How far was England a more Protestant country at the death of Edward VI than at his accession in 1547?

How far was England a more Protestant country at the death of Edward VI than at his accession in 1547?

It’s 1547 and Henry VIII has just died leaving the English Church in a state of pure confusion. A Protestant approach to the Church of England had been adopted in the early 1530s to help Henry gain the annulment he so desperately wanted from his first wife Katherine followed by several Protestant doctrinal changes. However the latter years of his life saw a reversion back to Catholicism with the introduction of the Six Articles and the trial of John Lambert. However the Pope was never re-instated and the English Church was left in a state of ‘Catholicism without a Pope’. Henry had always tended to move cautiously when introducing liturgical and doctrinal changes but perhaps his religious legacy can be seen to be left in the fact he had his one and only son raised as a Protestant. When Somerset took power over the country as protectorate to Edward he was faced by a country that was only ‘halfly reformed’ and with many other issues based on foreign policy. Six years later and the country goes from a state of Catholicism without a Pope to being officially Protestant in its doctrine. I personally believe that in 1553 at the death of Edward, the country was Protestant in its doctrine but had had fairly limited success in establishing itself strongly and convincing the people.
Somerset took over as protectorate to Edward VI, whom Henry had chosen to succeed him, in 1547 and was faced with a conflicted country. Henry’s reversal in policy towards his death had formed a Catholic feel in the country towards doctrine but the increase of foreign reformers as a result of the Battle of Muhlberg in 1547 and weak leadership for Catholics within the country had led to increasing Protestant influences within the country. 5% of England’s population was Protestant and as many as a fifth of Londoners were of Protestant belief. England was hotly becoming a new haven for Protestant theology as the continental reformers arrived: Bucer from Strasbourg, who became Regus Professor of Divinity at Cambridge; John a Lasco from Poland, who settled at a London church and John Know who had recently been released from a French Galley. In their wake fresh signs of religious radicalism appeared in England: subversive preaching, and widespread Iconoclasm. The lack of opposition from both the government and the people towards this blatant attack on Catholicism is very useful in helping us see the ever-increasing ‘Protestant Mind-set’ instilled in the inhabitants of England. Iconoclasm was really changing the Ornamental side of the English Church and unlike other changes of the time; this would have been very visual to the populous. However the government’s response was very cautious and lacking decisiveness. It neither condemned what was going on nor helped enhance the Protestant changes and this is really a clear reflection of Somerset himself in relation to religious policy. Somerset generally proceeded cautiously but without any real clear sense of direction. Religious policy often played second fiddle to other more pressing issues for Somerset.
Somerset’s first real step towards Protestantism was his destruction of the Henrician settlement in England. Many historians have commented saying that Somerset’s first approaches towards religion were more of removing Catholicism rather than instating Protestantism and this would by extension tell us that the Church at this point in time would not have necessarily been ‘more Protestant’ but certainly ‘less Catholic’ as the two were not polar opposites. Somerset swept away the Treason Acts and all existing heresy laws. The moves in turn destroyed the Catholic Act of Six Articles, the cornerstone of the state’s religious policy and seemed to open the floodgates to reform. However, by tampering with the religious settlement of Henry VIII, as previously discussed, he was creating problems as he was sweeping the old away without introducing the new. The Destruction of the chantries also marked a further step towards the removal of Catholicism. Somerset employed a policy of destroying the chantries for financial gain. Pious hopes of diverting money to educational ends were expressed in the Act, but these were largely ignored as soon as it was passed. The 2600 buildings that were dissolved represented rich pickings for the regime. Somerset’s policy was nothing new however as it was really a continuation of the dissolution of the monasteries performed by Henry VIII. Like Henry, they were dissolved for financial gain and not religious consistency but still managed to be extended to perform that role. Unlike the monasteries however, many of the chantries and colleges were in towns and represented a more visible and tangible sign of Protestant destructive tendencies, which was not popular in some quarters. The fact that the destruction of the chantries represented a major attack on the doctrine of Purgatory was very much an afterthought but I do not really feel this detracts from its effectiveness. Somerset’s implementation of Erasmus’ book Paraphrases on the Gospels having to be in every Church further represented a Protestant direction to change within