham's work represents the lack of strict regulation on predestinarian doctrine: Predestination, p. 291).
105. William Twisse feared persecution for writing on the sabbath issue: Twisse, Of the morality, pp. 38-g.
106. SUL, Hartlib MS 29/3 fo. 44V. I am grateful to Dr John Young for his assistance with this passage in German.
107. Lambert, 'Richard Montagu', pp. 62-6;
108. Magdalen College, Oxford, MS 281/22 (petition of Wadsworth to the chancellor of Oxford University, William Herbert earl of Pembroke, n.d.). The back of this letter bears a list of amounts collected from the different colleges. Henry Burton complained that a book would only sell well if it had a punning title: Henry Burton, The baiting of the popes bull (1627), preface. For one explicit reference to the better market for printing Latin works on the continent, see John Dove, A perswasion to the English recusants (1603), p. 33.
109. SUL, Hartlib MSS 29/2 and 29/3, passim; Love, Scribal publication, passim; Lambert, 'Richard Montagu', p. 63;
110. Twisse, Of the morality, p. 37;
111. J. W. Saunders, 'The stigma of print: a note on the social bases of Tudor poetry', Essays in Criticism, 1 (1951), pp. 139-64.
112. Lambert, 'Richard Montagu', pp. 62-6;
113. Historical Manuscripts Commission (HMC), De l'Isle, VI, p. 114;
114. Crosfield, Diary, p. 95.
115. Crosfield, Diary, p. 89.
116. For a useful list, see K. L. Parker, The English sabbath (Cambridge, 1988), p. 217.
117. Of particular note are George Abbot, Vindiciac sabbathi;
118. Richard Bernard, A threefold treatise of the sabbath;
119. George Hakewill, A short, but clear e, discourse of the institution, dignity and end of the Lords-day;
120. Arthur Lake, Theses de sabbato (published posthumously and appended to Twisse's work);
121. Hamon l'Estrange, God's sabbath before the law, under the law and under the gospel;
122. John Ley, Sunday a sabbath;
123. William Twisse, Of the morality of the fourth commandment;
124. George Walker, The doctrine of the holy weekly sabbath. Almost all seem to have been written prior to 1640. For pre-1640 references to some of them being in circulation, along with other refutations of anti-sabbatarian works written by Thomas Ball, Thomas Lydiat, and John White of Dorchester among others, which were not subsequently published, see SUL, Hartlib MS 29/2 fos. gv, 36r, 51 v; 29/3 fos. 19r, 2or, 36V, 37V, 44r, 49r; Bodl., Tanner MS 65 fo. 83r (William Twisse to Archbishop Ussher, 9 June 1640);
125. Henry Burton, For God and the king (1636), p. 127.
126. George Hakewill, A dissertation with Dr Heylyn: touching the pretended sacrifice in the eucharist (1641);
127. John Ley, Defensive doubts (1641);
128. The retractation of Mr Charles Chancy (1641).
129. SUL, Hartlib MS 2/2 fo. 26r: Dury to Hartlib, 3 July 1640.
130. SUL, Hartlib MS 29/2 fos. 9V, 51V; 29/3 fos. 2or, 49r;
131. Bodl., Tanner MS 65 fo. 83r (Twisse to Ussher, g June 1640). Twisse may also be contrasted with George Walker - always a more intemperate figure - who finally in frustration published his sabbath treatise (circulating in manuscript since 1634: SUL, Hartlib MS 29/2 fo. 36r) in Amsterdam in 1639, before printing restrictions were finally lifted in England and he could print it there (SUL, Hartlib MS 30/4 fo. 15V). Note Ley's citation of the two Walker editions: Sunday, p. 196. Twisse did publish his anti-Arminian works abroad, however.
132. Sharpe, Personal rule, pp. 317-22, 328-48, 360-3, 383-92, 731-65.
133. Milton, Catholic and reformed, p. 86 and n. 94; HMC, De l'Isle, VI, p. 102.
134. Twisse, Of the morality, p. 170;
135. Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, p. 164.
136. See also F. W. Brownlow, Shakespeare, Harsrutt and the devils of Denham (Newark, 1993), pp. 42-5, where an interesting case is made for redating Harsnett's sermon to 1594.
137. Cosin, Correspondence, pp. 33, 47, 52.
138. Most of Andrewes's sermons and other writings were published for the first time after his death, by Laud and Buckeridge. Overall first appeared in print in a transcription of part of one of his university determinations in Richard Montagu's Apparatus ad origines ecclesiasticarum (Oxford, 1635), pp. 49-51.
139. See for example, Larking, Proceedings, pp. 82-4;
140. W. W. Greg, A companion to Arber (Oxford, 1967), p. 246;
141. PRO, SP 16/188/13, 16/190/ 40 and 64.
142. Prynne, Canterburies doome gives details of over twenty works (pp. 165-6, 171-2,181-4, 245-6, 251-2,252-6);
143. and Dering's A discourse of proper sacrifice (1644), sig. d2r, and the notes from Dering's committee published by L. B. Larking (Proceedings, pp. 80-100) list a further nine interfered with at the press and not mentioned by Prynne. Dering's notes for his speech to parliament concerning expurgations made by Laud's chaplain Samuel Baker to William Jones's Commentary on Hebrews are in Lambeth Palace Library, MS 943 pp. 735-7.
