The Rise and Fall of Thomas Cromwell

by John Schofield

  Soon Cromwell began to discreetly introduce some of the less controversial aspects of Lutheranism to the king. He also suggested that the Lutheran princes might make useful allies in European diplomacy. In March 1533, Chapuys reported the arrival in London of an emissary from the duke of Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse. The man was a German born at Basle, aged about thirty, who spoke French, Italian and Spanish, and had reportedly served in the Italian wars. Chapuys does not mention the visitor’s name, but he was well received by Henry. Because Cromwell was ‘appointed to treat with him’, Chapuys suspected that ‘he has been sent here by Melanchthon’. Cromwell’s Protestant views were no closely guarded secret any more if Chapuys knew of them. Melanchthon may or may not have been behind this visit, but it is quite likely that Cromwell was.28

  Later, in July, Henry began to consider establishing ambassadors in Germany, not only in Catholic Bavaria but also in Lutheran Saxony. The king sent Christopher Mont and Stephen Vaughan to Germany for exploratory talks. This may have been Cromwell’s idea as well, because he was the one who gave instructions to Mont to ‘explore and search and know the state of the whole country of Germany, and of their minds intents and inclinations’ towards Henry, England and the emperor. Then sometime during the winter of 1533–4, Henry told Chapuys that he was now ready to renounce Rome, and that he disowned passages in the Assertion that upheld papal authority, claiming that he had been misled by Wolsey and other bishops whom he does not specify. Lutheranism was being introduced into England, sighed Chapuys, and even some in the royal court were sympathetic to it.29

  Next year, Cromwell’s remembrances around April 1534 include a note to discover the king’s pleasure concerning ‘Philipus’. Almost certainly this is a reference to Melanchthon, who received two invitations to come to England that year. Then a report of the diet of the Schmalkaldic League held in May reveals covert evangelical designs at the highest level in England. It describes how envoys from England, ‘unknown to the king’, had confided that their mission was the policy of certain of England’s ‘distinguished councillors and people’, who hoped to establish formal relations with the Lutherans. These ‘distinguished councillors’ were men ‘who favour the Gospel’, who hoped that diplomatic relations with the League would be the means by which the Gospel ‘might be brought into England’ and commended to the king. We are indebted to Rory McEntegart’s research in Germany for this information, and he is surely right to say that one of these councillors was Cromwell.30

  So there need be no doubt about Cromwell’s Lutheran faith. Exactly when it was first kindled in his heart is not certain. It could have been late in 1530 or, more likely perhaps, sometime the following year. As noted already, this was a risky time to be nourishing evangelical beliefs. To safeguard his political survival and progress, Cromwell should have left Luther well alone and remained content with Henry’s so-called ‘middle way’. This was the safe option, but Cromwell did not take it. He did not wait to discover the religious direction that Henry, after his controversy with Rome, would elect to follow. Cromwell embraced the new learning first, and set about trying to commend it to Henry afterwards.

  At the start of 1531, two paths lay ahead of Cromwell – the evangelical and the political – and they seemed to run counter to one other. However, Cromwell trod the twin paths together. The outcome was successful, but in view of the assault on Protestantism by More and Stokesley, that success was neither guaranteed nor even likely when Cromwell began his journey of faith. So the idea that he was the type of man to subject what little religious feeling he had to political expediency is utterly overthrown. There was little political mileage in being a Lutheran in 1531. One false or hasty move and his career could have been ruined, even his life in danger.

