Puritan Dbq

Investigation Title: “Using these four passages and your own knowledge, asses the view that Puritans were a serious challenge to the unity of the Elizabethan Church”.
There was undoubtedly an increase in extreme Protestant views throughout Elizabeth’s reign, an area of particular concern was the Puritan beliefs of some of her senior advisors such as the Earl of Leicester. There were also some of those from within the Elizabethan Church and within Elizabeth’s government whose opposition to the Religious Settlement was influential to an extent, particularly during the 1570s, but all of whom received a severe punishment, and consequently never gained enough support to become a substantial threat to the Monarchy. This view has been illustrated

by revisionist historians such as Michael Graves, who, in his publication of ‘Elizabethan Parliaments’ wrote “The Presbyterian campaigns were mounted by a handful of members, lacked general parliamentary sympathy and support and were easily smothered by official action”.
Historians’ views upon the extent of the Puritan threat are extremely varied, the less extreme views of those such as Michael Graves and Robert Acheson who agree that ‘the new generation of Presbyterian-Puritans did make consistent efforts to demolish the Religious Settlement’ , but never presented any serious threat to the unity of the Elizabethan Church; to the more extreme views of J. E. Neale who argued for the rise of a Puritan parliamentary opposition, known as the ‘Puritan Choir’ . John Guy likewise says that Neale based his theory on inapt evidence as his research was only conducted within Eastern counties in England, of which were highly puritan at the time, yet not emblematic of the entirety of the realm, and maintains, ‘the wider assumption…that mainstream Puritanism was potentially anarchical is misinterpreted and exaggerated.
Traditionalists such as Neale, Rowse and Green assert the view that the Puritans were a force to be reckoned with. They influentially argue that Puritans were a threat to Elizabeth’s reign and her Church, and also that they forcefully introduced unwanted reform within the realm. Calvinist leader John Knox attacked the “Monstrous Regiment of Women” in his 1558, suggesting that the Puritans failed, or refused, to recognise a female monarch as the Head of the Church. Elizabeth I however, was primarily concerned about the Puritans from a more politically inclined viewpoint, rather than theological, as their recalcitrance was undermining her authority as Supreme Governor of the Church.
Anne Somerset argues; ‘Elizabeth…was fully alive to the inherent dangers of Puritanism. She had no intention of relinquishing control over her church, or of giving in to pressure for further reform which made no allowance for the views of those whose opinions about religion were less progressive than those of the. Although Elizabeth was raised a Protestant her views were not extreme and, as Guy explains, ‘Overall, she sought compromise and reconciliation…she would not examine their consciences or force anyone to take communion provided they took the oath of supremacy and swore allegiance to the crown.’
This is redolent of a regime which plays a direct role in the attack on Elizabeth as Queen, and consequently, the English Church. A clear illustration of the recklessness of the Puritan movement is William Strickland, a prominent Puritan Member of Parliament, who introduced his own bill to reform the Book of Common Prayer, of which Elizabeth discerned to be a great threat; so much so that she debarred him from the House of Commons. This instance particularly illustrates two key concepts. Yes, the Puritans were persistent and willing to deny the Queen’s authority, as well as attempt to reform the church without permission; however it also exhibits the Queen's strength, able to effortlessly quell the attempts made by Strickland. This is a prime example that relates to the views and opinions of Robert Acheson in source D.
Furthermore, the Earl of Leicester who was most notably the queen’s “favourite” minister, was a Puritan. Lord Burghley also supported the Puritan cause, and both men had significant influence with regards to the unification of the Elizabethan Church. The demand for conformity through the Advertisements and the Three Articles, caused much unrest and if anything exacerbated the current situation, it was Puritanism.
Sources A and B are highly symbolic of the traditionalist view explained above; that the Puritans were a serious threat to the unification of the church, explored in interpretation A, John Neale explains how the Puritan regime “launched its propaganda on the House of Commons”, this we know to be accurate as the House of Commons was very familiar with favouring the Protestant regime; for example the amount of changes that were made during the early years of Elizabeth’s reign suggest that they were not only enthusiastic for a Protestant Church, but also showing the amount of control that the members of Commons had over Elizabeth. For instance Elizabeth was named “Supreme Governor” replacing the Henrician “Supreme Head”, this then supported a more liberal Settlement that favoured Protestant preferences.
Members of the Church were aware of the possible threat; in 1573, the Dean of York told Burghley that ‘The supreme authority was justly taken from the Pope…and given to the Prince…but these reformers take it from the Prince and give it unto themselves.’ The Queen was clearly aware of the potential threat and so dealt with all individual Puritans in a commendable fashion, such as John Greenwood and Henry Barrowe who were executed for promoting separatism (a branch of Puritanism). Rowse highlights that ‘Elizabeth was urging the bishops to crack down on non-conformity within government’ suggesting that parliament supported a Puritan regime that urged for a reform directly upon the Elizabethan Church, and ironically this pressure was coming from within the church itself.
Source A emphasises the amount of parliamentary support that the puritans had to help further their cause, among others, Leicester, Walsingham and Burghley sympathised with the Puritans. However Neale’s theories have been called in to question from historians such as Norman Jones, who showed that only twenty five members of parliament could be seen as Calvinist. He maintains that, in framing the religious settlement, Elizabeth faced opposition not from the forty-three alleged Puritans in the House of Commons, but rather from Catholic resistance and conservatism in the House of Lords which she and Cecil had not anticipated. This therefore suggests that although the Puritans undoubtedly had support from within parliament, they did not however have much. It would therefore seem that the view that the Puritans were a serious threat is exaggerated, and thus highly ambiguous.
Likewise source B supports the view that Puritans were a serious threat to the church by highlighting the lack of control the royal authority held over the Puritans. It is suggested that the Puritans believed they were the ‘Godly Brethren’ and as such “tread all authority under foot” emphasising how little control Elizabeth had over the ever growing, in a sense political party. An important instance of the desire amongst Puritans within the Church and parliament to promote further unauthorised reform reached a peak with the prophesying crisis of 1576. Elizabeth wished to outlaw these informal bible classes because they were not subject to royal control.
However what Porter fails to recognise is that the term Puritan refers to several if not many different groups of religious believers. Presbyterians, Separatist, Conformists and more, all of whom fail establish rules and aims to which they should follow, the lack of organisation and leadership led to confusion and disorder and as a result meant that any attempts to reform the church were feeble and easily put down by Elizabeth.
It is noteworthy that because of the significance of a good education in Puritan beliefs, most Puritans tended to be drawn from the wealthier, ‘higher class’ families and well-educated classes. This is strongly represented in the south eastern nobility and lords, wealthy towns and ports, the universities, Parliament and even Elizabeth’s own court, Puritanism exercised an influence that was disproportionate to its numerical following.
Arguably if the Puritan threat had been as serious as some of these historians suggest, civil war would have broken out much sooner. However, this didn’t happen during Elizabeth I’s reign and so, clearly she remained in control and handled the situation well enough in order to maintain stability as much as possible. Guy sums this up by saying: ‘Irrespective of Elizabeth's private faith, she maintained a vice-like grip on the Church of England and on the pace of change’.
The view that Puritans were consistent is evident in all four passages as they all state that attempts were made by Puritans to reform the church.

