Extracts from this document...
Top of Form How serious a threat did the Puritans pose to Elizabeth I and her Church? The rise of Puritan ideology in Elizabeth I's Church and Government was potentially an extremely dangerous threat to her power. However in practice, any attempts to promote Puritan ideas were crushed so quickly and effectively by Elizabeth that the movement never got the chance to develop into anything more serious. There was undoubtedly an increase in extreme Protestant views throughout her reign, an area of particular concern to Elizabeth being the Puritan tendencies of some of her most senior advisors. There were also some individuals from within the Church and within Elizabeth's government whose opposition to the Religious Settlement was influential to an extent, particularly during the 1570s, but all received a zero tolerance punishment and so never gained enough support to be a substantial threat to the Monarchy. Historians' views on the extent of the Puritan threat have been extremely varied, from J. E. Neale's argument for the rise of a Puritan parliamentary opposition, known as the 'Puritan Choir', to the less extreme views of those such as Michael Graves who agreed that 'the new generation of Presbyterian-Puritans did make concerted efforts to demolish the Religious Settlement', but that there was no evidence of a 'Puritan Choir'. John Guy agrees with Graves in that Neale based his theory on irrelevant evidence, and maintains that 'the wider assumption...that mainstream Puritanism was potentially anarchical...is misguided'. However Christopher Haigh seems to agree more with Neale, claiming that 'there was an obvious potential for conflict between a practical Elizabeth and a Protestant group which grew in influence in the 1560s and dominated her council by 1572' and G. R. Elton argues that 'England was far from puritan, but it was becoming more definitely protestant, and in this movement the extremists naturally took the lead'. Arguably if the Puritan threat had been as serious as some of these historians suggest, civil war would have broken out much sooner. ...read more.
However, Warren downplays the influence of John Field's Admonitions to Parliament, claiming that 'the vehemence of his opinions and the savagery of the attack on the bishops appalled many Puritans. The impact on Parliament was slight'. In 1575 Edmund Grindal- a Puritan- was made Archbishop of Canterbury. Elizabeth I ordered him to repress prophesying- meetings of clergy to practice preaching, but when Grindal refused on the grounds that they were useful for the Church he was directly disobeying the Queen and so had to be dealt with harshly. He was willing to apply 'Adiaphora' and use his position to reform the Church but he was clearly trying to exert too much influence over Elizabeth. Somerset argues that 'if Grindal had pretended he would do as she wished, and had then evaded her orders, the odds are that Elizabeth would shortly have forgotten about the matter, but as it was, he decided on a direct confrontation with the Queen.'. The fact that 'Grindal had in effect repudiated the Royal Supremacy' meant Elizabeth had no choice but to deal with it that way. Neale claims that after the prophesying 'aided by... John Field... the Presbyterian movement grew instead of diminishing in strength...', but Warren contests that it was much less of a threat, arguing that 'the Queen had little real cause to fear prophesying as a factor stimulating disunity'. While it is arguable that the Queen overreacted in removing Archbishop Grindal from his position of responsibility, it did serve to show that she considered it a serious threat to her authority, and therefore was a warning to others inclined to do the same. While Grindal was in disgrace, the Bishop Aylmer of London was in charge of eradicating non conformity. Under his supervision the ecclesiastical commission in charge of the Act of Uniformity and Oath of Supremacy had become very strong, with increased powers to imprison or fine. ...read more.
Elton agrees with this saying 'He had been presumptuously rude by the standards of the time, but no more so than Puritans thought it right to be...Sir Francis Walsingham, frequently lectured the queen....' Peter Turner headed the 'Bill and Book' campaign in the 1584-1585 parliament, to replace the Book of Common Prayer with the Genevan Prayer Book and the Anglican system of Church government with a Calvinist model. Although Neale thought that this proved the Puritans were becoming more organised and succeeding in making difficulties for the government, Graves maintains that Neale's claims were nothing more than supposition and the Puritan campaigns in the Commons were mounted by 'a handful of members, lacked general parliamentary sympathy or support, and were easily smothered by official action'. In conclusion, the Puritans from within both the Church itself and from within Parliament posed a potentially extremely dangerous threat to Elizabeth I and her Church. However, due to the fact that the Queen did not tolerate any non-conformists, the movement was never allowed to gain any momentum. Guy and Doran praise Elizabeth's reaction to it, Guy arguing that 'Elizabeth succeeded to a remarkable extent in preserving a firm separation of church and state....' and 'within 10 years the Elizabethan puritan 'movement' was dead...the collapse in 1586-7 of a final Presbyterian attempt to abolish bishops... epitomizing the defeat' and Doran agrees to an extent that while 'nonconformity could not be eradicated...'in general 'religion ceased to be a major divisive issue at both the national and the local level during the last decade of the reign'. However Warren and Elton argue that it was not Elizabeth's skill in dealing with the situation but the unskilfulness of the Puritans, Warren saying, 'the Presbyterian threat was no real threat at all' and 'Puritans failed to change the organisation and hierarchy of the church'. and Elton saying that 'Elizabethan Puritanism was past its peak...(it) had entered upon a decline which made it... a permanent minority opposition outside the church' Bottom of Form ...read more.
The above preview is unformatted text
This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics section.
Elizabeth I viewed the 1559 Religious Settlement as an Act of State, which was to establish a proper relationship between the Crown and the Church. Elizabeth desperately wanted to repair all the damage that had been caused within her kingdom in the previous decades under the name of religion. Once the Religious Settlement had taken root, Elizabeth was quite content to all freedom of religious conscious as long as did not challenge all that she had put in place.
“I (Elizabeth) never had any meaning or intent that (my) subjects should be troubled or molested by examination or inquisition in any matter either of their faith or for that matters of ceremonies, as long as they shall in their outward conversation show themselves quiet and not manifestly repugnant to the laws of the realm.”
