What were Elizabeth's priorities when creating the religious settlement of 1559?

What were Elizabeth’s priorities when creating the religious settlement of 1559?

The Elizabethan religious settlement is a phrase used to describe ‘the organisation, ritual and teaching of the Church of England as enforced by Acts of Parliament, as amplified by the pronouncements of the Archbishops of Canterbury and as defended rigorously by the Queen herself.’ (Warren). According to Meyer, the religious settlement of 1559 is made up of two main foundation stones, the Act of Supremacy of 1559 and the Act of Uniformity of the same year. Both were fundamentally Protestant in their spirit, and managed by Cecil, himself a Protestant. The Act of Uniformity dictated that all church services should be conducted according to the 1552 book of prayer with amendments such as the deliberately ambiguous wording of the communion service. The Act of Supremacy abolished papal authority in England and made Elizabeth ‘supreme governor’ of the Church of England, the phrase ‘supreme head’ was too masculine for Protestants and Catholics alike.

When Mary died in 1558, England was Roman Catholic and Elizabeth had ‘publicly, even ostentatiously, professed the Roman Catholic faith for five years’ (MacCaffrey). At the same time, she was hailed by many Protestant pamphleteers as ‘the English Deborah’, a woman who would reform the church, taking it back to its original, uncorrupted roots. At the time of her accession Elizabeth had four main directions in which she could take the church. She could continue the reforms started by Mary, returning England fully to the Church in Rome, she could keep England fundamentally Catholic, but not Roman Catholic, returning to the Henrican church. The other two options were more protestant in their nature, she could settle for a conservative version of the Edwardian church, or she could continue the reforms started by her brother, making England a radical protestant country. Despite the option of continuing as a Roman Catholic country, no-one, including figures like Philip of Spain, believed that she would take this option. The historical opinions on why this was the case differ, MacCaffrey believes that it was simply due to personal conviction, England could not remain catholic because Elizabeth was not catholic. On the other hand, MacCulloch believes Elizabeth to be more politically motivated, citing the fact that was Cecil who masterminded the settlement and arguing Elizabeth’s ‘hands-off’ approach ensured she avoided blame for any subsequent failure.

In any discussion on the settlement, it is necessary to assess Elizabeth’s personal beliefs and what she wanted the settlement to achieve. She was brought up in a Protestant household and educated by leading humanists, translating texts such as those by Erasmus. Her Privy Council, the members of which she appointed, was predominantly Protestant. During Edward’s reign she was held up as a figure of piety, in Mary’s as a heretic. Her right to the throne depended on Henry’s break with Rome, and the rejection of Roman Catholicism, without this rejection she was illegitimate and therefore unable to claim the throne, this would obviously predispose her to Protestantism even if it was only for political reasons. She obviously did not believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, walking out at the elevation of the host, along with this, the bread and wine were not consecrated during the ceremony in the Book of Common Prayer. These facts, individually or shown together would suggest that Elizabeth would want radical Protestant reform when she acceded the throne, her background combined with her education meant that people expected little else. However, it is necessary to take into account some aspects of Elizabeth's religious beliefs which were not Protestant in their nature. She had a dislike of long sermons and the theological debates much loved by other Protestant reformers, she had a low opinion of married clergy, preferring that they remained celibate, her barely civil conduct towards the wife of the bishop of Canterbury illustrates this. She wanted church services to look largely Catholic, insisting on the wearing of vestments by priests, the singing of hymns accompanied by a choir and the presence of candles and crucifixes in her private chapel, despite disagreements by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The traditional view of Elizabeth’s priorities in creating the religious settlement was proposed in the 1950s by JE Neale. Neale stressed the importance of the House of Commons in shaping the settlement. He argued that Elizabeth actually originally intended a fairly conservative reform but that it was ‘hijacked’ by a ‘puritan choir’. This ‘puritan choir’ was a well organised and influential group of radical Protestants in the commons. They increasingly manipulated the rest of the house into making further reforms to a church they felt was too Catholic and not enough like the more radical churches on the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Neale’s arguments have been discredited more recently by Jones and other revisionist historians. When Neale wrote his thesis he ignored the influence of the House of Lords over the House of Commons. While the House of Commons did have a large Protestant element, the House of Lords was much more conservative and Catholic. As the upper house, the Lords had the power of veto over the Commons, therefore, any settlement suggested by the Commons which was too radical would simply have been sent back. Warren makes the point that parliament only assembled at the wish of the reigning monarch and were therefore highly likely to take the wishes of that monarch into account. This theory suggests that Elizabeth was firmly in control of what the church settlement included and if any bullying went on it was not by the Commons over her, but by her over the House of Lords. Her settlement was more radical than was acceptable for the largely catholic House of Lords and it was only by manipulation that it was passed.