  It is also worth noting that Cromwell’s conversion occurred independently of the man soon to become his closest ally on Henry’s council, Thomas Cranmer. In the exchange of letters between Vaughan and Cromwell discussed above, the name Cranmer is conspicuously missing. During 1531 Cranmer was making tentative evangelical contacts of his own, but not with Luther or Melanchthon. He met Simon Grynaeus from Basle on a visit to England during the spring and summer of that year. Grynaeus, like the leading Zürich reformer Huldrych Zwingli, supported the king’s divorce, and he may have met Henry as well as Cranmer. Grynaeus was a friend of the Strasbourg reformer Martin Bucer, who was also sending cordial letters to Cranmer around this time. There is little evidence, however, that Cranmer was especially friendly with Barnes or Tyndale, or that he was anxious to read the Lutheran confessional works. Because Luther opposed Henry on the divorce, maybe Cranmer found the Swiss a more agreeable introduction to the European Reformation. Cranmer’s biographer, Diarmaid MacCulloch, describes him in 1531 as being interested in evangelical developments on the continent, but not yet definitely part of the evangelical movement. Cranmer then spent much of 1532 abroad as Henry’s ambassador to Charles V, and the most striking evidence for his newly found Protestant beliefs seems to have been his marriage that summer to the niece of Andreas Osiander, the chief Lutheran divine in Nüremburg. It would appear, therefore, that not only did Cromwell convert without Cranmer’s counsel or guidance, but that he almost certainly converted before him.31

  So while Cranmer was in Europe breaking his vows of celibacy, Cromwell was reading, assimilating and arranging the printing of Melanchthon’s Apology. And for Cromwell, soon to become the driving force of the Protestant Reformation in England, the value of this work was inestimable. Though Lutheran books had found their way into England before, the Apology was by far the most comprehensive and eloquent outline of the Lutheran faith, covering virtually all subjects from the Creation to justification, the sacraments and church customs. In Luther’s admittedly biased view, it surpassed in quality anything written by the church fathers. It dealt, often in exhaustive detail, with some of the most common arguments that Luther’s opponents were wont to use against him, answering them point by point and line by line, with an abundance of supporting Scripture texts. As a foundation on which to build and spread the Gospel, it had no equal. Its safe arrival in England ensured that Cromwell did not need to study the new learning from second-hand sources, or spend valuable time gathering assorted Lutheran writings together. In his possession he had the complete product, the finished article. So although the campaign to evangelise England did not begin with Cromwell, under his leadership it would be more organized, effective and incisive than anything hitherto.

  It may now be timely to briefly review Thomas Cromwell’s spiritual journey. In Wolsey’s service he was involved, apparently enthusiastically, with the Boston pardons. He also set himself the demanding task of learning Erasmus’s Latin New Testament by heart. He made a very Catholic will. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that he had ever been one of the Roman church’s most dutiful sons. Misfortune and the threat of ruin after Wolsey’s fall had prompted an outpouring of medieval piety when Cavendish came upon him suddenly saying ‘Our Lady Mattens’; but, as Cavendish wryly noted, this was a rare sight and the emotion soon passed. Cromwell had always possessed a strong streak of anti-clericalism and anti-monasticism. He revered the church of the ancient fathers more than the medieval church of his times. It seems that he was genuinely attracted to the Bible, and knew it well. (On these points, see Chapters 1 and 2.) Sooner or later a man with such a religious outlook was bound to think seriously about Luther and his message of salvation as God’s gracious, unmerited gift to all who believe in Christ for the remission of sins. But no evidence survives to explain why Cromwell, after wishing that Luther had never been born in summer 1530, should decide barely a year later to risk his political career by smuggling the Augsburg Confession and the Apology into England. Something had happened to work this change in his heart, but the mystery of conversion defies historical research. It may be that, as a result of renewed reading of the New Testament, Cromwell became convinced that Luther really had rediscovered the true meaning of the Gospel of Christ, which the
medieval church had largely lost. His inmost spiritual thoughts, however, remain secrets that he kept to himself and his closest friends.

  Meanwhile, the man who sent Cromwell the Apology, Dr Augustine, may have had little idea how vital a role he had played in the English Reformation. So far as is possible to tell, he did not join the ranks of evangelicals, though he did remain in the service of Cromwell and the king. He continued badgering Cromwell for favours, including funding and a benefice. He returned to England in the spring of 1533, and then Henry sent him to Rome again as part of his divorce team to present one more time the case for Henry’s new marriage. For his services he received a reward of £100. His fortunes sank the following year when he was imprisoned in England. The reason for his confinement is not known for certain, though it has been suspected that his sympathies for Catherine and Mary had offended Anne Boleyn. After an appeal to Cromwell, however, he was soon released, and he carried on his career comparatively untroubled as a physician in his adopted country.32

  Notes

   1 The League’s letter is MBW 2, nos 1127–9 = CR 2, cols 472–82. For Henry’s reply and discussion see N. Tjernagel, Henry VIII and the Lutherans (St. Louis, 1963), p. 136.

