You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
When Elizabeth I came to the throne on 17 November 1558, England's religious identity was dangerously unsettled. In a single decade the country had been wrenched from the conservative Catholicism-without-the-Pope of Henry VIII's final years, to the assertive Protestantism of Edward VI, to the restored Roman Catholicism of Mary I — each transition enforced by statute and, under Mary, by fire. Religion in this period was not a private matter of conscience but the foundation of public order, national loyalty, and international alignment in an age of confessional war. Elizabeth's task was to construct a settlement that could command outward obedience from a divided realm, secure her own supremacy, and avoid both Catholic resistance at home and a Catholic crusade from abroad. For the religion and nation threads of this course, the Settlement is the fulcrum: it is where the religious question, which had convulsed the state since Lesson 2, is finally given a durable form, and where a national Church becomes a pillar of English identity.
Her answer — the Religious Settlement of 1559 — was among the most consequential and durable achievements of the Tudor century. It created a Church of England that was broadly Protestant in doctrine yet retained much that looked Catholic in structure and ceremony (bishops, vestments, the liturgical calendar) — the celebrated via media or "middle way." Its genius, and its fragility, lay in studied ambiguity: by leaving key points (above all the nature of the Eucharist) deliberately open, it could accommodate a wide spectrum of belief. But that same ambiguity guaranteed that the Settlement would be pressed from both flanks — by Catholics who could not accept it and by Puritans who found it insufficiently reformed (the sustained confrontation with each is the subject of Lesson 6).
The organising question for this lesson is whether the Settlement was a coherent, principled via media designed by Elizabeth herself, or a messy political compromise forced on a more radically Protestant queen and Parliament by circumstance — and whether its survival was owed to royal firmness or to the self-restraint of those it failed to satisfy. That is precisely the disagreement you will be asked to weigh in Section C, so it is worth holding the question open rather than assuming an answer.
This lesson belongs to Edexcel 9HI0 Paper 1, Option 1B (Route B): "England, 1509–1603: authority, nation and religion" — a breadth study assessed by extended analytical essays (Sections A and B) and by the evaluation of historians' interpretations (Section C). Within our teaching sequence it is the long-term resolution of the religious turmoil of Lessons 2 and 3, and the foundation on which the government and later religious conflicts of Lessons 5 and 6 rest.
Because Paper 1 is a breadth paper, the examiner looks for judgements about the nature and success of the Settlement across time, not for description of the 1559 legislation in isolation. Keep distinguishing the legal settlement of 1559 from the cultural conversion of the country, which was far slower. (For the exact assessment weightings and question wording, consult the official Edexcel specification and sample assessment materials rather than any paraphrase.)
The core of the Settlement consisted of two Acts of Parliament — the Act of Supremacy and the Act of Uniformity — and a body of Royal Injunctions. The legislation passed only after a parliamentary struggle in the spring of 1559, the interpretation of which (see the interpretations section below) is itself a major debate.
The mechanics of that struggle repay attention, because they underpin the whole "how was the Settlement made?" controversy. Elizabeth's first Parliament met in January 1559 with the Supremacy and Uniformity bills at the heart of its business, steered by Sir William Cecil, her Principal Secretary. In the Commons the bills passed with relative ease; the serious obstruction came in the House of Lords, where the bench of Marian bishops — still Catholic, since Elizabeth had not yet replaced them — and conservative lay peers resisted fiercely, forcing amendments and delay. The government's difficulty was so acute that the session had to be prolonged over the Easter recess, and a set-piece public disputation between Catholic and Protestant divines was staged (and manipulated) to discredit the Catholic case. Only after this manoeuvring did the two Acts pass, and even then the Act of Uniformity cleared the Lords by a narrow margin against solid episcopal opposition. The direction of the resistance — Catholic and in the Lords, not Protestant and in the Commons — is the single most important fact for evaluating the interpretations below, and it is why the older picture of a queen besieged from her Protestant left has not survived scrutiny.