the Church. In themselves the Paraphrases were uncontroversial as Erasmus had been a staunch Catholic in terms of doctrine but conservatives were upset at the declaration that parts of the ceremony of the Mass were to be performed in English. The Prayer Book of 1549 really represented the most significant change in religion under Somerset’s control. The book was introduced by parliamentary statute as part of an act of Uniformity which demanded that all priests must use the new Prayer Book. A committee of bishops headed by Cranmer devised this volume, which sought to introduce English services that would be used throughout the land. This uniformity was in itself a major change, as Catholic ceremonies and wording had varied from parish to parish, according to which off the five rites was in use. The book in itself was limited by the fact it could not severely establish Protestant doctrine for fear of it not being accepted. The final wording used was ambiguous which would ensure it being passed through the conservative House of Lords and was actually quite acceptable to those with traditional beliefs. Perhaps a sign of how far the country was Protestant at this stage was that many priests mumbled the new wording so that they might as well have been in the catholic favoured Latin. The penalties for not using the new Prayer Book were fairly mild and there were few prosecutions as a result of non-compliance. The key thing was that conservatives realised that they could use the book without abandoning their Catholic beliefs. The Prayer Book had not moved the nation into full-blown Protestantism as Somerset knew he could not risk that.
There were however many extenuating circumstances that forced Somerset into a cautious policy in introducing Protestantism. He was currently fighting wars against both Scotland and France and could not risk Charles V of Spain joining forces against him as this would lead to the defeat of England. Somerset therefore had to follow a policy of appeasement to avoid aggravating the staunchly Catholic Charles. Charles would not accept strongly Protestant reforms that opposed his Catholic beliefs which forced Charles to tone down and slow his reforms. Indeed he even assured Charles V that the Prayer Book was a conservative reform, and there was in reality a good deal about it that was conservative: priests still wore traditional vestments and there was still a railed-off altar at the east end of the church for the priest alone instead of a more Protestant Communion table at the centre of the congregation. Ornamentally and liturgically, worshippers had a sense of continuation with familiar features of Catholic ritual largely intact, such as candles on the altar, prayers for the dead and commemoration of the Virgin Mary and other Saints. In fact, there were many aspects of the church that were either Catholic or simply a continuation of the past. It is true to say that worship of the saints was discouraged but it was definitely not banned, there was room for leeway. There was no change to the doctrine of the Eucharist and not only that but it was even defended. Fearing that any major changes to religious practices might provoke unrest amongst the people, Somerset employed a policy of continuation and this applied to baptism, communion, confirmation, marriage and burial. The great mass of the population was very conservative in their outlook and together with their belief in magic and witchcraft, their religious view was centred around on the rituals and festivals associated with the traditional farming year. Traditional feast days such as Lent and other Holy days were also defended in a bid to maintain the popular culture and traditional way of life of ordinary people to avoid unrest that the move towards Protestantism might cause. Within church services too, priests remained in their traditional vestments, the communion service followed the old order of the Latin mass and the belief in the ‘real presence’ of Christ still continued as before. There might have been less to look at with images and statues having been removed and the service now conducted in English, with reference to a vernacular bible and Erasmus’ paraphrases but generally, Somerset ensured that the reforms were moderate and without provocation. Even recusants who felt strongly enough not to attend church services were not fined or imprisoned as the government had ordered. Widespread iconoclasm may have occurred across the country but the worst incidents were in London, East Anglia, Essex Lincolnshire where the majority of Protestant refugees resided. Yet, even some of these acts were caused by extreme millenarianists rather than religious fanatics, who wanted to see a more equal society with a redistribution of wealth to the poor. Protestant firebrands like John Hooper were in the minority and even he had to compromise over his vehement opposition to traditional vestments in order to become the new Bishop of Gloucester, where he promptly introduced a radical policy of education and reform within his own diocese. Overall, Somerset hoped that these cautious measures would satisfy the majority of moderate reformers without outraging the Catholic conservatives and in this regard, his religious policy could be said to be firmly rooted and shaped by the ‘realpolitik’ of the day.
