ELIZABETH THE FIRST

ELIZABETH I AND RELIGION

SECTION 3 : THE PROBLEM OF THE CATHOLICS

YOU NEED TO BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING:

(a)    Why some people considered the Catholics a threat to Elizabeth

(b) How the Catholics reacted to the Settlement

(c) How the danger to Elizabeth seemed to get worse after 1568

(d) The role of Mary Stuart, plots, rebellions and froeign threats

(e) The government's response to the perceived threats

(f) Elizabeth's own attitudes

(g) The role of the missionary priests and the historical debate

(h) How serious a threat the Catholics really were to Elizabeth

1.                                          WHAT ELIZABETH SET OUT TO DO IN 1558

Evidence suggests Elizabeth wished for a peculiarly English Protestant settlement that embraced Protestant doctrine but kept the traditional structure and rituals of the Catholic Church.

Her policy included a mixture from Catholicism, Lutheranism and Calvinism, eg rituals appealed to Catholics and Lutherans, the Eucharist doctrine closer to Calvin.

Debate about what motivated her reforms � her own beliefs, political considerations or concessions to opposition she encountered, eg pragmatism

The compromise could be presented in positive light, designed to placate both Protestants and Catholics. By implementing protestant doctrines, she would appear as a hero to the Protestants and her reign would be seen as a merciful and welcome release from the dark years of Mary. The return of the Marian exiles meant there was a powerful Protestant political class in the country � Elizabeth�s policy would win their support.

Yet Elizabeth had also learnt the lesson of the rebellions under Edward. Most people were essentially conservative and so by keeping the existing structure and the outward appearance of the church, she would avoid inflaming unrest and discord. At same time she could assure Catholic princes that the church had not been radically altered along protestant lines.

The middle course would hopefully ensure foreign princes were not hostile, and create a church acceptable to the vast majority of her people. Elizabeth could see the way the wind was blowing in France. The religious divisions were intensifying and in 1559 led to 40 years of religious civil wars. Elizabeth was determined to avoid civil war and the persecution that had so damaged Mary�s reputation.

Yet Elizabeth would have known from the start that she would encounter opposition from extremists on both sides. Hard line Catholic bishops would seek to use the House of Lords and the pulpit; hard line Protestants the Commons. Getting legislation enacted was not going to be an easy task.

2.                                          THE OPPOSITION TO THE ELIZABETHAN RELIGIOUS SETTLEMENT

Although the actual details of the parliamentary sessions is largely missing, it seems that Elizabeth�s policy met fierce opposition. Historians have pieced together a chronology of events:

A Bill was introduced in February combining both the terms of the Act of Supremacy and the Act of Uniformity. Not surprisingly the Commons accept the Bill, but it runs into opposition in the Lords, where an amendment is passed to remove the restoration of Protestantism. The depth of the opposition shocks Elizabeth. She considers compromise and a church on Henrician lines but soon determines to press ahead. She arrests two of the bishops and recalls Parliament. In April she introduces a new Supremacy Bill giving her the title of Supreme Governor rather than Supreme Head � this was intended to pacify Catholics and extreme Protestants who rejected idea of a woman being head of the church. Again it is passed easily by the Commons but some try to lock it in the Lords � yet it is passed after heated and fierce opposition.

A new Uniformity Bill is then also drafted to include concessions to the Catholics � it only gets through by 21 votes to 18 in the Lords.

Historians are divided over the Elizabethan Settlement:

THE TRADITIONAL VIEW

From the time of Elizabeth men like John Foxe argue that Elizabeth set out determined to create the Anglican Church and that, despite fierce Catholic opposition, she succeeded. Neale rejected this view and instead claimed that Elizabeth�s intention was to re-establish the HENRICIAN SETTLEMENT � A Catholic Church without the Pope, but these plans were thwarted by a Puritan group in the Commons. This forced Elizabeth to compromise. In Neale�s opinion the opposition in Parliament came from the Puritans rather than the Catholics, although the conservative bishops did oppose idea of royal supremacy. Elizabeth gave way to the more radical protestant elements. This became the accepted view for many years, but has now been challenged by historians who have turned back to Foxe�s original view.

