Elizabeth during her reign successfully created a religious settlement which restored many of the divisions created by her predecessors. However in order to do so, she had to accept both Catholic and Protestant aspects of religion alike, which created tensions and angered those who were fully committed to their religion; this even led some to oppose the new church in attempts to change it so it was more suited to their religious views, thus acted as a barrier the church had to overcome in order to obtain religious harmony.
In Source A, J.B. Neale maintains the view that the Queen knew of and recognised that there was a serious threat posed to both the church and state by the Puritans. According to him, the Puritans “had a ready flood of petitions” …show more content…
Porter argues that contemporaries held the belief that Puritanism was a danger to the Elizabethan Church. Porter puts forward the view that “Puritanism from the 1560s was associated with innovation and subversion” and that those in power, such as Archbishops Parker and Whitgift believed them to pose a threat; Parker claiming that “in very truth they are ambitious spirits, and can abide no superiority.” Porter gains credibility due to Whitgifts’ attitudes towards the Puritan movement, who, despite being Calvinist in Doctrine had little to no sympathy for Puritans. Whitgift forced the clergy to accept the Prayer Book and the 39 Articles or face suspension. This attempt led to the suspension of over 300 clergy in Canterbury alone. Little support was received from those in Zurich and Geneva, who believed that the Puritans must maintain loyalty towards Elizabeth. Porter shows that contemporaries of the time recognised the threat that Puritanism posed, yet due to the intervention of Whitgift, the Puritan movement was strongly supressed. However Porter’s argument can be called into question with regards to the use of the term ‘Puritan’. As Doran writes, the term was used as a slur against ‘the hotter sort of Protestants who followed a godly life-style which separated them from their neighbours’. Whilst Porter claims that the Puritans were subversive, further examination shows that it was more the acts of a select few, rather than those who were identified …show more content…
According to Acheson, “there is little evidence of a growing separatist challenge” and that it was nothing more than a ‘potential’ threat. The group was most radical of the Puritans, and offered an alternative to the current Church structure. Countering Acheson’s argument, separatist leader Robert Browne directly challenged Elizabeth’s position in 1582 when he wrote his “Treatise of Reformation” which supported a more radical settlement without authoritative permission as well as later leaders Barrow and Greenwood managed to have several works published from inside prison. However, in support of the interpretation, Browne, Barrow and Greenwood were all dealt with, the latter two being executed whilst Browne submitted to Whitgift. Separatism was a small movement, with little unity, insignificant numbers and no powerful supporters who could protect them against the government. Punishments for the movement were dealt harshly, thus were successful in preventing the group from becoming a threat. In practise, they posed no threat to the Elizabethan Church, garnering credibility for Achesons’ argument and contradicting the above
In Source A, J.B. Neale maintains the view that the Queen knew of and recognised that there was a serious threat posed to both the church and state by the Puritans. According to him, the Puritans “had a ready flood of petitions” …show more content…
Porter argues that contemporaries held the belief that Puritanism was a danger to the Elizabethan Church. Porter puts forward the view that “Puritanism from the 1560s was associated with innovation and subversion” and that those in power, such as Archbishops Parker and Whitgift believed them to pose a threat; Parker claiming that “in very truth they are ambitious spirits, and can abide no superiority.” Porter gains credibility due to Whitgifts’ attitudes towards the Puritan movement, who, despite being Calvinist in Doctrine had little to no sympathy for Puritans. Whitgift forced the clergy to accept the Prayer Book and the 39 Articles or face suspension. This attempt led to the suspension of over 300 clergy in Canterbury alone. Little support was received from those in Zurich and Geneva, who believed that the Puritans must maintain loyalty towards Elizabeth. Porter shows that contemporaries of the time recognised the threat that Puritanism posed, yet due to the intervention of Whitgift, the Puritan movement was strongly supressed. However Porter’s argument can be called into question with regards to the use of the term ‘Puritan’. As Doran writes, the term was used as a slur against ‘the hotter sort of Protestants who followed a godly life-style which separated them from their neighbours’. Whilst Porter claims that the Puritans were subversive, further examination shows that it was more the acts of a select few, rather than those who were identified …show more content…
According to Acheson, “there is little evidence of a growing separatist challenge” and that it was nothing more than a ‘potential’ threat. The group was most radical of the Puritans, and offered an alternative to the current Church structure. Countering Acheson’s argument, separatist leader Robert Browne directly challenged Elizabeth’s position in 1582 when he wrote his “Treatise of Reformation” which supported a more radical settlement without authoritative permission as well as later leaders Barrow and Greenwood managed to have several works published from inside prison. However, in support of the interpretation, Browne, Barrow and Greenwood were all dealt with, the latter two being executed whilst Browne submitted to Whitgift. Separatism was a small movement, with little unity, insignificant numbers and no powerful supporters who could protect them against the government. Punishments for the movement were dealt harshly, thus were successful in preventing the group from becoming a threat. In practise, they posed no threat to the Elizabethan Church, garnering credibility for Achesons’ argument and contradicting the above