The Western rebellion of 1549 however can be used to justify a claim that there had indeed been serious change in a Protestant direction as it had resulted in a rebellion against the new changes. A study of the Western Rebels’ demands shows an overwhelming call for a return to traditional Catholicism. It is clear that they misunderstood the new Prayer Book to some extent, believing that children could only be baptised on Sundays. They disliked particularly the new English language service (a protestant reform) preferring Latin or Cornish. Nicholas Udall, a leading Protestant convert maintained that the common people in these western countries had been deceived by the priests, and he and other reformers seized on the propaganda opportunity to conclude that popery led inevitably to rebellion and anarchy. This point would seem to disagree with my opinion but I believe there is clear explanation as to why religious demands dominated the grievances of the rebels. The leaders of the rebellion were clerics which explains why the list reflects a sense of religious conservatism. The rebels showed little knowledge of Protestant or Catholic doctrine which was reflective of the country as a whole so there religious demands were really not a true representation of their dissatisfaction.

It was not immediately clear how religious policy was to be affected by the fall of Somerset. However Diarmaid MacCulloch is convinced of the Duke of Northumberland’s genuine belief in Protestantism. His support for the radical John Hooper certainly supports this suggestion. Northumberland’s defeat of the conservatives in February 1550 made sure that he would follow an evangelical path. Somerset’s religious policy has traditionally been seen as a compromise but Northumberland’s regime is seen as producing far greater advances towards Protestantism. There is no clear reason as to why this advancement had taken place but I feel the ending of the French war had a big part to play as it meant Northumberland was not under the same pressures as Somerset to be cautious and appease Charles which gave him the freedom to adopt the policy he wished for. Northumberland certainly started off strongly by depriving a number of conservative bishops from their sees and replacing them with more evangelical men such as Nicholas Ridley and John Hooper. With these new men came new changes that could clearly be seen by the laity. Bishop Ridley ordered that all altars should now become communion tables which in many cases led to stone altars being destroyed and a new wooden table being used. The doctrinal implications of this move were clear. An altar signified sacrifice and thus implied transubstantiation. In the traditional mass, the Body of Christ was really present and was being sacrificed afresh from the altar under the forms of bread and wine. By placing it in the nave of the church and calling it a table, reforming clergy were showing spiritual presence or indeed, among more radical Protestants, no presence of Christ at all. The period of Northumberland’s ascendancy also saw more Protestant propaganda and the arrival of a leading continental reformer, Martin Bucer from Strasbourg, who was given the role of Professor of Divinity at Cambridge. This is important as it signifies England was clearly becoming a part of a European Protestant movement.