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Royal title | Elizabeth was styled Supreme Governor of the Church of England — not "Supreme Head" as Henry and Edward had been. The change conciliated both those who held that no woman could be "head" of the Church and Protestants uneasy with so spiritual a title for a layperson |
| Oath of Supremacy | Clergy, judges, and officials had to swear acceptance of the queen's supremacy; refusal meant loss of office |
| Graduated penalties | First refusal: loss of office; second: praemunire (forfeiture of goods); third: treason (death) — though enforcement was, at first, deliberately mild |
| Repeal of the heresy laws | Mary's heresy statutes were repealed and papal authority abolished, ending the burnings |
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Book of Common Prayer | Imposed a revised Prayer Book, based on the more Protestant 1552 book but altered to soften its edges (the Black Rubric of 1552, denying the real presence, was dropped) |
| Communion words | Crucially, the words of administration fused the 1549 and 1552 formulae, so the communicant could understand the rite as conveying the body of Christ (Catholic/Lutheran) or as a memorial (Reformed) — the central act of constructive ambiguity |
| Compulsory attendance | All were required to attend their parish church on Sundays and holy days; absence incurred a fine of twelve pence per Sunday (the origin of recusancy fines) |
| The "Ornaments Rubric" | Required clergy to wear the traditional vestments in use in 1549 — a conservative provision that would ignite the later Vestments Controversy (Lesson 6) |
| Injunction | Detail |
|---|---|
| English Bible | Every parish church to hold an English Bible (and Erasmus's Paraphrases) |
| Licensed preaching | Only licensed preachers might preach; the rest were to read the official Book of Homilies, controlling the pulpit against dissent |
| Images and the royal chapel | "Feigned" images were to be removed — yet Elizabeth retained a crucifix and candles in her own Chapel Royal, a personal conservatism that scandalised committed Protestants |
| Resident clergy | The clergy were to reside in their parishes and to be of good life |
| Music | English congregational singing was encouraged, but Elizabeth permitted the survival of elaborate choral music in cathedrals and the Chapel Royal |
The term via media ("middle way") denotes the Settlement's positioning between Rome and Geneva — Protestant in theology (rejecting the Pope, transubstantiation, and five of the seven sacraments) but Catholic in much of its external form (episcopacy, vestments, set liturgy, the church year). Whether this "middle way" was a coherent theological vision or a pragmatic political compromise is precisely the historiographical question this lesson keeps in view. The Settlement's masterstroke was constructive ambiguity, nowhere clearer than in the communion words: a conservative could believe he received Christ's body; a Protestant could take it as a memorial. This vagueness bought outward conformity — but, as with the Henrician compromises, it deferred rather than resolved conflict, leaving the Settlement permanently exposed to demands for clarification from both flanks.
The doctrinal substance of the Church was defined in the Thirty-Nine Articles, agreed by Convocation in 1563 and given statutory force in 1571. They are markedly Protestant in content — which is itself evidence against any reading of the Settlement as crypto-Catholic, and a crucial corrective to the impression left by its conservative ceremonial.
| Key Doctrine | Position |
|---|---|
| Scripture | Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation — the Protestant principle of biblical authority |
| Justification | Salvation by faith alone (Article 11) — the cornerstone Reformation doctrine |
| Sacraments | Only two sacraments of the Gospel — baptism and the Lord's Supper (Article 25) — against the Catholic seven |
| The Eucharist | Transubstantiation is rejected as repugnant to the plain words of Scripture (Article 28), yet a spiritual presence to the faithful is affirmed — Reformed, but worded to avoid needless provocation |
| Predestination | Article 17 articulates predestination in carefully Reformed (broadly Calvinist) terms, without forcing the harshest conclusions |
| Church authority | The Church may decree rites and ceremonies but may not require as necessary to salvation anything not read in Scripture (Article 20) — the basis of Elizabeth's claim that ceremonies were adiaphora, things indifferent, within her authority to command |
The doctrinal Protestantism of the Articles, set beside the conservative ceremonial of the Prayer Book and Injunctions, is the paradox at the heart of the Settlement: a Reformed Church wearing, in part, Catholic dress. That combination is exactly what allowed it to command the widest possible outward conformity — and exactly what neither committed Catholics nor committed Puritans could ever wholly accept.