THE REVISIONSIST VIEW

This view is promulgated by historians such as Haigh. They argue that Neale is mistaken on two accounts. Firstly they dismiss Neale�s assertion that Elizabeth adopted a conservative policy early in her reign in order to reach a satisfactory treaty with France at Cateau-Cambresis. Haigh dismisses this by pointing out that Elizabeth actually delayed the peace negotiations by initially insisting on the return of Calais and that there appears to be no connection at all between these negotiations and her religious policy. Haigh even suggests that Elizabeth may have deliberately prolonged the war in order to weaken the resistance of the conservative peers. The second ground on which Haigh attacks Neale is over the influence of the Protestant radicals in parliament at the time. He points out that only 19 Marian exiles were elected to the 1559 parliament and that many of those were not actually present at the time. At no time did they resemble a well-organised united group and the Queen�s tactics were clearly focused at dealing with the conservative peers rather than protestant radicals, which suggest she did not perceive them as a threat. However Haigh�s main argument is that Protestantism was clearly on the agenda, rather than some form of Catholicism. He points out that Elizabeth�s chief advisers, men like Cecil and  Francis Knollys were firm protestants.

3.                                          WHAT WERE THE TERMS OF THE ACTS OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY?

These Acts established the Elizabethan religious settlement:

�        Elizabeth was Supreme Governor of the Church of England with the power of visitation

�        Legislation repealed by Mary was revived

�        The Heresy Acts and the Papal supremacy were revoked

�        All clergy and office holders were forced to take an oath to enforce conformity to the new Prayer Book

�        Punishments were imposed for those who failed to use the Prayer Book

�        Everyone had to attend Church on Sunday and other holy days and to participate in the new services. Fines were used to enforce this.

�        Church ornamentation and clergy�s dress was to be as laid down in the more moderate 1549 prayer book.

�        The Book of Common Prayer omitted the Black Rubric of 1552, which denied the real presence of Christ during the communion service, and changed the words said by the priest as he consecrated the bread and wine. This was probably done in hope that ambiguity would enable people of differing opinions to participate in new national Church.

In addition Cecil drafted the Royal Injunctions in 1559 :

Clergy were ordered to:

�        observe the royal supremacy and preach against superstition and Papal authority

�        condemn images, relics and miracles

�        preach only with permission in form of a licence

�        report recusants to privy council or JPs

�        marry only with permission of bishop and two JPs

�        observe the Ornaments Rubric laid down during Edward�s reign

To ensure these orders were enforced, 125 commissioners were appointed to visit churches and enforce the oath of supremacy � led to much destruction of church ornaments and loss of 400 Marian clergy.

Crown also took control of church wealth, eg control of tenths. Appropriated remaining religious foundations and allow vacancies to continue to exploit wealth. Former monastic land remained with owners � pleased Commons.

4.                                          WAS THE ELIZABETHAN SETTLEMENT A FUDGE?

In certain areas it appears to have been:

DOCTRINE � no mention of doctrine as Elizabeth�s concern was a national and legal framework for her church. Meant confusion and uncertainty � Protestant reformers left dismayed and started to campaign for more.

CLERGY � As leading Catholic clergy lost out, so meant more Protestants had to be appointed to replace them. This was not easy as difficult to find properly qualified men and the financial plight did not help. As a result unsuited people often appointed. Church suffered from poorly qualified priests and the Crown�s milking of its assets.

THE POPE � Elizabeth had concluded peace with France, but there was the real fear of a Catholic crusade against Elizabeth, who was forced to make overtures to the Protestant princes in Germany in the hope of establishing religious alliances. It was feared that the Pope, Pius IV, would excommunicate Elizabeth and urge such a crusade. Not sure how English Catholics would react. Yet the Pope did nothing and English Catholics, therefore, had no guidance. Most adopted a wait and see approach and dual loyalty to Queen and Pope.

WHY ELIZABETH INTRODUCED FURTHER CHANGES BETWEEN 1559 AND 1563

The religious settlement of 1559 left many dissatisfied :

(a)    Failed to give a clear doctrinal lead

(b)   Failed to embrace radical Protestantism and so left Marian exiles and Puritans unhappy

(c)    Failed to quell Catholic uncertainty and remove danger of Catholic rebellion or invasion

• Elizabeth between 1559 and 1563 seemed wary of a possible Catholic threat. The opposition of the Catholic clergy and the Bishops in the Lords served as a warning. There was also the danger of France and Scotland. Mary, Queen of Scots, was married to the French Dauphin and was Elizabeth�s heir. Many Catholics saw her as the rightful Queen.
• Many Catholics were looking to the Pope for a lead. If he excommunicated Elizabeth it would absolve Catholics from their oath of loyalty to her and from the charge of treason. There was a real danger that the Pope�s interference would stir up a Catholic rebellion, supported by foreign troops.
• Civil war began in both Scotland and France in 1559, largely engineered by political divisions. These Civil wars showed Elizabeth the dangers of a rift between two religious extremes. Elizabeth was keen to avoid the same fate for England.
• Elizabeth started off cautiously in her treatment of Catholics. Yet she was determined not to allow extreme Catholics to challenge her authority. Only the more extreme Catholics were removed initially. Those who had accepted Edward�s reforms were allowed to remain in office. However, Elizabeth was determined to ensure that they were not using their positions to oppose her. Commissioners were sent out to ensure all the clergy took the oath of supremacy and to check on the use of the Prayer Book.
• Yet the resistance of the Marian clergy soon became clear. By the summer of 1559 only one of Mary�s bishops had taken the oath � the rest refused. Elizabeth could not tolerate this challenge to her authority and dismissed them. This had a profound effect for it robbed them of their power base, their control over the lower clergy and their seats in the House of Lords. 400 lower clergy were also dismissed.
• Yet Elizabeth seemed keener on raising Crown revenue than on introducing a staunchly Protestant church. She delayed the consecration of the new Protestant bishops so she could take control of their income for the Crown�s use.
• However Elizabeth was determined not to antagonise moderate Catholics. To placate them in 1559 the Royal Injunctions allowed many of the old vestments to be worn during services, and the communion table to stand where the altar had stood.
• Elizabeth�s religious policy seems to have been shaped by Catholic opposition, the perceived threat of rebellion and the danger of a Catholic crusade. In this respect it was probably less Protestant than she wished. Elizabeth�s settlement led many Catholics to become confused. As Haigh states : �The Pope failed to make it clear to English Catholics where their duty lay � This gentleness towards the Catholics and the ornamentation in her churches was already worrying some leaders of her new Church, who feared that the new religion would be laxly imposed.� Elizabeth risked therefore alienating Protestants, particularly the puritans, by her actions.
• In 1560 and 1561 Elizabeth appeared to make further concessions to the Catholics. This may have been prompted by the French pressing Mary Stuart�s claim to the English throne in that year. This raised the possibility of a Catholic crusade with Mary at its head supported by France and Scotland, with the possible aid of rebellious English Catholics. Elizabeth was pressurised into sending English help to the Protestant lords in Scotland to try to minimise such a threat.
• In 1560 a Latin edition of the Prayer Book allowed requiem celebrations for the dead. Elizabeth had also restored a crucifix and candles to the altar in her chapel � and let this be known � and had tried to re-establish full Catholic vestments.
• In 1561 Elizabeth even contemplated banning clerical marriage. Eventually, she compromised and evicted the wives and children of higher clergy from colleges and cathedral closes.
• Elizabeth�s reaction to opposition was to make more concessions to Catholics, including minimising the harshness of punishments for Catholics who did not attend church every week.
• Having enforced the Religious Settlement legally, Elizabeth was determined to define the doctrine of the Church of England and prevent it from changing. The 39 Articles were passed through Convocation in 1563 and given statutory authority in 1571.
• These 39 Articles were based on the 42 introduced under Edward VI. The 42 Articles had been the work of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury from 1533 to 1556. These 42 Articles were suppressed during the Catholic reign of Mary. The 1563 Latin and the 1571 English editions of the articles, which benefited from the consultation of the queen herself, are the definitive statements. Elizabeth promoted the articles as an instrument of national policy (to solidify her kingdom religiously) and as a theological instrument (to encompass as wide a spectrum of English Christians as possible).
• The 39 Articles repudiated teachings and practices that Protestants in general condemned in the Catholic Church. For example they denied transubstantiation and the sinlessness of Mary. They also affirm with the reformers on areas such as scripture being the final authority on salvation and that ministers may marry. The Articles also make clear the sovereign�s position. Article 37, for example, maintains the sovereign�s right to �chief government� over the whole realm, including the church.
• The articles are Protestant in affirming the final authority of Scripture but they are also �catholic� in their respect for tradition and in their belief that religious ceremonies should be everywhere the same within a realm.
• The result of Elizabeth�s reforms between 1558 and 1563 is generally regarded as successful because the church survived and became acceptable to the majority. Yet as MacCulloch points out : �From the story of confusion and changing direction emerged a church which has never subsequently dared define its identity decisively as Protestant or catholic, and which has decided in the end that this is a virtue rather than a handicap.�
• Although the legal framework was established by the Religious Settlement the quality of the Church�s spiritual life and its doctrines had not been addressed.
• Most contemporaries probably waited on events, such as the Pope�s reaction after the Religious Settlement had been determined, before they assessed its success.