Sources C and D however contrast the traditionalist view and assert that Puritans never presented a serious threat and that any attempts to reform the Church or disobey the Queen’s authority was dealt with effectively. Source D highlights that by the late 1580s the leading Puritan nobles such as Leicester, Mildmay and Walsingham had died and so there was no one of influence to protect Puritan clergy from persecution and so their position within the realm had been weakened along with the sphere of influence they once had. Additionally Source D is helpful in assessing the view that the Puritans were ‘not’ a serious challenge, as Acheson sums up “a great deal of radical religious activity stemmed from nothing more than a predilection of a minority”. This is an accurate statement describing Puritanism, that although yes a political and theological movement, it did not have enough power and organisation to become anything more than a “quietly disintegrating political

system”.
Acheson is adamant that the Elizabethan authorities effectively dealt with the Puritan movement, and he would be accurate to say so.

The appointment of Whitgift as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1583 resulted in the decline of Puritanism. Having been brought up with the teachings and views of the Religious Settlement of 1559 his religious understandings matched those of the Queen and he therefore acknowledged Puritanism as a threat. He enforced Elizabeth's policy of religious uniformity and tackled Classical Presbyterianism by enforcing his Three Articles which specifically attacked Puritans and either forced them to conform or deprived them of their living. Between 300 and 400 clergy were removed from their office and eventually his policies meant that Puritanism became an underground movement.
Likewise, Graves agrees with Acheson that attempts made by Presbyterians never presented a serious threat. Source C provides an accurate representation of how actions made by Puritans were either put down by authorities or never ran there course, and thereafter the Presbyterian cause in both Parliament and Church gradually “fizzled

out”.
In conclusion, the Puritans from within both the Church itself and from within Parliament posed a possible dangerous threat to Elizabeth I and her Church. However, due to the fact that the Queen did not tolerate any non-conformists, the movement was never allowed to gain any momentum.
Guy and Doran praise Elizabeth’s reaction to it, Doran argues while ‘nonconformity could not be eradicated…’in general ‘religion ceased to be a major troublesome issue at both the national and the local level during the last decade of the reign’. Guy argues more confidently that ‘Elizabeth succeeded to a remarkable extent in preserving a firm separation of church and state….’ and ‘within ten years the Elizabethan puritan ‘movement’ was dead…the collapse in 1587 of a final Presbyterian attempt to abolish bishops… epitomizing the defeat’. It is therefore clear that the attempts made by Puritan movements did not present a serious threat.

However Warren and Elton argue that it was not Elizabeth’s skill in dealing with the situation but the unskilfulness of the Puritans, Warren saying, ‘the Presbyterian threat was no real threat at all’ and ‘Puritans failed to change the organisation and hierarchy of the church’. Nevertheless the clear conclusion that can be deduced is one that revisionist historians argue, that the Puritans did attempt to reform the church consistently, yet due to a politically and theologically head strong Queen, and a weak, feeble opposition, the Puritan movement never presented a serious threat towards the unity of the Elizabethan Church.