Loyalty to Creed or Crown

In the sixteenth century, England faced several religious and political upheavals. The Protestant Reformation, starting in the reign on Henry VIII, caused a permanent rift between Catholic Rome and England. This continued in Edward’s rule, but reverted during the reign of Mary. A devout Catholic, Mary imposed a strict regime of Catholicism that shook the nation that had already seen a religious upheaval the same century. However, soon Elizabeth came to the throne, taking on the threat of Catholicism, and soon a new upcoming sect, Puritanism. The Elizabethan Church was successful in adequately meeting most of the challenges of Catholicism and Puritanism.

With the rising threat of Puritanism and the constant threat of the Catholicism, the enforcement of loyalty to Queen Elizabeth was the key to ensuring the conformity of the people’s religious practices. Coming out of a strong push for Catholicism under Marian reign, “[t]he majority of people were not Protestant ‘converts’… therefore caution was essential” (Guy, 252). The queen needed to win over the people to ensure that they would follow her in faith (252). The process had to be a smooth one in order to prevent an uprising from either Catholics or Protestant reformists. England was at a tipping point, balancing between two extremes of chaos. The 1559 Settlement was the keystone to Elizabeth’s careful balancing act. The use of loyalty and careful compromise shaped the outcomes of possible outbursts of resistance by making opposition a matter of treason rather than a matter of religious preference.

The continuing threat of Catholicism weighed heavily on Elizabeth and her Parliament. To them, it would have seemed that Catholicism came at them from all angles. Geographically, Catholic powers encircled England, constantly surrounding the island in a blanket of threat. It could easily be believed that at any given time there would be a plot to overthrow Elizabeth and plant a Catholic monarch at the head of the nation. The murders of William the Silent and Henry III, both national leaders, justified the fears of the Elizabethan regime of murderous plots to kill the queen (MacCulloch, 47). An example of this is the Ridolfi Plot where six thousand Spaniards gathered to overthrow Elizabeth and put Mary Queen of Scots on the throne (Guy, 277). In both 1579 and 1580, the Spanish interfered again by supporting a rise of Catholic rebellions in Ireland (MacCulloch, 47). Usually, Mary Queen of Scots, Elizabeth’s Catholic rival for the throne, was rumored to be behind most of these. Most likely terrified, Elizabeth and her court had to make provisions to ensure the survival of the Elizabethan Church. In 1584, Elizabeth’s inner circle enacted a Bond of Association, promising to “pursue to the death anyone who attempted to harm the Queen,” and whomever benefited from this harm (47). Without a direct heir to the throne, it was very likely that Mary Queen of Scots could succeed Elizabeth if something were to happen to the English queen.

The use of the loyalty to the Queen was important to controlling the threat of Catholicism. The enactment of the Supremacy Act and the Uniformity Act met the challenges of Catholicism by control and compromise. In 1559, Parliament enacted the Supremacy Act, which changed the title of Elizabeth in relation to the Church as the Supreme Governor of the Church, rather than the Supreme Head of the Church (Guy, 261- 262). This gave Elizabeth a permanent hold on religious matters in England. It ensured that when those whom she wished took the oath to follow the Supremacy Act they acknowledged Elizabeth’s holiness as a monarch picked out by God. This meant that dissenters of the queen’s religion could be seen not only as heretics but traitors as well. All priests, officers, and university men had to take this oath; this was extended in 1563 to all school masters, lawyers, and members of Parliament (Williams, 265). It also ensured that all of the leaders of English community would have pledged to Elizabeth and therefore to Protestantism. Early on, the queen’s regime realized the importance of controlling the Catholic leadership in order to demolish the religion in England and hold off the fear of Catholic invasion.