The further religious reform Bishops had been pushing for was not long in coming as in 1552, the Second Edwardian Prayer Book was published. In every way it marked a radical revision of the 1549 Book, as it manifestly broke the earlier compromise between Protestant doctrine and Catholic form by insisting that only forms of worship derived from Scripture were valid. Yet the real touchstone of the new book’s religious tone was bound to be its treatment of the Mass. In fact the word ‘Mass’ was dropped in favour of ‘the Lord’s Supper’ (yet another change to liturgy visible to laity) and the priests vestments were abolished in favour of a white surplice (ornamental change). The crucial change, however, came in the changing of the wording of administration. It was altered in such a way that the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, which held that a physical change took place in the bread and the wine once they had been blessed by the priest, was definitively excluded and the only possible interpretation was a purely spiritual presence of Christ. This is really the single most important thing enforced by either Somerset or Northumberland as it destroyed the idea of ambiguity and clearly showed the direction of doctrinal belief within the royal courts. Northumberland’s religious reforms were completed by Cranmer’s 42 Articles which represented a decisively Protestant interpretation of the Christian faith. Clerical marriage was allowed in a bill passed in 1549, and the removal of married priests in Mary’s reign a few years later gives us an idea to the extent at which this was taken advantage of. A third of priests within Essex and London and a quarter in Norwich do show substantial amounts of people bought into this Protestant introduction. I do not feel however this is the best indicator of a Protestant consensus amongst Priests as they may have gone down the path of clerical marriage for material purposes such as physical pleasure and someone to organise relations with the female parishioners. Although these factors do seem to collaborate to form an image of Northumberland as a man of radical change and strong Protestant tendencies, he was the same man who had tried to persuade both Wriothesely and Arundel that he wanted to stop further religious change and perhaps even to go back on some of Somerset’s previous reforms. Certainly he was no scholar and it may be that he was swayed by the arguments of Protestant zealots, or that he increasingly to see the best chance to preserve his own power was by pushing the Reformation on. A key difference between Somerset and Northumberland is that when Northumberland is in power, Edward is older. He is becoming more influential in policy and is also starting to come of age, making it very wise for Northumberland to attempt to appease the ‘almost-king’. It may well be that Northumberland did not care much for religious policy but was aware of Edward’s Protestant beliefs and saw religious policy as a tool to getting him on side. Northumberland’s reversion back to Catholicism just before his execution would support this as it would suggest he himself was really Catholic but had to use Protestantism for his own gain. In this sense Northumberland is very much like I imagine the England of 1553 was: Protestant outwardly in official doctrine but really Catholic in its roots validated by William Haigh in English Reformation when he says that “the old religion had substantially retained its popularity”.
In conclusion I feel that it is true to say in 1553 England was clearly in some ways a Protestant nation. The Church was run by the King and his ministers who were all Protestants and not by the Pope in Rome. Edward’s reign had led to a whole series if Protestant reforms such as the Prayer Book of 1552 which established Protestant theology. Many Churches had lost much of their Catholic decoration and monasteries and chantries had all been abolished. On the other hand, the impact of these changes was very limited. Edward’s reign had only lasted six years and it was hard to implement changes in this time that would clearly take at least a generation to be consolidated. Neither Somerset nor Northumberland was a committed Protestant and the conservative faction was still powerful. This group had been crucial in the overthrow of Somerset and all were aware that the heir to the throne was Catholic Princess Mary. England’s Protestant Reformation was dependant on the life of a boy king who’s decisiveness was limited by age and his authority limited by Somerset and Northumberland. The Protestant reformation had never been one that had evangelically converted the people of England. Only 5% were Protestants and a good many people simply wished to sit back and not have an opinion on changes, waiting for something decisive to happen before accurately formulating an opinion. The doctrine of the Church was protestant but Catholicism was surviving as not only was the majority of the population not convinced by or committed to advancing Protestantism; a substantial proportion of it actually remained loyal to Catholicism. Many areas outside the Home Counties were virtually untouched by the new changes introduced and many simply didn’t understand the differences between Catholic and Protestant doctrine. The abiding impression of the Reformation in the minds of many parishioners by 1553 was, in Jennifer Loach’s words “looting and sacking, and the stripping by the state of the objects of beauty which bound them to their locality and to its past”. The arrival of the Catholic Princess Mary on the throne serves as an indicator of the exterior nature to the Protestant reforms attempted under Edward. There were not many noblemen that refused to work under the new Catholic Queen despite the fact they were supposedly loyal to the Protestant cause. This may be an example of simple self-preservation but the warm reception of Mary by the populous in 1553, I feel serves well in showing us that at the death of Edward many protestant changes had been brought in that could be considered to be an advancement on 1547 but that these were fairly limited by the fact England was so willing to become Catholic again.