However, because of the Queen’s inordinate fear of the Separatist and Presbyterian she used movements ‘formidable powers’ to suppress these powers. She could have dissolved parliament when they stepped to far near the line by trying to discuss the religious settlement, instead she imprisoned ‘hot heads’ and just dismissed discussion. According to Sir John Neale, a group of Marian Exiles which he called the Puritan choir had considerable influence from within the commons. He even went as far as saying that it was their influence which resulted in the Protestant flavour of the religious settlement, which otherwise would have been in much the same vein as her fathers Henrican church. Geoffrey Elton disputes this interpretation. He claims Neale did not do enough research.
Despite this, calls for reform and effective preaching did find support even at the highest levels; in the government itself in fact some of the Privy Councillors were very sympathetic Protestants. This was especially true when the council believed the country was under threat from an anti Protestant force, be it national or international.
Certain interpretations suggest that Elizabeth caused the dispute with the Conformist Puritans herself. It seems she believed religion was just another tool for the crown to maintain stability. Her dislike of Prophesyings because of their threat to the crown started the downfall of the previously largely successful Archbishop Grindal. By this time, some previously moderate Protestants were following the outspoken Cartwright into Presbyterianism. So in this instance she shot herself in the foot. If she hadn’t been so immovable in her opposition to the meetings fewer people would have been forced into the more extreme position.
After Grindal, Elizabeth appointed Whitgift; he held a similar view to Elizabeth as regards the Puritan threat to the crown. If one was to take into consideration the fears and anxieties of Whitgift and the Queen, the Puritans were a threat. Perhaps if Elizabeth hadn’t had such longevity the settlement and therefore the church would not have rested so securely. Perhaps Puritanism would have been much more of a threat had Elizabeth died younger.
What we cannot judge is to what extent the Puritans threatened the church individually in their parishes. Dickens believes that the whole country had embraced Protestantism and was not conforming to the act of uniformity. Haigh strongly disputes this, he believes that Protestantism had hardly made a mark on the Catholic traditions of the parishes at all. Whichever interpretation is correct, it can be surmised that either way the parishes can’t have been conforming to the act of uniformity. Perhaps this threatened the position of the state and the church; however there is much evidence to suggest personal apathy on the part of the population as regards religion. This is understandable considering the yo-yoing of doctrines over the years previously.
When standing in the shoes of the Queen or one of the key Bishops, Puritanism with all its faces including Separatism, Conformism, Presbyterianism, could have posed a huge threat to the stability of the Church and State which they had worked so hard to secure. However when standing in the shoes of a provincial puritan the actions of the crown to squash their actions would have probably seemed a hideous over reaction. The only concrete fear they could have legitimately had was the removal of the hierarchical system. As Russell states these made up a tiny minority of the Protestant minority. Mad outbursts like that of William Cattner(?) pretending to be the Messiah did not help the Protestant cause but they can not really be claimed as threats to the throne as the Queen got justice, the pretender lost his life.