However, many were less than happy. Many Catholics bemoaned the loss of Mary and dreamed of a Catholic revival under a new queen. Many Protestants dreamed of further protestant reforms.

BACKGROUND :

• Elizabeth stated that she did not want to make windows into men�s souls. It seems that as long as people were willing to embrace outwardly the Settlement, she was not anxious to investigate their private thoughts.
• Traditional historians, like Dickens, maintain that most people were willing to welcome the new Protestant national church. Yet throughout her reign some remained loyal to the Pope and even supported Mary, Queen of Scots. These people were a political danger and so Elizabeth felt justified in persecuting them for their political rather than their religious activities.
• Recent investigations tends to dismiss this view and suggests that outside London most people were Catholics when Elizabeth became Queen.
• Elizabeth had been shocked by the opposition to her Religious Settlement. Whatever she had wanted in 1558-59, it is clear that Elizabeth after 1559 set out to win over Catholics, rather than to force them into submission. To have vigorously enforced the Settlement may have driven Catholics into open rebellion and they outnumbered the Protestants. Besides Elizabeth needed the support of the Catholic gentry to carry out government policies and enforce law and order in the provinces.
• Most Catholics seem to have adopted a wait and see approach at the beginning of Elizabeth�s reign : they did not know whether her reforms would last, they were looking for guidance from the Pope or they simply hoped that the reforms would not be vigorously enforced. There was little sign of disloyalty to the Queen, except from a hardline core of Catholics, many of whom fled abroad. Yet Elizabeth did encounter opposition from the Catholic bishops and many of the clergy � this led her to adopt a more conciliatory policy.
• From 1558-1568 Elizabeth�s approach was one of concessions over areas such as dress. Although the law imposed penalties, the government turned a blind eye to Catholic practices.
• Many Catholics adopted a dual loyalty � loyal to both the Queen and the Pope, but 1570 meant that they were now forced to make a choice. The Pope excommunicated Elizabeth and the government responded by stepping up persecution against suspected Catholics.
• The Catholic �threat� was perceived to be greater after 1574 when English seminary and Jesuit priests started to arrive in the country, desperate to stir up Catholic opposition to Elizabeth. Rebellion in Ireland and the recent massacre of Protestants in France intensified this anxiety. There was a growing fear of invasion.
• The 1580s saw the fear against the Catholics intensify as plots involving Mary, Queen of Scots were discovered and there was talk of Philip II preparing a crusade against England. Parliament and the government passed anti-Catholic legislation, identifying Catholics, and Catholic priests in particular, as political traitors.
• The late 1580s saw the danger diminish after the execution of Mary and the defeat of the Armada. However, there were still perceived dangers and the 1590s saw the government refuse to compromise with loyal Catholic priests and all but 13 were expelled in 1602.

SO WHO WERE THE CATHOLICS?

It is important not to group the Catholics together as one body. Their outlooks and degree of loyalty varied. It is possible to identify four groups:

THE THREAT FROM THE CATHOLICS AND THE GOVERNMENT�S RESPONSE

After 1568 there appeared to be an increase in the threat from Catholics due to a number of incidents:

1568 : Mary, Queen of Scots arrived in England and the College at Douai was established. The arrival of Mary meant that disenchanted Catholics now had a figurehead and there was a possible alternative to Elizabeth. The extent of support for Mary, however, does not appear great. Many Catholics appear to have remained loyal. Mary was not an excellent role model, the Pope had made no pronouncement and many had no wish to replace Elizabeth with a Scottish Francophile.

1569 : A rebellion broke out in Ireland and the Spanish were approached for support against the English. This seemed to confirm many Protestant fears that Catholic Spain would use treacherous Ireland as a backdoor into England.

1569 : Elizabeth�s cousin, the Duke of Norfolk, plotted against her and in November, the Northern rebellion, in favour of Mary, broke out. The inclusion of such a powerful noble and a major rising against Elizabeth was regarded as a serious threat. With hindsight people may question the religious causes of the rising and its seriousness may have been overplayed, but it sent shockwaves through Protestant England.

1570 : Pope Pius V issued the Bull, Regnans in Excelsis, excommunicating Elizabeth and calling on Catholics to depose and even murder her. The Pope had finally given guidance and this caused serious problems for many Catholics � dual loyalty to Pope and Queen could no longer exist. Although most seem to have sided with Elizabeth, suspicion of Catholics grew. Also the Bull now gave the Jesuits the authority to plot the death of the Queen. If the Jesuits had been more numerous and better organised, this could have posed a major threat. John Felton was executed for displaying a copy of the Papal Bull.

