Miriam Tenquist

Why was Puritanism perceived to be a threat to stability in Elizabethan England??

Amounting to a mere 3% of the English population why was Puritanism viewed as a threat to stability? The clear factors contributing lies within the radical beliefs, significant support from key figures, high quality and skill held by puritans and the fragility of the structure of Elizabethan parliament, furthermore it is also incredibly important to consider Elizabeth’s response and own personal views towards puritans and perhaps the true reason for the perceived ‘phantom’ threat lying within the harsh reactions of Elizabeth.
Due to the fragile nature of the government Elizabeth had inherited it was vital for it to remain sable and deal with stressing issues such as religion with great care, Elizabeth had 3 options when it came to religion, maintain catholic religion Mary had set up, create moderate form of Protestantism or create a more radical Genevan style reform. The influence of puritans’ on parliament can be perceived as a threat to stability as their influence greatly undermined the authority of the queen. With the support/sympathy of various key figures; Strickland, field, Dudley, Burghley and perhaps the most notable Edmund grindal, who’s support of prophesying highlights the danger puritans’ held in the eyes of Elizabeth. His refusal to ban the act led to his suspension and house arrest. Such quick and harsh response from the queen implies how seriously she took prophesying as a threat to stability. His letter to Elizabeth may be the reason fro such judgement, grindal puritan views seep through and imply the very same ideas as Knox “monstrous regiment of women” which conferred with grindals threatening response to the queen “remember madam, that you are a mortal creature.” This is not only belittling but also as also warren clearly voices “undermines the queens strong view of divine right of king”the fact that such an influential and known bishop was going against the status quo, not afraid to clearly insult the monarchy suggests the clear explanation as to why the queen acted with such harshness. Furthermore grindals says that” ecclesial matters not should be judged by bishops and divines of your realm” clearly going against the act of supremacy, if Elizabeth removed her bishops from the churches she would ultimately lose her control of the church. Elizabeth needed her bishops to ensure that her new religious settlement went as smoothly as possible so she was able ease the religious strife. The clear ‘discipline’ displayed in grindals letter suggests the lengths at which puritans were willing to go to have their radical views heard. Such strong opinions clashed with the queen’s personal beliefs and authority. Elizabeth wanted to stop any rebellions happening over religion, she had seen issues with religion when watching both Edward and Mary struggle to control the country religion with two totally polar beliefs. Elizabeth did not want a repeat of the western prayer book rebellion; if she removed her bishops from their posts then she would not have correspondents to ensure that her settlement went as smoothly as possible and could have easily come to a rebellion. She viewed puritans as such a threat to the stability of her country because they did not believe in a female monarch, did not want bishops and wanted to remove any catholic practises in the church. Thus grindals letter highlighted warning signs as to the problems she could possibly face in the future-her archbishop had taken a decisive stand against her authority-therefore she acted with such swiftness and effect that grindals stand was seen as almost foolish. Elizabeth’s response was to write directly to the bishops and clamp down on prophesying, which were “sundry new rites…unlawful assemblies…some places call prophesying…charge to forthwith cease.” The source emphasises the threat that prophesying posed to the queen, as she so bluntly reputes the act and demands it to be stopped, it can be suggested that the queen did not want the word of Calvinism to be spread amongst smaller parts of the country and saw it as a threat. In addition her appointment of whitgift as the next archbishop saw his three articles result in the expelling of 200 puritan priests and implies the threat puritans displayed, due to the lengths Elizabeth went to remove their influence in church.