The reason for the largely Catholic sentiments in the House of Lords was not simply the natural conservatism of the peers but the fact that many seats in the lords belonged to bishops who had been appointed in the Marian regime. This naturally meant they were catholic and wary of any changes to the church which inclined it more towards Protestantism. They were willing to accept that, given Elizabeth’s personal convictions and politics, a certain amount of change was inevitable. Another reason for their wariness of Protestantism lies in the alternative to episcopacy. The Catholic Church was based upon a hierarchical system through which authority was imposed form the top and filtered down through the various ranks form the Pope to the cardinals to the bishops to the parish priest with other layers in between. The alternative system to this was the Genevan system whereby the supervision of the church was carried out by the Consistory, hierarchy didn’t exist in this system as it did in the catholic system and there was no place for bishops. Wary of losing their power, influence and wealth the bishops were wary when it came to bureaucratic reform within the Church. It was unlikely, however, that Elizabeth would reform the church in this manner, as it would mean a loss of central control.

In terms of revisionist and post-revisionist opinions, there is agreement that the Neale thesis is fundamentally flawed, but the underlying reasons behind the church settlement still remained obscured in debate. One of the most recent opinions is by MacCaffrey who believes that Elizabeth’s motivation in the church settlement lay less in her personal beliefs but more in political astuteness. This is similar to the view put forward by Haigh who said, ‘for all her sincere Protestantism, Elizabeth used the church as a political weapon. Perhaps Elizabeth was God’s instrument, but the church was her [instrument]”. If this is the case, then the question springs to mind, why didn’t Elizabeth take the ‘easy option’ and keep the country Catholic? By changing the country’s religion, she risked aggravating the majority of her subjects, who were on the whole conservative about religious change as well as the major powers in Europe. MacCaffrey suggests that the simplest explanation is the best, that The Queen was a convinced Protestant, given her up-bringing and what we know of her attitude towards the Eucharist, this seems to make the most sense, but it contradicts with Haigh’s argument. It is possible to reconcile the two views in a theory put forward by Peter Lake. On one hand “the Church settlement was simply an act of state, designed to restore proper relations between the Crown and the Church” on the other it was the bringing of the ‘true religion’ to the people of England. The extent to which the outward trappings of the prayer book retained the old, familiar, Catholic traditions suggests that, to an extent at least, the settlement must have been inspired by politics rather than religious belief, radical Protestants rejected the ‘smells and bells’ of the old Catholic masses. The fact that the new services were fundamentally Protestant, they were conducted in the vernacular, the host was not elevated and the wording of the service was changed, suggests that, in fact, the settlement was religiously motivated. To avoid popular revolt, it was necessary to have a certain amount of continuation in the service, to keep it Catholic.

That the church settlement aims to be inclusive is a point few historians disagree upon. In this case, the aim of the settlement was to keep the maximum number of people contented by steering the via media, the middle way. It is Guy who writes, “It is a paradox that, at the time the Elizabethan religious settlement was made, it settled little”, and in this observation he seems to be correct. The aim of the settlement was inclusion, but due to the polarised nature of religious opinion at the time, complete inclusion was impossible, so in order to get as many people from the fringes of opinion as possible conforming, the waters were deliberately muddled. The religious settlement solved nothing because that was what it aimed to do. The Act of Supremacy seems to deliberate exclude Roman Catholic to whom saying that the Queen was the head of the Church was heresy, and indeed the document does exclude them. However, it is important to understand that although the Act of Supremacy existed, and technically anyone who refused twice to take the oath to it was committing treason, Elizabeth passed and injunction forbidding anyone from being asked twice. It is a similar story with the words said during the Eucharist, the person who is saying them can interpret them as being any view from transubstantiation to simply a memorial service because they are simply lifted straight from the bible. So long as a person gave the outward appearance of conformity, the state found their personal thoughts irrelevant, as Elizabeth put it ‘I will not make windows into men’s souls’. Both the Act of Uniformity and the Act of Supremacy seem to be exclusive documents on paper, and as they were designed and written by the Protestant Cecil and the Protestant Privy Council, it is unsurprising that they are largely Protestant in their nature. It is with Elizabeth's intervention that they become more inclusive, the wording of the Eucharist being changed from the Edwardian copy to the more ambiguous Elizabethan version, and the ruling that people cannot be asked to take the Oath of Supremacy twice.

The 1559 church settlement was fundamentally a political manoeuvre which aimed to prevent unrest and impose conformity. Although it was Cecil who was in charge of the settlement, it was based on Elizabeth's wishes: to have a non-radical Protestant church which the majority of her subjects would be happy with. To ensure that while the doctrine of the church was largely Protestant, the outward trappings were Catholic in style to give the appearance of continuity. The Neale thesis discredited, Elizabeth was the person ultimately in control of the attitude of the settlement, it could include little of which she did not approve. She intended a Protestant-catholic hybrid for political and personal reasons as her main priority was conformity. Without a hybrid church there was radicalism, with radicalism there was unrest and for Elizabeth, unrest was to be avoided.