1571 : The Ridolfi Plot. The government responded with Three Acts. Stated:

-         Treasonable to declare Elizabeth is not Queen

-         Treasonable to introduce or publish any papal Bulls

-         All who had fled abroad and did not return within 12 months to lose property

1572 : 24 August : Protestants were massacred in France

1574 : The first seminary priests arrived from Douai and established contact with Catholic families in

 England

1577 : Cuthbert Mayne, a seminary priest at Launceston in Cornwall, is exceuted

1578 : Pope Gregory XIII, elected in 1572, backs an expedition to aid Irish rebellion

1580 : Robert Parsons, Edmund Campion and Ralph Emerson, all Jesuits, arrive in England. Parsons and Campion spearhead a mission to Catholic families.

1581 : Parliament passes two severe Acts against Catholics, despite Elizabeth�s intervention to modify

           penalties:

n      recusancy fines increased to �20, and higher fines imposed for hearing or saying Mass

n      attempting to convert people to Catholic faith made treasonable offence

Edmund Campion and two Douai seminary priests are executed, and Robert parsons is condemned in his absence.

1583 : The Throckmorton Plot

1584 : William, Prince of Orange, assassinated by a Catholic extremist

1585 : England pledges assistannnce to Protestants in Netherlands in their revolt against Spanish rule. Parliament passes an Act against Jesuits and seminary priests. Any priest ordained by the Pope�s authority is now guilty of treason once he sets foot in England. All priests are ordered to leave on pain of death. Anyone helping or harbouring a priest is liable to suffer death.

1586 : Philip II begins planning an invasion of England. The Babington Plot.

1587 : Execution of Mary, Queen of Scots. Recusants who default on the payment of fines can now have two-thirds of their land seized by the Exchequer

1588 : The Spanish Armada. The government�s determination to crush Catholicism results in the execution of 31 priests

1593 : The House of Commons passsses legislation making large gatherings of Catholics illegal, and confining Catholics to a radius of five miles (8 km) from their homes to stop recusants moving to avoid fines and imprisonment

1594 : Robert Parsons publishesss a document supporting the claim of the Spanish Infanta to the English throne. The Pope appoints George Blackwell as Archpriest to rule the English Catholic community. Blackwell is ordered to consult with the Jesuits. The �Archpriest Controversy� convinces the government that it cannot tolerate even of those priests who promised political loyalty. The government refuses to follow a policy of toleration towards English secular Catholics who promise not to rebel against Elizabeth

1602 : A royal proclamation orddders all Jesuits to leave the country. Other priests are given 12 months to leave, but are promised favourable treatment if they submit to the authorities, which 13 do.

Why were the Catholics persecuted?

• Elizabeth never set out to stamp out heresy, unlike her sister. As long as people appeared loyal to the Settlement, Catholics were not considered disloyal. Even in 1580s and 1590s those occasionally guilty of recusancy were welcome at Court and sat in Lords.
• For first ten years of reign anti-Catholic legislation not enforced as Catholics adopted wait and see approach and posed no threat.
• 1571 saw threat from abroad increase after papal Bull and missionaries. Jesuits and seminary priests now targeted. Yet Elizabeth still moderated policies of extremists like Walsingham � in 1581 intervened to modify penalties proposed by parliament. Yet she was determined to stamp out outward signs of Catholicism. She did not penalise people for beliefs, only for outwardly practising them : priests were executed for celebrating Mass.
• There was no attempt to vigorously enforce 1559 settlement because of strength of opposition in Lords. Fear of rebellion and foreign intervention. Policy was therefore aimed at winning over Catholics.. This policy worked � by mid-1570s Catholicism was declining as an effective force.
• Decline of Catholicism coincided with arrival of missionaries. Forced government to launch massive propaganda campaign. From 1570s all Catholics viewed as potential traitors. By 1580s priests were being accused of treason.
• Government legislation intensified as war with Spain approached. But Doran points out : �In reality however, the danger from English Catholics was exaggerated. The vast majority of them were loyal to the Queen and country and simply hoped for better times when the Catholic Mary Stuart would succeed to the throne.�
• By the 1590s after the execution of Mary and the defeat of the Armada, the Catholics were less of a threat. Their decline in the 1590s was further accelerated by internal divisions caused by the Archpriest Controversy.
• Although government did not eradicate Catholicism, by 1603 it was a minority sect.
• Haigh maintains that the fact Catholicism survived despite the persecution, indicates widespread and popular appeal of Catholicism. Others see Catholicism�s decline as inevitable.