144. BL, Add. MS 34600 fo. 170 (Spelman to Sir William Boswell); Bodl., Tanner MS 72 fo. 292 (Edward Kellet to Samuel Ward, 7 Aug. 1628);
145. Tyacke, Anti-Cahinists, p. 212 (possible interference in the two editions of Morton's Of the institution); and PRO, SP 16/437/56 (interference with Morton's sermon at Newcastle, 1639);
146. House of Lords Record Office, Main Papers, 23 Jan. 1641 (Heily); BL, Add. MS 7002 fos. 81-2 (Philemon Stephens to Christopher Harvey, 8 Mar. 1633/4) (I owe this reference to Arnold Hunt); SUL, Hartlib MS 30/4 fo. 17r (Bernard); Hartlib MS 29/3 fo. 2or (Hildersham). For other suppressed books, see Hartlib MS 29/2 fos. 33r, 33V; 29/3 fo. 53V;
147. Notestein and Relf, Commons debates, pp. 58, 138, 191.
148. Hardib's ephemerides also note the censoring of a work aganst Heylyn's History of St George by Hacket, although this may be a mistake for George Hakewill (SUL, Hartlib MS 29/2 fo. 5V).
149. Lambert, 'Richard Montagu', pp. 57-8, 68.
150. Prynne, Canterburies doome, pp. 254-347;
151. Ian Green, The Christian's ABC (Oxford, 1996), pp. 7, 78-9.
152. Hartlib's ' ephemerides' also report a series of concordances and bible commentaries being interfered with or blocked at the press: SUL, Hartlib MS 29/2 fo. 33r, 33V; 29/3 fo. 2or; 30/4 fo. 17r.
153. Milton, Catholic and reformed, p. 160 (see also pp. 66-7, 71-2, 79-80, 120-1).
154. Featley licensed for publication Thomas Cartwright's Confutation of the Rhemists' New Testament 'with such corrections as I shall adde thereunto for ye presse': A. E. C. Simoni, Catalogue of hooks from the Low Countries, 1601-1621, in the British Library (London, 1990), p. 101. On the earlier struggles to have Cartwright's book licensed, see Peter Lake, Moderate puritans and the Elizabethan church (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 69-72 and n. 50.
155. Compare this point with Julia Merritt's discussion of Thomas Wentworth's attitude towards anonymous libels in her ' Power and communication: Thomas Wentworth and government at a distance during the Personal Rule, 1629-1635′, in Merritt, ed., The political world of Thomas Wentworth (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 109-32 at pp. 111-12.
156. M. Fuller, The life, letters and writings of John Davenant D. D. (London, 18g7), pp. 408-9; STC 6294-8;
157. SUL, Hartlib MS 29/2 fo. 44r;
158. Milton, Catholic and reformed, pp. 72-7;
159. D. Hoyle, 'A Commons investigation of Arminianism and popery in Cambridge on the eve of the civil war', HJ, 29 (1986), pp. 419-25.
160. See also Davenant's Praelectiones de duobus in Theologia controversis capitibus, published in Cambridge in 1631 and 1634. Another part of this campaign may be reflected in the publication of Joseph Bentham's collection of fourteen sermons - The Christian conflict - which was entered in the Stationers' Register in October 1634 as having been licensed by Dr Love, vice- chancellor of Cambridge, 'with 3. Doctours hands more': Arber, IV, p. 303.
161. Laud, Works, VI, pp. 13, 19-21, 60-2;
162. Cosin, Correspondence, pp. 85-6 (cf. pp. 29, 51, 54, 80).
163. See also A. Milton, 'The Church of England, Rome and the true church: the demise of a Jacobean consensus', in K. Fincham, ed., The early Stuart church (London, 1993), pp. 187-210 at p. 203.
164. Bodl., Tanner MS 71 fo. 7 (Thomas Goad to Samuel Ward, 21 May 1629).
165. John Prideaux, The doctrine of the sabbath, delivered in the act at Oxon, anno 1622 (1634), translator's preface.
166. See also Parker, The English sabbath, pp. 197-8.
167. Prideaux's lecture was first printed in his Orationes novem inaugurates (Oxford, 1626), pp. 129-51.
168. For puritan responses to the Doctrine, see Twisse, Of the morality, sigs. C2r, C4r, pp. 91-3;
169. SUL, Hartlib MS 29/2 fo. 9v.
170. See my discussion of this correspondence in Catholic and reformed, pp. 126, 460-1, 468-9, 494. Hall's desire to include in Episcopacy by divine right an identification of the pope as antichrist is also suggestive of the pressures exerted earlier in the 1630s by Laudian licensers. Hall regularly identified the pope as antichrist in his pre-1630s writings, but tortuously avoided making this point in his Plaine and famliar explication of all the hard texts of the Old and New Testament of 1633: Hall, Works, VI, pp. 568-633 (see especially pp. 481-2, 488, and 562).
171. I hope to document this interpretation of the licensing of Chillingworth's book in more detail elsewhere. Kevin Sharpe's suggestion that the licensing represents a rapprochement between Prideaux and Laud is unconvincing: K. Sharpe, Politics and ideas in early Stuart England (London, 1989). pp. 138-9.
172. Milton, Catholic and reformed, pp. 116-17, 198;
173. cf. G. Windsor, 'The controversy between Roman Catholics and Anglicans from Elizabeth to the Revolution' (PhD thesis, Cambridge, 1967), p. 358;
174. review by Robert M. Adams of H. R. Trevor-Roper, Catholics, anglicans and puritans, in New York Review of Books, 14 Apr. 1988, p. 28.
175. I owe this suggestion to Bill Sheils.
176. Documents relating to the proceedings against William Prynne in 1634 and 1637, ed. S. R. Gardiner (Camden Society, n.s. 18, 1877), p. 3. Prynne's defence pointedly observed of Histriomastix that 'itt was not printed beyounde the seas, nor in corners, nor unlycensed, nor privately dispeirced ' (ibid., p. 14).