   2 WA 30 (2), p. 68 (12) – p. 69 (1).

   3 Brecht’s biography of Luther (see Bibliography) is one of the truly great works on the Reformation published in the last decade. Brecht deals with Luther’s most controversial writings in a way that is balanced, mature and fully informative; there is no cheap sensationalising or irrelevant psychoanalysing.

   4 Merriman 1, p. 327; TRP 1, no. 122, pp. 181–5; no. 129, pp. 193–7.

   5 Foxe 8, pp. 712–15; Complete Works of Thomas More, vol. 8, ed. L.A. Schuster et al. (New Haven and London: Yale UP, 1973), pp. 16–17.

   6 LP 4 (2), nos 4407, 5094; Sermons and Remains of Latimer, ed. G.E. Corrie (Cambridge: PS, 1845), p. 468. See also Foxe 5, pp. 688–94.

   7 S. Brigden, ‘Thomas Cromwell and the Brethren’, in C. Cross, D. Loades and J. Scarisbrick (eds), Law and Government under the Tudors (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 34– 5.

   8 S. Lehmberg, The Reformation Parliament: 1529–1536 (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 112-15.

   9 On Vaughan’s mission to Tyndale see J.F. Mozley, William Tyndale (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, reprint 1971), chapter 9; D. Daniell, William Tyndale: A Biography (New Haven and London, 1994), chap. 8. Both works, especially Mozley, have lengthy extracts of letters from Vaughan to Cromwell and Henry. On the questions re Vaughan, see Daniell, Tyndale, p. 201; LP 4 (3), no. 5823.

  10 Letter printed in Mozley, Tyndale, pp. 187–8.

  11 Mozley, Tyndale, pp. 191–2; Lehmberg, Reformation Parliament, pp. 117–18.

  12 Merriman 1, pp. 336–9; Mozley, Tyndale, pp. 193–9; Daniell, Tyndale, pp. 212–15.

  13 Mozley, Tyndale, p. 200; Daniell, Tyndale, pp. 206–7.

  14 SP 1, p. 380; Elton, Tudor Rev., p. 90; Lehmberg, Reformation Parliament, pp. 59–60, 62, 132; CSP Ven. 4, no. 694, p. 297.

  15 C. D’Alton, ‘William Warham and English heresy policy after the fall of Wolsey’, HR 77/197 (2004), pp. 337–57; Foxe 4, pp. 652–6, 680–88; Hall, p. 763.

  16 Mozley, Tyndale, p. 206. See also LP 5, nos 532–3.

  17 LP 5 App. 18, p. 768; Mozley, Tyndale, pp. 207–9. Cromwell’s letters to Vaughan, dated 6 December, are missing, but certain points in them can be deduced from Vaughan’s reply.

  18 LP 5, no. 585; Tjernagel, Henry VIII and the Lutherans, pp. 59–64; CSP Span., 1531–3, no. 864, p. 337.

  19 WA, Br 6, pp. 175–88 = LW 50, pp. 27–40; Pocock 1, p. 428; 2, pp. 5–11.

  20 Mozley, Tyndale, p. 210; Foxe 4, pp. 580–82, 702–6; Lehmberg, Reformation Parliament, pp. 142–3.

  21 BL Cottonian MS Vitellius B. XX, fol. 259 = LP 5, no. 911. A curiosity of this document is that while some of it is quite easy to read, the most interesting part – the sending of the Lutheran confession and the Apology – is damaged and very faint.

  22 E. Hammond, ‘Dr. Augustine, Physician to Cardinal Wolsey and King Henry VIII’, in Medical History 19 (1975): 215–49, 229–32; Pocock 2, pp. 299–300; LP 4 (3), no. 6374.

  23 LP 5, nos 739, 753, 804, 808, 813, 843, 870; Daniell, Tyndale, pp. 186–91; D. MacCulloch, Reformation: Europe’s House Divided (London, 2003), p. 203.