NOW LOOK AT THE ESSAY BELOW

Which was the greater danger to the Elizabethan Church, Catholicism or Puritanism?

In order to determine which was the greater danger, it is first of all necessary to define the Elizabethan Church.  The religious settlement of 1559 set up a church which was basically Protestant, although it retained some Catholic features.  Outward Catholic signs, such as the use of vestments, crosses and candlesticks served to reassure the Catholics and also the Lutherans, that England was not moving too far in a strongly Protestant direction.  A Catholic style hierarchy was still employed, although the Act of Supremacy meant that Elizabeth herself, as opposed to the Pope, would be the Supreme Governor of the Church.  Her aim was to create a national church, and the Act of Uniformity, (the ambiguity of this gave many people an opportunity to accept it) required a book of common prayer to be used in all churches. 

 It can therefore be argued that Catholicism and Puritanism were both dangers to this church, as anything which tried to undermine Elizabeth's authority as Supreme Governor or acted as a threat to the stability of the church could be considered a danger.  It is difficult, even with hindsight, to determine which the greater danger was, as Puritanism and Catholicism appear to have been dangerous in very different areas to each other.  For example, the preaching of the Puritan religion was very influential, and it was also a threat to church structure, but on the other hand, Catholicism had support from abroad.  It can be argued that this support from abroad, combined with Mary Queen of Scots as a focal point for the Catholics, led to Catholicism being very slightly more of a danger than Puritanism.  The danger of Catholicism seemed to come from outside the country, whereas the dangers of Puritanism came from within England.  But unless either religion had the support of the English people themselves, who seemed loyal to Elizabeth, neither Catholicism or Puritanism would be as great a danger as some historians believed.  Amongst the general population, "the temptations of conformity were great".

Catholicism can be considered as a great danger to the Catholic church as it could gain support from abroad.  One of the most powerful and influential countries in Europe at this time was Spain, and Philip II of Spain was a strong ruler.  The English Catholics therefore had the opportunity to call on Philip II for help.  As Elizabeth's reign progressed, relations deteriorated with Spain and Philip became increasingly convinced of the need to invade England.  The Pope, Sixtus V, grudgingly gave Philip financial assistance and so in 1588, the Spanish Armada was sent.  This seems to be one of the greatest threats to the English Church.  If the Armada had not failed, then England would have been taken over and would have become merely a province of Spain.  Those English Catholics not loyal to Elizabeth could have helped the Spanish to overthrow her, replacing her with Philip II.  This would mean that England would have been forced by Spain to become a Catholic country, and the Anglican Church would no longer exist.  In 1584, the assassination of William of Orange, the Protestant leader in the Netherlands, gave Elizabeth a fear that the same fate would befall her. 
The Puritans did not have such a strong foreign ruler that they could call to their assistance if necessary.  They wanted a church based on that in Geneva, but although many Puritans went to Geneva, they did not return, as they were happy to remain in a foreign country which followed the religion that they believed in.  Pamphlets could be printed abroad, but unlike the Catholics, the Puritans abroad did not pose a very great danger to the English Church.  The Puritans in countries such as the Netherlands and France had enough difficulties within their own countries. 

The English Catholics were also a danger to the English Church as after 1568 when Mary Queen of Scots entered England, they had a focal point for their rebellions.  The Northern rebellion of 1569, although not having entirely religious motives, could have been a threat to the English Church.  However, although appearing to be dangerous, it was not a great threat because the rebels (Northumberland and Westmoreland) did  not have enough support.  As MacCaffrey believes, "the feeble response showed the weakness of Catholicism" and Patrick Collinson therefore appears to be correct when he says that the Catholics were not rebelliously dangerous to Elizabeth.  There was not enough support to do any real harm.  Mary Queen of Scots increased the Catholic danger, as she could have given them encouragement to rebel.  Elizabeth's failure to produce an heir also made Mary more of a danger.  The Puritans had no such leader within the country and it could be argued that although not a real leader, Mary's presence made the Catholics feel more united.  Unlike the Puritans, there was really only one type of Catholic, whereas the Puritans were split into Separatists, Conformists and Presbyterians.  A united movement is far more likely to create a greater impact than one where time and energy is spent trying to reach a compromise. 