Elizabeth was quite happy to be tolerant as long as those involved ‘played by the rules’ which she set.
Very quickly into her reign, it became apparent to Elizabeth that she faced challenges on two fronts – the first was from die-hard Catholics who wanted to carry on the work of Mary I and the second were those who wanted a more radical Church of England. While the Catholics had to be more secretive with regards to their activities, the opposite was true for the radicalised Protestants; most of them had returned to England only on the death of Mary and all of them expected great things from Elizabeth.
In 1563 a set of radical articles was introduced into Convocation that pushed for the removal of all superstition in the Church. There were four principal demands.
1) That the minister in a parish church faced the congregation when he read the Common Prayer and gave divine service.
2) That during baptism, a minister should dispense with the making of the cross on a child’s forehead as this was mere superstition.
3) That those who were unable to kneel during communion should not have to do so if they were aged or sick.
4) No minister should wear anything other than a plain surplice during a service.
These demands were only defeated by one vote and Elizabeth had to send a letter to Archbishop Matthew Parker reminding him in the strongest of language that those at the higher end of the Church were expected to conform to the Religious Settlement. However, the Queen’s approach was to bring her into conflict with a group known as the Puritans. These were men who had very strong Protestant beliefs and who wanted to sweep away any form of Catholicism. Whereas Elizabeth had stated quite clearly that she was willing to be tolerant of Catholicism and Puritans as long as they were subtle and loyal in their work, the Puritans were unwilling to accept any form of toleration except for what they believed in. This was bound to bring them into conflict with the Queen.
Parker came up against resistance from the more extreme ministers in London. In the immediate aftermath of Mary’s death and the Religious Settlement, many radicalised Protestants had returned from mainland Europe to England and the majority had made their base in London. Parker was aided by the likes of Martin Bucer who stated that vestments were of no consequence when it came to religion. In 1566 Parker published his “Book of Advertisements” which did a great deal to bring on board many of the radicals. However, ‘many’ was not everyone and those who were not taken in by Parker took on a more radical stance and it soon became clear that the issue of vestments would become divisive. Elizabeth insisted on conformity. This was something the Puritans could not guarantee. Whereas Elizabeth had stated her belief that those who were outside of the religious norm could practice what they believed in – only quietly – there were Puritans who were not prepared to be quiet. One of the key issues was the “Word”. The word of God could only be spread by preachers – and by the very nature of what they did, preachers could not be expected to be quiet and diplomatic. Many of these preachers were radical and their activities brought them into conflict with the government.
A direct challenge to Elizabeth came in 1570 from the Cambridge theologian Thomas Cartwright. He stated that the system of church government based on archbishops, bishops, archdeacons etc was wrong and that any study of the Acts of the Apostles would show that such a structure should be swept away and replaced with a committee of elders. Such an idea was clearly very radical and Cartwright had to flee the country. However, he had sown the seeds of how the Church might be governed in the future.
Some Puritan preachers attained great fame and people travelled from miles around to hear them speak. Their speeches were known as ‘prophesying’ and they based what they did on the preachers who had been so successful in the cantons in Switzerland that had converted to Protestantism. Elizabeth viewed these preachers as a challenge to her and in 1576 she ordered the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Edmund Grindal, to suppress prophesying. Grindal refused to do so as he believed that what they did was of great benefit for the Church. As a result he was suspended. It now became clear that Elizabeth and the Puritans were on a collision course.
After failing to persuade her Archbishop of Canterbury, Elizabeth made a direct appeal to the bishops in England and Wales. In 1577 they were ordered to stop all prophesying in their sees. In a letter to the bishops Elizabeth referred to prophesying as a “great abuse”. Despite being Supreme Governor of the Church (as was set out in the 1559 Religious Settlement) the Queen had great difficulty controlling church affairs at a local level. Local magnates had far more day-to-day influence and many were able to protect preachers who were popular with those in the locality.
There were those men who had retuned to London on the death of Mary who were willing to conform to the Elizabethan Church. But there were many who were not. They tended to be younger men who were far more radical. Edwin Sandys, a Protestant who had fled Marian England but on his return was willing to work with the Church, called these men “foolish…..who despise authority and admit no superior, (who want) the complete overthrow and rooting up of our whole ecclesiastical polity.”
Edmund Grindal, who had stood up to Elizabeth, was replaced as Archbishop of Canterbury by John Whitgift. He had made his name by using his literary ability to attack extreme Protestants. Now as Archbishop, he knew that he would have full royal backing to launch a major campaign against anyone who was deemed to be a Puritan.
Whitgift produced his ‘Three Articles’. If a preacher failed just one of them, he was not allowed to preach. The articles were all encompassing and the Court of High Commission was used to enforce them. Anyone brought before the Commission and could not swear to uphold all three was deprived of his ministry. The Three Articles were criticised by Wiiliam Cecil, Lord Burghley for being too much like the Spanish Inquisition – designed to trap anyone who would not conform. Though Whitgift did soften the tone of the Three Articles, it was only by degrees and his work, combined with the legal clout of the High Commission, did a great deal to break the Puritans.
As a result, smaller Puritan churches developed throughout the 1590’s as they felt that there was no place for them in Elizabeth’s Church and that there was no hope of the Church being reformed as they would wish. These were small churches but still represented a challenge to Elizabeth and her government. In 1593 some of two Puritan leaders, Barrow and Greenwood, were arrested and executed. The example was clear to the followers of Barrow and the remaining ‘Barrowists’ left for Amsterdam.
By the time of Elizabeth’s death in 1603, the Puritans had little influence in London but were still popular among local populations. The accession of James I gave them hope for a better future.