As with most of the challenges that occurred during the Elizabethan regime, the challenge of the Catholic clergy was met with both force and compromise. The Catholic clergy was critical because although Protestants had “leadership in the Church of England,” they lacked control of the parishes, “where Catholic priests and traditionalist laity were in large majorities” (Haigh, 252). However, the Elizabethan regime was better at compromising in order to appease the clergy into silence. The Supremacy Bill, which seemed to cause so much trouble for Catholic clergy, was amended to make “only opinions contrary to Scripture and the General Councils of the early Church could be treated as heresy by royal commissioners” (240). This allowed Catholics to survive within the Church as a peaceful and conforming minority.

The Uniformity Act, while placing all of England under the Protestant Church of England, allowed for coexistence of Catholics within the Church. The act reestablished the 1552 Book of Common Prayer with some modifications (Haigh, 240). The act allowed for the removal of criticisms and mentions of papal abuse, helping Catholics to accept the book as a religious guide. Also, the words of administration were worded in an ambiguous fashion in order to allow a Catholic interpretation, the presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, otherwise known as transubstantiation, but did not explicitly say so in order to appease Protestants (240). This kept the Church “rather more Catholic than had been planned” (241). Catholic clergy played an important role during the entire English Reformation. Elizabeth provided many steps for the clergy to convert or conform to Protestantism.

Even with these compromised ways, the Protestant populace forced Catholicism to become a minority. Haigh writes that “memories faded and rosaries were lost, as new ministers cajoled and bishops imposed penances, survivalist Catholicism was diluted by conformity, until, as at Weaverham after 1578, it disappeared completely” (252). This was helped by the dying off of Catholic-trained clergy, replaced by the Protestant-educated (Haigh, 252). However, this lack of Catholic clergy brought a new uprising of seminary-trained priests from Europe. These priests “were sent to sustain and strengthen the faith of existing Catholics, not to convert Protestants from their heresy” (261). However, it was not this that caused problems with the Elizabethan regime.

In 1570, a papal bull was released that caused Elizabeth’s outlook on Catholics to change dramatically. In the bull, the pope excommunicated Elizabeth and released all of her subjects from the bond of loyalty to her. By Catholic doctrine, people who were excommunicated must be ostracized and were believed to be damned to hell. This placed the otherwise tolerated Catholics in a dilemma. They had to choose between their pope and their queen. These seminary priests encouraged rebellion against Elizabeth’s Church by not attending service, known as recusancy (Haigh, 263). However, this was soon seen as treason, as was the giving of aid to any of these now illegal seminary priests (263). Tolerance was held until there was a threat to the queen’s power. Anti-Catholicism was highly prevalent again, helped by the fact that “[l]ater in 1585, the war between England and Spain brought greater dangers, since Protestants believed priests were spies recruiting support for a Spanish invasion” (263). This only added to the mass hysteria concerning a Catholic conspiracy.

These seminary priests tried to appeal to the elite families of England, knowing that the gentry were also important in Catholic leadership. Elizabeth had to carefully rule in order to not frighten the gentry into rebellion. The gentry held much of the political power and could easily turn against the queen. Knowing this, Elizabeth made provisions and gestures to keep the gentry loyal to her. For example, to appeal to conservatives, she kept her prayer table in the fashion of a communion table and “kept her crucifix, as a hint to conservatives that she was really one of them” (Haigh, 244). Gestures such as these, plus the compromises of the Supremacy and Uniformity Acts allowed Catholics to hope for English tolerance, if not eventual reversion back to Catholicism. So just like their parents during Edwardian rule, most gentry conformed publically, keeping their Catholic ideals private.

However, Elizabeth planned to raise the new generation of English gentry to have Protestant ideals, mainly through education. First, Elizabeth censored the books being published in England, banning any works with Catholic or anti-Elizabethan Church views. Luckily for Elizabeth, there were very few English printers and most of them were in London where they could be easily watched (Williams, 280). The queen also went a step further and controlled the education of the youth. Children were no longer allowed to go to school abroad, forcing any gentry to send their children to Protestant institutions (284). To control the teachings in schools and colleges, not only did all schoolmasters have to take the oath outlined in the Supremacy Act, but they had to be licensed by the bishops (284). It was also forbidden to employ an unlicensed teacher (284). It was precautions like this that allowed for Elizabeth to control the majority of Catholic gentry.

However, there was one notable revolt by the Catholic gentry, which ultimately showed the weaknesses of the religion. In 1569, earls in the north revolted against the queen when they were denied for office and ignored by the queen (Haigh, 257). In a mass destructive campaign in Durham and Yorkshire, the earls tore up Protestant books, calling out for support from their Catholic supporters (257). Although many came to their aid, Catholicism was not powerful enough for the revolt to become a mass upheaval. In actuality, most of the Catholic gentry did not join the rebellious earls because of loyalty to the queen. They believed that “God would intervene in time, without any need for treason” (258). This shows that Elizabeth’s plot to gain the loyalty of the Catholic gentry seemed to be working.

Overtime, Catholicism died down as a major threat against the Elizabethan Church. The leadership of the church was lost, too loyal or weak to resist conforming. The lower classes followed, having fewer resources available to them in the way of teachings and priests. This reflected in the diminishing political power of Catholics. Even in 1559, only sixteen out of forty-two Marian JPs returned in Norfolk; only twenty-five out of thirty-seven were elected in Sussux between 1560 and 1565 (Williams, 271). In fact, “[n]o avowed Roman Catholics were returned to the House of Commons after 1571,” while the House of Lords remained party Catholic, but were held by loyalty to the queen (MacCulloch, 37). The revamping of anti-Catholic views and loss of toleration brought on by the Papal Bull of 1570, forced Catholics to hide in isolation, reducing their social and political influence.

In response to the anti-Catholic sentiment, a group of Protestant reformers emerged, wanting to cleanse the Elizabethan Church of anything they thought was ‘popish’ or excess. The Puritans were a religious sect within the Anglican Church that believed in the supremacy of Jesus over all and the strict following of Scripture. Unlike the mixture of compromise and loyalty that was used to suppress Catholics, Elizabeth used an iron fist to block any more reform of her church. Protestants believed that Parliament was the correct media for reform (Durston, 188). For example in 1571, William Strickland introduced a revision of the Prayer Book and in 1587, Sir Anthony Cope tried to revoke the existing ecclesiastical laws (187). However, Elizabeth would have none of it. She was absolutely firm on not reforming her Church anymore, especially in 1566 and 1572 where the queen blocked church reform in Parliament (MacCulloch, 39).

The puritans believed that movement would come from within the Church by the masses, which is shown in writings by Edmund Snape and John Field (Collinson, 390). This mere fact alone, of the sect being within the Anglican Church, rather than a separate force trying to convert the masses against Elizabeth’s Church, caused Puritanism to survive as a minority sect. There were many powerful puritan leaders high up in Elizabeth’s regime. One of the most noted is the Earl of Leicaster. A puritan-sympathizer, but never openly public about it, Leicaster was very anti-Catholic and supported the “puritan protégés as the threat from Spain increased in the 1580s” (Durston, 189). Although losing political power with the rising of his rival Whitgift, it was Leicaster’s death that hurt the puritan movement most (Collinson, 386). Although many tried, Durston points out, “attempts to reconstruct his patronage network under the earl of Essex ended in failure and the execution of Essex in 1601” (189). The 1590s were very hard for puritans, as they lost many of their key leaders. This loss of a great leader, Leicaster, and then another leader, Essex, shows the beginnings of decline in the puritan sect, coupled with the queen’s impatience for the movement.

The queen was growing tired of the puritans and no doubt felt threatened by them. Puritan beliefs state that one should always follow the Lord, even if it goes against the queen. By the standards already set up for the Catholics, choosing between the pope and Elizabeth, these puritan beliefs could easily be seen as treason. Their suspicious beliefs, coupled with the extreme sect of Presbyterianism, which wanted to reconstruct a whole new government without bishops, made Elizabeth wary of the group (Collinson, 396). Their criticism of her slightly ‘popish’ ways did not help their cause (396). However, it was not until one of her bishops clearly defied her that Elizabeth started a massive push to eradicate what she deemed was a radical and dangerous threat to the crown.