John Field, and Thomas Cartwright, do not appear to have been much of a danger.  Although Field tried to organise a presbytery system, and was forbidden to preach in 1572, his behaviour appalled many Puritans and therefore his impact was slight.  His Manifestos in 1572 did not gather the support he hoped for and he was forced to spend a year in prison as a result.  Cartwright could also be viewed as a danger, as he wanted a more Calvinist system, but the fact that he spent so much time in Geneva means that he can not really be considered a threat.
In terms of leadership, therefore, it can be argued that the Catholics were more of a danger. 

It could be argued that the missionary movement by the Catholics abroad starting in 1574 was a danger to the English Church because its aim was to convert and reconvert more people to the Catholic faith.  The Puritans did not have a similar movement from abroad, so it could be argued that in this area, the Catholics were more of a threat.  However, the missionary movement, although viewed as a danger by the government at the time, was not very effective, so although it had the potential to become a great danger to the English Church, it failed to become so due to the lack of organisation and the failure of the tactics employed.  Dickens believes that the missionary priests "revived something of a corpse", implying that they were a danger, however, firstly it does not appear that they were particularly effective, and secondly after Mary Tudor's reign it is unlikely that Catholicism was "a corpse".  The missionary priests targeted the gentry, but not the whole of society.  Therefore they were not a great threat, as many Catholics were content with the ambiguity of the religious settlement.  Their loyalty to Elizabeth and the lack of incentive amongst non-Catholics to convert meant that this threat was only very slight, even though it was perceived as a great deal more dangerous by the government, as the passing of acts such as the 1571 treason act and the 1585 act (which meant that any Roman Catholic priest in England was committing treason) suggest. 

The preaching of the Puritans seems to have been equally as dangerous, if not more so, than that of the Catholic missionary priests.  The threat of the Puritans appears to have been more internal, whereas the Catholics from abroad appeared to pose a greater danger than those actually in England itself.  The Puritan preaching was more dynamic and  was a danger to the actual hierarchy of the English Church.  It wanted to abolish bishops, archbishops, and ultimately the monarchy.  At least the Catholics agreed with the existing structure, and even if they didn't agree with the monarch as head of the church, they were prepared to accept her as head of the country.  The influential Puritan, Cartwright, lectured about the abolition of the hierarchy and criticised it, going so far as to say that there was no place for Elizabeth as monarch.  The Separatists were also viewed as a danger to the church hierarchy as they held their own congregations, which was seen as a threat by Elizabeth, as she wanted uniformity.  Guy believes that there were not many separatist congregations in existence, which implies that they weren't a threat.  But it is hard to say how many congregations were in existence, as many of them were secret, therefore Guy could easily be incorrect.  However, the Puritans were obviously not too great a threat to the church structure as at the end of Elizabeth's reign it remained unchanged.  They took no active steps to depose Elizabeth or to reduce the number of bishops.  Possibly they realised that the bishops were in fact able to be used to their own advantage, as supporting the bishops meant that they could have friends in high places.  They needed patrons, and when Grindal became Archbishop of Canterbury, they saw that there was a reformer in a high position and so had hopes for the future of the church.  Although the Puritans were a greater danger in the area of hierarchy and preaching, Elizabeth had so much support that it was an unrealistic aim of theirs to change the church hierarchy.

The Catholics and Puritans who held positions in the church seem to have been equally as dangerous as each other.  At the beginning of her reign, Elizabeth replaced the Catholic bishops with Protestants, eliminating one possible danger.  This would also reduce the Catholic feeling within the Privy Council, and would make it easier for anti-Catholic acts to be passed. However, Catholic clergy still remained, and although many were poor preachers, and not especially well educated, they were able to influence their congregations.  In the words of Doran, the "Marian priests did their utmost to frustrate the spread of Protestant beliefs".  It would have been an impossible task for the Elizabethan government to have ensured that a Protestant service was taking place in every single parish church.  It is difficult to determine the danger posed by these clergy as the religious beliefs of the general population are difficult to ascertain, but it doesn't appear to have been so great a danger as the Catholic threat from abroad. 

It can also be argued that Puritans and reformers in the church were a danger to it.  Grindal, who was Archbishop of Canterbury, could be seen as a danger as he refused to stop the prophesyings by Puritans in 1576.  He defended them, believing them to be valuable, and in a letter to the Queen he informed her of the limits of her power - something which was potentially very dangerous.  It also affected the stability of the English Church if the Archbishop of Canterbury was not in agreement with the monarch.  This angered Elizabeth, and Grindal was suspended.  Therefore Grindal could be viewed as a danger to the church, in a different way to that of the Catholic clergy, but still a danger nevertheless. 

