ELIZABETH THE FIRST

 

ELIZABETH I AND RELIGION

 

SECTION 4 : THE PROBLEM OF THE PURITANS

NEED TO KNOW

 

 

WHO THEY WERE

 

 

DEBATE OVER IMPORTANCE

 

 

THEIR ROLE AND ACTIVITIES

* eg John Jewel became Bishop of Salisbury

n      some saw need to use existing structures, parliament, local parishes etc, to force change

n      some wanted to break away from Elizabethan Church � separatists

n      division weakened the group

* Parliament

* Local movements

* Prophesyings and Classsical Prebyterianism

 

PROPHESYINGS (1570s)

CLASSICAL PREBYTERIANISM (1580s)

What was it?

Meetings where prayers and sermons said - originally took place as way to improve standards of clergy, and were popular with people and many bishops as means of raising level of clerical education. By 1570s being used by Puritans to put forward their views.

Based on groups, or conferences, of local clergy who met regularly in secret to discuss set scriptures and common problems. Each group corresponded with others. Network co-ordinated by John Field's London group which was in touch with international groups. Movement aimed to re-organise government of Church, along lines of Calvin's Church in Geneva.

 


 

DID THEY PRESENT A THREAT?

 

 

Attempts to break away from the Established Church

 
WERE THE PURITANS A DANGER?


* Elizabeth saw Presbyterians as danger to her authority and tended to se all Puritans as dangerous, even though most were moderates. She blocked proposals for minor reform and her intransigence made life difficult for her bishops.


* The differences between most puritans and other Protestants were small, but a small minority caused Elizabeth to mistrust all Puritans.


* Presbyterians wanted to not only challenge religious doctrine but also wanted to model government of Church on Calvinist system - Elizabeth wanted uniformity for political stability and believed that her Settlement was the final word.


* Yet historians dismiss the seriousness of Presbyterianism as a threat - Elizabethan propaganda overestimated danger in 1570s and 1580s.


* The Martin Marprelate pamphlets did considerable harm to the Presbyterians due to abusive nature - they were seen as traitors at time when England fighting for survival against Armada.


* Yet Elizabeth's own actions may have helped Puritans. By refusing to consider reforms and yet placating Catholics, this may well have stepped up Puritan activity. Her demands for uniformity may have driven good man into the arms of the Presbyterians. Her refusal to address abuses of Church meant she failed to meet spiritual needs of her subjects and left road open to others.


* Until she was able to appoint men like Whitgift, who were products of her Settlement, she often found herself in conflict with the bishops and some of her councillors.


* It could be claimed that Elizabeth herself made Puritanism more of a danger than it really was. Yet the threat from Puritanism never really threatened Elizabeth The passing of the 1593 Act, together with the death of many of Puritanism's patrons in the 1590s, led to decline in movement.

 

 

 

 

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

1 1 1 1
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws