You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The Elizabethan Religious Settlement of 1559 (Lesson 3) bought outward conformity by leaving the hardest questions deliberately open — and that same studied ambiguity guaranteed that it would be pressed, throughout the reign, from both flanks. This lesson examines the two great challenges to the Settlement: the Catholic challenge, which hardened dramatically after the papal bull of 1570 and expressed itself in the missionary priests, in recusancy, and in a series of plots centred on Mary Queen of Scots; and the Puritan challenge, which sought not to overthrow the Settlement but to reform it further, purging it of the "Catholic" survivals — vestments, ceremonies, and above all the bishops — that the more zealous Protestants could not stomach. Both challenges tested Elizabeth's authority over the Church; neither succeeded; and how she contained them is one of the great achievements of her reign.
The topic is shot through with historiographical debate, and much of it is revisionist. The old picture of a beleaguered Protestant state fighting off a massive Catholic fifth column has been substantially dismantled: John Bossy and Christopher Haigh have shown that Elizabethan Catholicism was, for the most part, a shrinking community of quiet survival rather than a revolutionary threat, and that the politically active conspirators were a small minority. On the Puritan side, Patrick Collinson's classic work established that most Puritans were loyal members of the Church seeking reform from within — "the hotter sort of Protestants," a tendency rather than a sect — not separatists bent on destroying the Settlement. Understanding these revisions is what separates a sophisticated analysis of the "threats" from a breathless narrative of plots and pamphlets.
The organising question is this: how serious, in reality, were the Catholic and Puritan challenges to the Elizabethan Church — a genuine threat to the survival of the Settlement, or challenges that the queen contained so successfully precisely because they were more limited than their noise suggested? As throughout this course, the discriminating answer disaggregates — distinguishing the political danger of the plots from the demographic reality of a quietist Catholic community, and the radical fringe of Puritanism from its loyal, conforming majority.
By the end of this lesson you will be able to:
This lesson belongs to OCR H505 Unit Y107 (British period study & enquiry): England 1547–1603 — The Later Tudors, developing the religious themes of Lesson 3 and the governmental themes of Lesson 4. It is examined in two ways:
Because Y107 is a period study, examiners reward command of how the religious challenges developed across the reign; keep asking how each threat affected the security of the Settlement and the reach of royal authority. Our sequence separates the challenges (this lesson) from the making of the Settlement (Lesson 3) — a pedagogical arrangement of our own, not a transcription of the specification's ordering (refer to the official OCR specification for exact wording). This lesson connects directly to the plots and Mary Queen of Scots material of Lesson 4 and looks ahead to the war with Spain.
Despite the Settlement's comprehensiveness, it faced sustained challenge from Catholics — and the character of that challenge changed sharply over the reign, hardening decisively after 1570. In the first decade the regime treated conformity leniently, tolerating the "church papistry" of conservatives who attended the parish church while privately keeping the old faith (Lesson 3), in the hope that Catholicism would simply wither with the old generation. After 1570 that tolerance ended.
In 1570 Pope Pius V issued the bull Regnans in Excelsis, excommunicating Elizabeth, declaring her deposed, and absolving her subjects of their allegiance. This transformed the Catholic question. Before 1570 the regime could treat conformity leniently; after it, loyalty to the old faith was potentially synonymous with treason, for the Pope had now commanded Catholics to reject their queen. The bull supplied the pretext for ever-harsher penal laws and made every Catholic, in the regime's eyes, a potential traitor.
The bull was, in practice, counter-productive for the Catholic cause — a crucial analytical point. By forcing every loyal English Catholic to choose between Pope and Queen, it handed the regime the perfect justification for treating Catholicism as treason, and it appalled many Catholics who wished only to practise their faith while remaining loyal subjects. Its timing, just after the failure of the Northern Rebellion (1569), sharpened that effect. The bull thus illustrates a recurring theme: the interventions of the Catholic powers abroad frequently worsened the position of Catholics at home.
The other great change of the 1570s was the arrival of a new kind of Catholic clergy — missionary priests trained abroad specifically to sustain and renew the English Catholic community.
| Threat | Detail |
|---|---|
| William Allen's seminary at Douai (1568) | Trained exiled Englishmen as missionary priests to return and sustain Catholic worship; by 1580 around 100 seminary priests were active in England |
| The Jesuit mission (1580) | Edmund Campion and Robert Parsons led a high-profile Jesuit mission; Campion was captured, tried, and executed in 1581; Parsons escaped to direct Catholic activity from abroad |
| Priest holes | Catholic gentry concealed missionary priests in hidden chambers, many constructed by the Jesuit lay brother Nicholas Owen |
| Penal laws | Steadily intensified: the recusancy fine was raised to a crushing £20 per month in 1581; an Act of 1585 made it treason for a seminary priest merely to be in England, and a felony to harbour one |
The missionary effort is central to the debate about how close Catholicism came to survival. Christopher Haigh has argued that the mission was too gentry-focused — the priests gravitated to the households of the Catholic gentry, who could shelter and support them, rather than to the conservative common people of the North and West who might have formed a broader popular base. On this reading the mission inadvertently helped turn English Catholicism into a seigneurial faith of the gentry household, narrowing rather than broadening its future. Whether a different strategy could have preserved Catholicism as a mass faith is one of the topic's most stimulating counterfactuals.
Recusancy was the refusal to attend Church of England services; recusants were overwhelmingly Catholics who maintained their faith under legal penalty, paying the fines rather than conform. The nature of the recusant community is the heart of the revisionist reassessment.
John Bossy influentially distinguished between a Catholicism of survival — quiet, seigneurial, household-based continuity of the old faith — and a Catholicism of mission — the Counter-Reformation priests who sought actively to renew and, in their most political forms, to overthrow the Protestant state. This distinction is essential for assessing how real the "Catholic threat" really was. The overwhelming majority of recusants were quietists who wanted only to practise their faith and had no interest in treason; the politically active conspirators were a small minority. The penal laws, though savage, targeted the few but bore heavily on the many — creating a persecuted but largely loyal community rather than eradicating it.
The geography and social texture of the recusant community reinforce the point. Catholic survival was strongest in the conservative North and West and, above all, in the sheltered households of the Catholic gentry, where a resident chaplain could maintain the sacraments behind closed doors and a priest hole could hide a missionary from the pursuivants. This was a faith increasingly organised around the great house rather than the parish, and increasingly dependent on the protection and patronage of a Catholic squire — which is precisely why Haigh argues the mission's gentry focus narrowed Catholicism's social base. It also meant that the burden of recusancy fell unevenly: a wealthy gentleman could absorb the fines as a manageable cost of conscience, whereas the poorer conformist had far less room to dissent openly. The result, over the reign, was a Catholic community that was resilient but shrinking, socially concentrated, and — for all the alarm of the regime — overwhelmingly law-abiding in everything but its refusal to attend church. Distinguishing this quiet majority from the conspiratorial few is the single most important analytical move the topic requires.
The politically dangerous face of the Catholic challenge was the series of plots to depose or assassinate Elizabeth and replace her with Mary Queen of Scots (Lesson 4).
| Plot | Date | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Northern Rebellion | 1569 | The Catholic Earls of Northumberland and Westmorland rose to free Mary and restore Catholicism; it collapsed, and around 450–800 rebels were executed in the reprisals |
| Ridolfi Plot | 1571 | A conspiracy linking the Duke of Norfolk, Mary, the Pope, and Spain; its exposure led to Norfolk's execution in 1572 |
| Throckmorton Plot | 1583 | A scheme for a Spanish-backed invasion coordinated with English Catholics, uncovered by Walsingham |
| Babington Plot | 1586 | A plot to assassinate Elizabeth and free Mary; Walsingham's interception of Mary's incriminating correspondence sealed Mary's execution in 1587 |
The plots must be assessed with care. They were genuinely dangerous — the Ridolfi and Babington conspiracies aimed at Elizabeth's life and had foreign backing — and they justified, in the regime's eyes, the machinery of surveillance and the savagery of the penal laws. Yet they were the work of a minority, and their repeated failure (often through Walsingham's intelligence) testifies to the regime's security rather than its fragility. The plots also fed a self-reinforcing dynamic: each conspiracy hardened the penal laws and deepened the official conviction that Catholicism was inseparable from treason, which in turn made the position of the quietist majority ever more precarious. The centrality of Mary Queen of Scots to almost every plot is why her execution in 1587 (Lesson 4) removed the domestic focus of Catholic conspiracy at a stroke.
At the opposite pole from the Catholics stood the Puritans — "the hotter sort of Protestants" — who pressed for the Settlement to be reformed further, purging it of its surviving "Catholic" elements. Crucially, and contrary to a common misconception, the great majority of Puritans were not separatists seeking to leave or destroy the Church, but committed members seeking to reform it from within; on core doctrine they and the queen were largely agreed, both broadly Calvinist. The disputes were about ceremony, vestments, and church government — not the fundamentals of belief.
| Issue | Puritan position | Elizabeth's position |
|---|---|---|
| Vestments | Condemned clerical vestments as "popish rags" and idolatrous survivals | Required by the Ornaments Rubric; a test of obedience |
| Church government | The more radical (Presbyterians) wished to abolish bishops in favour of governance by elected elders | Episcopacy was non-negotiable — bishops were the instrument of royal control over the Church ("no bishop, no king") |
| Preaching | Demanded a learned, preaching ministry and more sermons | Wary of unlicensed preaching as a vector of dissent and sedition |
| Ceremonies | Wanted to abolish kneeling at communion, the sign of the cross in baptism, and the wedding ring as relics of popery | Held these to be adiaphora (things indifferent) that the supreme governor had every right to command |
The distinction between moderate and radical Puritanism is analytically vital. The moderates — the great majority — accepted the Church and its bishops and pressed only for further reform of ceremonies and a better preaching ministry. The radicals, above all the Presbyterians, wanted to abolish episcopacy itself and remodel the Church on the Genevan pattern of governance by elders — and it was this that Elizabeth found intolerable, because it struck at the royal supremacy. To abolish the bishops was to remove the instrument through which the Crown governed the Church; hence the logic she and later apologists expressed as "no bishop, no king." The radical wing was always small, but it was the wing that most alarmed the regime.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.