If so, it's rather poor English. Such a definition isn't even in the dictionary. And the following sentence about laying the foundations of the Empire implies 'settled' as in settled, not 'settled' as in 'not really settled but just lessened for a bit till they'll break out again in 50 or so years'. Though the reality is of course even more complex because the issue of religion was entwined with that of sovereignty and the rights of the monarch vis-a-vis parliament.

Anyways, I object to the term because it seems to me as the kind of simplistic, unnuanced reading that I think this subreddit should be all about avoiding. Elisabeth I represents a marking point in that it ended a period where England officially switched back and forth between Protestantism and Catholicism. But to paint this as Elisabth I 'settling' tensions is, imo, to look back with hindsight and rewrite history according to the narrative of how things turned out rather than how they did. The 17th century still saw considerable tensions, and in a more nuanced fashion in that they were not just between Protestantism and Catholicism, but between different factions within each as well. I would personally not consider it settled until the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights. But that might just be that after 1713 might knowledge of English history really dries up for a century or so, so I wouldn't want to claim this as the truth.

I can only say that to me, based on all the knowledge I do have about the period, even if not directly in the field of religious development, I find saying Elisabeth I 'settled tensions' too gross a simplification to stand.