From where did Elizabeth face the greatest challenge to her aims in the framing of the Church Settlement?

Although Elizabeth’s religious ambitions for the Church of England are difficult to determine, Jones argues that her political ambition to restore the royal supremacy was never in doubt. Neale agrees that ‘Elizabeth wanted an interim Church settlement which would return England to the religious situation on her father’s death [that of the royal supremacy]’. Doran argues that specific elements of the Act of Supremacy that implement some of the aspects of a protestant service suggest that Elizabeth did have plans for an Act of Uniformity but was worried about Catholic opposition to the more openly radical bill defusing it. However, this could conversely be evidence that Elizabeth viewed the Act of Supremacy as sufficient in her ‘interim Church settlement’ and was only later forced into the Act of Uniformity by radical elements in the House of Commons.

The extent to which the Elizabeth’s aims for the Religious Settlement were threatened and re-formed by radical Protestants in the House of Commons is a subject of intense historical debate, due largely to the absence of substantial Parliamentary records for the 1559 session. Neale argues that the accession of Elizabeth had led to the return of a substantial number of protestant Marian exiles who came to dominate the 1559 parliament. Neale’s thesis of organised opposition in the form of a ‘puritan choir’ that led the ‘House of Commons…full-cry after its radical leaders’ was constructed on the basis of a document that named forty-three members of the 1566 House of Commons as ‘our choir’. The list included the extremely influential Thomas Norton who Neale argues came to dominate the Elizabethan House of Commons until the 1580s. However, of the forty-three named individuals only twenty-two are definitely protestant of these only three could be described as radical. Elton argues that particularly significant on a document that is supposed to represent the unity of a radically protestant group of MPs is the presence of five figures closely connected with conservatism and even Catholicism including Henry Goodere who was to be an ardent supporter of Mary Queen of Scots. Furthermore the document was described contemporarily as ‘a lewd pasquil set forth by certain Parliament men.’ full of rhymes and ‘doggerel verse,’ that Elton sees as little more than the equivalent of a skit in a satiric magazine. Finally eleven held government office or were clients of privy-councillors while seven or eight of the members listed later conducted official Privy Council business. Closer examination of the document would appear to nullify Neale’s use of it as evidence of organised ‘pressure from the left.’ Haigh affirms the view that the so called ‘puritan choir’ was ‘not an organised pressure group able to dominate the commons.’ 

P. Williams makes the important distinction between Protestants and returned radicalised exiles, when he argues that ‘Protestants were dominant in the Commons but the House was not led by returned exiles.’

As well as this, the only record of the parliament states that the bills designed to introduce some protestant uniformity were passed after ‘stormy debate’ However, Haigh argues that Haigh

that the strong faction within parliament and court was puritan although this term was not actually in use at the time. He points to the 900 Marian exiles, many of whom returned in 1558. This alone might not seem significant, however, upon Elizabeth’s accession, a number of the most conservative Marian bishops resigned and the absence of competent replacements meant that many of the most influential ecclesiastical positions were filled by returned, radicalised theologians. Coupled with the apparent growth of Puritanism in House of Commons

Puritan Choir – need to assess the specifics of the Puritan choir argument in much greater depth – get hold of Neale’s ‘Queen Elizabeth I’.

1. Neale’s assertions
2. Parliament records examined by Haigh etc. which contradict Neale’s claims of Puritanism domination

Neale suggests that Elizabeth’s main limitation or consideration was the so-called ‘Puritan Choir’. During research Neale discovered a pamphlet naming 43 members of the House of Commons of 1566 as members of a Puritan movement. Norman Jones argues, however, that many of the members of parliament implicated were not in fact puritans. [Historiography – Neale trying to shape his evidence to support his conclusion that the origins of the English Civil war can be found in Elizabeth's reign] It is possible that in order If, as Neale claims, Elizabeth wished to achieve a Henrician Catholicism [Need more about what ‘her father’s church’ actually was to Elizabeth – perhaps it was just rhetoric? i.e. she appreciated the nostalgia for Henry VIII’s reign and the need as a female monarch following Mary to attach herself to her father] the presence of a radically protestant faction would severely limit her ambitions. This view would appear somewhat vindicated by William Cecil’s claim that ‘The Queen was getting annoyed by…the state of matrimony in the clergy and the Bishop of Norwich[’s] overlooking of schismatics and Anabaptists.’ and the Count de Feria’s writings to Philip II ‘She was so resolved to restore religion as her father had left it.’[Historiography – an ambassador to a devoutly catholic nation, question reliability] Evidence for the influence of Puritanism in the framing of the Elizabethan Church Settlement can be found in the wording of the 1559 Prayer Book which states: ‘eat this in remembrance…drink this in remembrance.’[more examples as well as cross reference both contemporary reactions with modern historians assessments] This directly contradicts the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation in favour of the Protestant ideas of commemoration and would suggest a strong Protestant influence, opposing Elizabeth’s conservatism.