A settlement on paper was not a settlement in the parishes. Its enforcement in the early years was deliberately gradual, and reveals much about Elizabeth's priorities — and about the truth of the "slow Reformation" argument.
| Instrument | Detail |
|---|---|
| The episcopal bench | The Marian bishops almost all refused the oath and were deprived (1559–60); Elizabeth had to construct a new bench, headed by Matthew Parker as Archbishop of Canterbury (1559) — moderate men, many returned Marian exiles, on whom enforcement depended |
| Visitations | Royal visitors toured the dioceses in 1559 to administer the oath, remove images, and impose conformity — but enforcement of attendance was at first light, to avoid driving conservatives into open recusancy |
| The "Catholic survival" of the early years | For roughly the first decade, many conservative parishioners conformed outwardly while retaining old beliefs; the regime tolerated this "church papistry" rather than provoke confrontation, hoping the old faith would wither with the old generation |
| The hardening after 1570 | The papal bull, the Northern Rebellion, and the missionary priests ended this tolerance; from the 1570s enforcement became systematic and the penal laws savage (the story of Lesson 6) |
The construction of a new episcopate deserves particular emphasis, because the Settlement could only be enforced through the bishops, and in 1559 Elizabeth had almost none she could trust. All but one of the Marian bishops refused the Oath of Supremacy and were deprived — an unprecedented near-total refusal that left most sees vacant and handed the queen the chance, and the necessity, to appoint a wholly new bench. Her choice of Matthew Parker, a moderate scholar and former chaplain to her mother, set the tone: the new bishops were largely returned Marian exiles and moderate reformers, Protestant in conviction but committed to order and to the royal supremacy. Their consecration was itself contested — Catholic polemicists later disputed its validity — but it gave the Settlement the institutional backbone without which the parish-level enforcement of conformity would have been impossible. The dependence of the whole edifice on a handful of reliable bishops is a reminder that a Reformation imposed by statute still had to be carried, diocese by diocese, by men.
This gradualism is itself an argument in the historiographical debate: Elizabeth's willingness to wait — to secure outward conformity now and trust to time for inward conversion — fits Christopher Haigh's picture of a slow Reformation far better than any model of rapid, enthusiastic Protestantisation. The Settlement succeeded, on this reading, less because it converted the country quickly than because it endured long enough for a Protestant generation to grow up within it. The practice of church papistry — outward conformity (attending the parish church to avoid the fine) combined with private retention of Catholic belief — blurred the neat line between "Protestant" and "Catholic," and its very existence is central to the debate about how Protestant England really was by 1603.
The Settlement's defining feature — its studied ambiguity — meant it satisfied neither of the committed minorities at either end of the religious spectrum. Understanding why is essential to judging its nature and success; the detailed, decades-long confrontation with each flank is developed in Lesson 6, but the shape of the pressure must be grasped here.
On one side stood the Catholics, who could not accept a schismatic, Protestant-doctrine Church whatever its Catholic-looking ceremonial. In the first decade many were "church papists," conforming outwardly; but the potential for a harder Catholicism was always present, and it was transformed after 1570 when Pope Pius V issued the bull Regnans in Excelsis, excommunicating Elizabeth, declaring her deposed, and absolving her subjects of their allegiance. At a stroke this made loyalty to the old faith potentially synonymous with treason and supplied the pretext for ever-harsher penal laws — the beginning of the long confrontation that Lesson 6 traces through the seminary priests, the Jesuit mission, and the plots. The key concept to carry forward is recusancy — the refusal to attend Church of England services, overwhelmingly by Catholics maintaining their faith under legal penalty. The historian John Bossy influentially distinguished a Catholicism of survival (quiet, household-based continuity of the old faith) from a Catholicism of mission (the Counter-Reformation priests); that distinction is central to assessing how real the "Catholic threat" ever was.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.