Rodda uses the example of the January 1604 Hampton Court Conference
, convened by James VI & I, which provided leading Puritans an opportunity to publicly defend their positions.
It is littered with errors: the Hampton Court Conference
was in 1604, not 1605; the Bohemians offered the crown to Frederick and Elizabeth in 1619, not 1617 (hence why they became known as "the Winter King and Queen" when the Habsburgs kicked them out in 1620); the future Charles I and the first Duke of Buckingham travelled to Spain in 1623 under the aliases Jack and Tom Smith, not Mr.
I am still, for example, left baffled as to why the decision was made to undertake a new translation at the Hampton Court Conference
of January 1604.
When the Puritan Jon Rainolds suggested a new translation of the Bible at the Hampton Court Conference
three years later, it was this version he had in mind.
One of the first things done by the new King was the calling of the Hampton Court Conference
in January of 1604 "for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the church.
James I, who expressed horror over the state of the Irish Church at the Hampton Court Conference
, attempted to promote systematic reforms.
Contributions discuss the Dutch reception of the King's poem, The Battle of Lepanto, the succession of 1603, James's ideas about kingship, his role in the Hampton Court conference
, his attitude and involvement in the theatre, preaching at Paul's Cross and its relation to the King, his attitudes toward Protestant heresies, his relationship with the Authorised Version, the Perth Articles debate in Scotland and, finally, the editor writes on the King's reputation from his death to 2005.
It all came together at the Hampton Court Conference
of 1604 which James convened in an attempt to resolve the situation.
Pseudo-Martyr's defence of the oath of allegiance is also an attempt to catch the eye of the king when the 'official' reporter of the Hampton Court conference
, William Barlow, failed to distinguish himself.
Alan Cromartie reexamines the Hampton Court conference
, arguing that James made no meaningful concessions to the Puritans, and that he may be more to blame than Archbishop Bancroft for the crackdown on Puritan nonconformity that followed in the conference's wake.
Spinks begins with the Hampton Court Conference
, the meeting between English bishops and the Puritan leaders that considered the Puritan requests for liturgical and ecclesial reform.
His magisterial survey takes in the Elizabethan Church Settlement, the Cambridge Controversies of the 1590s, the theological genealogy of Richard Hooker's Of the Lawe of Ecclesiastical Polity, the Hampton Court Conference
, the Synod of Dort, the religious zigzags of the 1620s, and the Personal Rule Although it is difficult to summarize the findings of White's profound and subtle study in a brief review, his basic contention is dear.