In terms of education, Puritans were more of a threat than the Catholics.  As they were well educated, they could target groups of students in universities and so recruit more followers.  This could strengthen their position and increase their danger.  As they were educated they were able to produce more literature to attract people to their cause.  If Field had not been educated, he would not have been able to produce his manifestos such as "Admonitions to Parliament".  The fact that they were educated enabled the Puritans to spread more enthusiasm throughout the country for Puritanism.  However, on the other hand, sometimes some of the educated Puritans such as Field shocked the other Puritans, and the impact of these educated Puritans on society as a whole would probably have been slight, as many ordinary people at this time could not read or write, and so the manifestos would have had little success in whipping up support amongst the lower classes.
In this area, Catholicism was not a danger.  The Catholics tended not to be so well educated, as many people wanted to remain Catholic for reasons of tradition.  The Catholics within Britain did not produce so much literature as the Puritans, and therefore did not attract many people to their cause, or spread so much enthusiasm for their religion.

Probably the most crucial factor in determining whether Catholicism of Puritanism was more of a danger is the support that each religion had from the ordinary people at the time, as without support, neither religion could be considered to be a great danger. 

Many people, regardless of religion, were loyal to Elizabeth, and put this loyalty before all else.  Many Roman Catholics were loyal to Elizabeth, and this is demonstrated by their reaction to her excommunication in 1570.  Warren believes that there was "political and instinctive loyalty felt by most Catholic gentry" and this appears to be true because in order to obtain high government positions, the gentry would need to be loyal to Elizabeth.  Although regarded as illegitimate in Catholic eyes, called "an incestuous bastard, begotten and born in sin" by William Allen, many Catholics ignored this fact and still saw her as the rightful monarch.  Of course, there were still some Catholics who would have preferred a different ruler, Mary Queen of Scots, perhaps.  Some people preferred to be Catholics, as they liked the continuity of their religion, and the traditional ways.  However, Elizabeth appears to have been very wise in retaining some traditional Catholic features of the church, as this enabled Catholics to feel that their traditions had not vanished completely.  Therefore, the Catholic people in England do  not seem to have been a very great danger to the Church, as they supported Elizabeth, and people at this time were very xenophobic, and would probably have preferred a non-Catholic ruler to a Catholic foreigner such as Philip II.

For those who weren't Catholics, there was no incentive to convert.  They would gain nothing by being a Catholic, for if they did convert, and were found out, they would die a traitor's death, and their soul, so they believed, would not reach Heaven anyway.  Therefore, Catholicism amongst the people was not really a danger.
Puritanism amongst the general people did not gain a great deal of support either.  The Puritan belief that there should not be any hierarchy did not meet with wide acceptance, as people were extremely loyal to Elizabeth, she was a popular and well-liked Queen, and they believed that without her, society would dissolve into anarchy.  In the words of Hobbes, life would be "nasty, brutish and short".
Therefore it can be argued that neither Catholicism or Puritanism was as a great a danger as they first appear, because nothing would be able to happen without the support of the people.  This support was not particularly forthcoming, and many seemed satisfied with the English Church.  They were able to understand the services and they were able to interpret the settlement as they wished.  For a monarch at this time, Elizabeth appears very tolerant, and the people really had no need to change things.  Of the two, Catholicism was probably the greater danger amongst the people, as tradition was very important at the time, and continuity would have been one reason why people chose to stay Catholic.

As a conclusion, it can be argued that Catholicism was a slightly greater danger to the English Church because it actually had support from abroad.  This support is demonstrated in 1588, with the arrival of the Spanish Armada.  Although the Catholics in England did not seem to be so great a threat as those outside the country, the arrival of the missionary priests, the Northern Rebellion and the presence of Mary Queen of Scots all indicate a potential danger to the church.  Puritanism was therefore slightly less a danger as although it had internal support, this would not be enough to radically change the church.  It was a danger in different ways to Catholicism, its main area of danger being that it made people think more, and therefore challenge the existing church.  The central idea of having no hierarchy would also have put Elizabeth in a dangerous and uncertain position.  However, the lack of support for this is what reduces its danger.  Without support and unity, the movement would almost certainly fail.

Although the Catholics were the greater threat of the two, this does not mean that they were a particularly great threat even so, just more of a threat than the Puritans.  The large amount of loyalty and nationalist feeling within England at this time meant that neither movement could be seen as a great threat, although the government did not realise this, as is evident from the laws which were passed.  It seems that at the beginning of Elizabeth's reign, the Puritans posed the greatest danger, but once Grindal was removed, the Catholic threat steadily built up, with the Armada being the climax. 

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO ELIZABETH AND RELIGION MENU