Catholicism and conservatism in House of Lords.

However, increasingly Neale’s view is seen as a misrepresentation of Elizabeth’s religious persuasion and motivations as well as the actual strength of Puritanism in the House of Commons. Jones argues that the greatest consideration influencing the formation of the Settlement was not Puritanism forcing a more radical line to be taken than Elizabeth herself desired; but instead, conservatism and Catholicism in the House of Lords. He refutes Neale’s claim that the ‘Puritan Choir’ dominated the 1559 parliament by showing that in fact only nineteen Marian exiles were elected to the commons by 1559 [what proportion of the parliament was this?] He argues instead that the parliament’s hostility and inertia was created by conservative Bishops in the House of Lords rather than any radicalism in the House of Commons. However, even a small faction, when radicalised and vocal enough, could be a major consideration influencing Elizabeth. What is more significant in the refutation of the Nealean perspective is Elizabeth’s own religious motivations. Count von Helffstein when writing to the Emperor Ferdinand stressed Elizabeth’s caution and prudence saying ‘she seems both to protect the Catholic religion and at the same time not entirely condemn or outwardly reject the new Reformation.

If this so-called via media paradigm is true, rather than presenting Elizabeth as a conservative Catholic restricted solely by Puritan pressure it would be more effective to view her as a proponent of Realpolitik who desired to satisfy both Protestants and Catholics alike. C. Haigh goes even further, pointing to the initial rejection by the House of Lords of the restoration of Protestantism in March 1559. He argues that Elizabeth and her strongly Protestant Council wanted a more radically Protestant Settlement, but due to Catholic opposition were forced to alter elements of the Act of Supremacy in particular the wording ‘Supreme governor’ rather than ‘Supreme Head.’ Elizabeth’s comments to the Dean of St. Paul’s saying ‘I have an aversion to idolatry, to images and pictures of this kind,’ suggest again that Elizabeth’s more radically Protestant ambitions were quashed by Conservative Bishops of the House of Lords that Jones refers to. This assessment matches the contemporary sources of Foxe, Camden and Strype who created an image of Elizabeth as a heroine of Protestantism forced to control her early radical ambitions by Catholics opposition. However, Foxe’s radicalisation in Northern Europe during Mary’s reign means that upon his return (as with other Marian exiles) his frustration at England conservatism may have led him to overstate the strength of conservative opposition to religious change.

It could be argued that the earliest potential opposition that influenced the Settlement occurred not when the proposed bills were presented to Parliament in 1559 but when the bills were formed by Elizabeth with the support of her Protestant Privy Council. While the mainly Protestant bill entered Parliament with Elizabeth’s support, her own personal religious beliefs were more ambiguous when for example she refused to remove crucifixes and candles from her private chapel. Thus, the first, mostly Protestant, bill that entered parliament in 1559 may have been further from Elizabeth’s own ideal and influenced not by Protestantism in the House of Commons but in her own Privy Council. In fact, it could be argued that the final bill (after it had been modified to satisfy Catholics) may have been more representative of Elizabeth’s own personal religious beliefs (beliefs that held elements of both Protestant and Catholic doctrine) than the initial bill of March ’59.

Many of the seemingly strong and limiting considerations facing Elizabeth in the formation of the Church Settlement, when examined in context become insubstantial. The international situation, both England’s relationship with Spain and Neale’s interpretation of the Cateau-Cambresis negotiations had little effect on religious policy due to Spain’s need to maintain the status quo and Neale’s misinterpretation of the treaty’s significance respectively. Elizabeth’s apparent acquiescence to a conservative populace by retaining rituals would have appeared entirely doctrinally justifiable to Elizabeth, and certainly not a compromise. The most significant considerations influencing Elizabeth occurred in parliament, particularly as Haigh argues, from conservative peers in House of Lords. Yet, Jones’s dismissal of Protestant opposition completely, ignores the guidance Elizabeth received from her strongly protestant council that meant even when Elizabeth and her council abolished the Mass, the Queen herself chose not to refrain. Thus, although both Neale and in particular Jones’ views have substantial merit, they are perhaps too polarised. Elizabeth was forced to consider both significant Catholic and Protestant influences but at different stages in the creation of the Church Settlement and while the ‘via media’ was doctrinally substantiated, it was also wholly necessary. Without it, not only would the Settlement’s progression have been impossible but heated opposition and even mass uprising would seem to have been inevitable.