In the 1570s a new trend of preaching was coming about called prophesying. Collinson explains that “[a]ccording to the progressive protestant view now in the ascent, the ministry of the Church should be an energetic force, converting the people to a godly obedience by proclamation of the word and discipline” (191). Bringing in a more zealous reform-sympathetic crowd, Elizabeth was concerned with the spreading of Puritanism through this media and ordered it to be banned several times (192). However, it was not until 1577 that the situation caused the downfall of Grindal, archbishop of Canterbury, when he refused to put a stop to prophesying, saying “he was subject to a higher power” (60). Grindal could have easily side-stepped the confrontation, but instead, he dared to directly defy the queen, encouraging her fears that a puritan conspiracy of disloyalty and treason could easily be achieved. In his letter he defended the exercises, deeming them necessary and declared the limitations of the crown in spiritual matters (C195). The puritan belief that prophesying could lead to a revolution can be seen in the writings of Thomas Wood, quoted by Collinson, who explained, “for surely… if they had continued they would in short time have overthrown a great part of [Satan’s] kingdom, being one of the greatest blessings that ever came to England” (167). The queen took direct action against puritans and the view in her regime turned criticizing and even mocking toward puritans.

Elizabeth’s government now had the obligation to their queen to eradicate this supposed threat to her crown. The Privy Council successfully imprisoned and executed leaders in puritan confrontation (Durston, 184). Durston concludes that, “the imprisonment of prominent lay Presbyterians such as Thomas Cartwright and Humphrey Fenn in 1590 and the execution of John Penry, Henry Barrow and John Greenwood in 1593 contribute to driving the more radical reformers underground or into exile” (188). Along with the death of John Field, one of the most well-known puritan authors and organizers, the puritan followers had very little leadership, losing their political power in England.

Another factor that led to the loss of puritan zeal was the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588. Puritanism often sustained the reformist enthusiasm by continuing to focus on the continuing Catholic threat and further conspiracies. However, the defeat of the Spanish, the great ally of Catholic Rome and constant treat to Protestant England, caused the danger of Catholicism to drop dramatically, though still remain. This significantly caused puritans to lose their top scare tactic to get converts. However, the threat of Catholicism was still considered strong and “in a highly patriotic speech to the Parliament which et in the aftermath of the Armada, Sir Christopher Hatton as lord chancellor lumped papists and puritans together as equally dangerous subjects” (Collinson, 386). Elizabeth had now achieved the means to keep her Church in the ‘middle of the road’ with the threat of too much reform on one side, and too much papacy on the other.

The Elizabethan Church was successful in adequately meeting most of the challenges of Catholicism and Puritanism, using a forceful push from the crown towards conformity, fueled by the people’s strong loyalty to the queen to deal with Catholicism, and stubbornness to compromise or reform in reference to puritans. Seeing both religious factions as a threat to her crown, Elizabeth took strong steps to ensure the loyalty of the masses to her, rather than their religious beliefs. By neutralizing the leadership of Catholicism and Puritanism in England, she relatively kept the peace and made a smooth transition for everyone to her Church possible. Queen Elizabeth’s tactics of standing the middle ground between Catholics and Puritans ensured the success of the Anglican Church during her reign.

Works Cited
Collinson, Patrick. The Elizabethan Puritan Movement. London: Jonathen Cape, 1967.
Durston, Christopher, and Jacqueline Eales. The Culture of English Puritanism, 1560-1700. Houndmills: MacMillian Press Ltd., 1996.
Guy, J. Tudor England. New Ed. Oxford: Oxford Paperbacks, 1988.
Haigh, Christopher. English Reformations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993
MacCulloch, Diarmaid. The Later Reformation in England, 1547-1603. New York: St. Martin’s Press
Williams, P. The Tudor Regime. New York City: Oxford University Press, 1979