In continuation the organisation and skill of the puritans identifies their perceived threat to stability. The combination of support in parliament and the skill of john field in ensuring that parliament was n conjunction with Presbyterian meetings, so that puritan ideas were discussed as much as possible and any unwanted policies could be queried with. Field published his admonitions to parliament, in which he clearly proclaims that only ministers, elders and deacons can secure true Christian discipline; “which concerneth ecclestical discipline…to deal in this…are chiefly three; ministers, elders and deacons.” The concordance with grindals letter further implies the strength of the puritans and their stubbornness and they relentless to have their views heard. Therefore they can be perceived as threat as their radical views could cause a rebellion and they were constantly trying to have them heard, which may cause trouble with Catholics and protestants, and so with the queen and her parliament as they were trying to ease the new Elizabethan religious settlement. Furthermore fields popish abuse, which defies the Book of Common Prayer “full of abominations.” And highlights the puritans anger over “the popish idolarity…of communication kneeling.” This reinforces puritan beliefs, goes against catholic beliefs, and clearly goes against the queens own personal liking of certain aspects of the Catholic Church and their practises and dress, thus the puritans clashed with the queens desire to maintain a protestant church with certain aspects of the catholic church, as to please both religions.
Accommodating both religions was one of the queen’s main issues and she did not want to go to too extreme on either side. Therefore Elizabeth viewed the puritan’s radical views as a means to start a rebellion; Presbyterians totally denied any form of a national church, would not recognise a female head of church and wanted the removal of al bishops, combined with the support they held with parliament members such as knollys and mildmay meant that they could be perceived as a big threat if they were to encourage rejection from nobility, the support of whom Elizabeth sorely needed to ensure she maintained control of low lands. The various reforms which the puritans attempted and nearly achieved imply the threat to stability. Sir Anthony cope tried to get a bill passed to establish a new prayer book and remove bishops. The fact that “the bill was supported by several able statesmen but was rejected by the superiority of the court party” implies the support which the bill and thus puritans received, again reinforcing the threat to the stability of Elizabeth’s government. Furthermore sticklands popular campaign to again introduce a new prayer book and remove vestments can been perceived as a threat to stability due to the popularity and the geographical location of the campaign being right in the centre of England. In addition Elizabeth’s response implies how seriously she took the puritain threat. Her rapid response to close parliament suggests that Elizabeth believed the campaign would definitely receive enough support if it were to happen, if Elizabeth allowed it to happen what else would puritans ask for? Would it lead to a rebellion if there were a new amended prayer book? As we have seen from Charles fall from power trying to introduce a new prayer book into an area which is not willing to accept it could easily cause a rebellion. Elizabeth needed to maintain support from nobility and ensure that bills were not passed which could jeopardise her reign, the fact that the group was so small was implies even more of a threat, as the question of what if they gained more support constantly appeared, their ideas greatly appeared to key figures, not necessarily to the masses but to those who had power, which previously stated was a major threat to the stability.
Furthermore Elizabeth’s harsh attack on puritans suggests impatience and the true height of threat they posed to the queen. Whitgifts three articles and oath exo officio suggest the threat seen and desire of the queen to remove all puritan ideas from the church. In continuation the fact that “Lawyers as well as puritans protested High Commission's inquisitorial techniques... Even Lord Burghley wrote to Whitgift questioning the severity of his methods... However, Elizabeth's support for Whitgift did not waver.” Implies just how personally Elizabeth saw puritans as a threat and conveys that the reason they were perceived to be a threat wasn’t because they were but merely the harsh reactions of Elizabeth creating an illusion of threat. Conclusively although the progression and expansions of puritans imposed an element of threat to stability, they never got so far as too become an actual threat, they were perceived to be one so strongly by the queen, due to their radical beliefs, popular support with key figures who had large amounts of influence with the queen and organisation.

sorry its late!!! I wasn’t able to finish it yesterday as it was a family friends birthday and also bonfires night :o sorry!!! --------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/0/22387137
[ 2 ]. John warren; Elizabeth I:meeting the challenge, England 1541-1603pg.72
[ 3 ]. john warren; Elizabeth I:meeting the challenge, England 1541-1603pg.72
[ 4 ]. john warren; Elizabeth I:meeting the challenge, England 1541-1603pg.73
[ 5 ]. john warren; Elizabeth I:meeting the challenge, England 1541-1603pg.68
[ 6 ]. Benjamin brook; The Lives of the Puritans: Containing a Biographical Account of ..., Volume 2pg.77
[ 7 ]. http://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/361/361-17.htm