As well as immediate potential opposition, Elizabeth also had to consider other more indirect conflict that the Church Settlement might face, in particular, England’s position in Europe. As a result of Mary’s marriage to Philip II, when Elizabeth came to the throne in 1558, England was allied with Spain. Elizabeth was forced to consider the effects an overtly Protestant Settlement would have on this diplomatic relationship. If England was to officially convert to Protestantism she risked losing Spanish support as Philip II wrote ‘If this change [in religion] is made all idea of my marriage with her must be broken off.’ Without Spanish support for England in the Vatican, Elizabeth faced excommunication and the potential mounting of a Papal crusade against her. This would appear to have been a major consideration facing Elizabeth, comparable to Henry VIII’s ‘war scare’ of the 1540s. However, it is possible that Elizabeth was able to discount the threat of losing complete Spanish support due to Spain’s need of a secure sea-route to the Spanish-controlled Netherlands. Guy suggests that it was in fact due to this Spanish support, that Elizabeth was not excommunicated until as late as 1570. Thus, despite England’s seemingly precarious European position in 1558 located between two enemies, France and Scotland, and with the potential enemies of Spain and the Papal states, the Anglo-Spanish symbiosis meant that ultimately Elizabeth was at least relatively secure in her pursuit of a more Protestant Church of England and international policy had little effect on religious policy. Neale does argue however, that Elizabeth was forced into a more conservative Settlement by the necessity of escaping war with Catholic France. In contrast, Haigh argues that rather than being restricted by the peace negotiations, they had little consequence in parliamentary religious matters and if anything strengthened Elizabeth’s position against the conservative House of Lords. Haigh may well be overstating the significance of the peace negotiations by portraying the process of the 1559 parliament as a victory of a protestant Elizabeth’s over conservative peers, but, it does again show that Elizabeth was relatively free to of international considerations when framing the Church Settlement.

Elizabeth had to consider not only her parliament, Privy Council and international diplomacy, but also those within the Church, as well as the general populace itself. Any change to the Mediaeval and 16th century Church’s rituals had always resulted in widespread opposition. This was seen particularly during the Pilgrimage of Grace, which responded dissolution of the smaller monasteries and not to the earlier more profound changes in the Six Articles. Therefore, as can be seen in the final Settlement, which resists many manifestations of change, Elizabeth chose to present much of the traditional controversial Catholic rituals as ‘adia fora’ and thus doctrinally irrelevant. It has been argued that this was a result of the Realpolitik strategy of via media; however, it is more likely a sincere result of Elizabeth’s humanist education that placed personal identification with God above visual manifestations and institutions. Once Elizabeth had a principled humanist foundation regarding the irrelevance of ritual, her sense of Realpolitik meant she did not remove them, thus maintaining a satisfying status quo that she perceived as completely justified. So, while it might be argued Elizabeth was considerably influenced by the general populace’s conservatism (a view superficially supported by the non-removal of Catholic ritual in the final Church Settlement) the reasoning behind the idea of ‘adia fora’ was grounded in her humanist background and not a result of pragmatic consideration of the general populace’s conservatism. It is undeniable that the concept served Elizabeth’s via media policy well, but it was a consequence of her own religious motivation and not of the influence of external factors.
        Finally, Elizabeth had to consider the effects of the Church settlement in the longer term. A Device for Alteration of Religion had portrayed the aftermath of a Protestant Settlement as dangerous and even anarchic. The possible risk of a Catholic uprising in Ireland and even England meant that regardless of the principled justifications of Protestantism, Elizabeth was forced to consider the possibility of mass uprising among the lay populace. Furthermore, the potential opposition among the clergy and particularly the bishops and higher clergy, was at least a factor in Elizabeth’s framing of the Church Settlement. However, as can be seen by the subsequent resignations of all but one of the Marian bishops, Elizabeth took little notice of the potential opposition within the clergy itself.