  24 W. Underwood, ‘Thomas Cromwell and William Marshall’s Protestant Books’, HJ 47/3 (2004): 519.

  25 G.R. Elton, Reform and Renewal: Thomas Cromwell and the Common Weal (Cambridge, 1973), pp. 26–8.

  26 Brigden, ‘Cromwell and the brethren’: 36.

  27 For the Apology on James, see BSLK, pp. 207–10 = Tappert, pp. 141–3. For Luther and Melanchthon on James, see J. Schofield, Philip Melanchthon and the English Reformation, pp. 46, 62, 65, 85.

  28 CSP Span., 1531–3 (cont), no. 1055, p. 618;

  29 Merriman 1, pp. 369–70; R. McEntegart, Henry VIII and the League of Schmalkalden (Woodbridge, 2002), pp. 15–17 ; CSP Span., 1531–3, no. 1157, p. 873; CSP Span., 1534–5, no. 9.

  30 LP 7, no. 583. Quotes from Strassbourg archives, quoted and discussed in McEntegart, Henry VIII, pp. 20–21, 46.

  31 On Cranmer, see the discussion in D. MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer: A Life (New Haven and London, 1996), pp. 60–71.

  32 Hammond, ‘Dr Augustine’: 233–49.

  4

  The King’s Councillor

  This chapter will examine Cromwell’s role in Henry’s marriage to Anne and the breach with Rome, the religious and constitutional upheaval commonly known as the schism.

  While Cromwell was absorbed in Lutheran theology and justification by faith, King Henry’s dispute with Rome over his divorce had reached an impasse. For nearly four years he had been striving unsuccessfully to convince the pope that his marriage to Catherine was contrary to divine and natural law. From now on he would act more decisively, and it is understandably tempting to ascribe this increased momentum towards schism to the rise of Cromwell. The unparalleled break with Rome, ending centuries of tradition, strongly suggests a new man at the heart of government, who was a Protestant, with religious as well as political motives to do whatever he could to end papal influence in England.

  However, a word of caution may be advisable before the dramatic events of 1532–3 can be ascribed entirely or even substantially to Cromwell. First, the concept of English Royal Supremacy and independence from Rome was not a Cromwellian one. In 1485, the year of Cromwell’s birth, the Lord Chief Justice of England declared that the king was accountable directly to God. The superiority of common law and parliamentary statute over canon law was recognised in the reign of the first Tudor king. The second had embraced this philosophy ardently. As early as 1515, stung by French taunts of England’s submission to the pope in the days of King John, Henry laid his claim both to the throne of France and to full sovereignty in his own realm. ‘We are King of England’, he proclaimed majestically, ‘and kings of England in time past have never had any superior but God only’. Henry was resolved to ‘maintain the right of our crown and of our temporal jurisdiction as well in this point as in all others’. This declaration came after the so-called Standish affair – a fairly minor case resulting from an act of 1512 which sought to restrict certain clerical privileges. When the abbot of Winchcombe unwisely spoke against the act, Henry convened a debate between the abbot and Henry Standish, who argued that the king and parliament enjoyed a measure of independence from the clergy and even from papal decrees. Henry took Standish’s side.1

  The English people’s affection for Rome was fading long before Cromwell joined Henry’s council. Edward Hall tells how, in 1527, after the sack of Rome by the duke of Bourbon’s troops and the pope’s imprisonment, Wolsey directed the clergy in all parishes to ‘move the people to fast’ three days a week. But, adds Hall expressively, ‘few men fasted’. Wolsey’s appeal drew forth plenty of excuses, but little piety or charity. Priests claimed that the order appl
ied to the laity but not to themselves. Layfolk said the priests should set an example and fast first. Hall tells us that ‘none of both almost fasted’.2

  Nor was it Cromwell who suggested to Henry that he should divorce Catherine. By 1527 Henry was already minded to put away his Spanish wife. He was also, before Cromwell even entered the king’s service, becoming aggressive towards the pope. In April 1529 Stephen Gardiner, Henry’s emissary to Rome, delivered a veiled warning of the ‘solicitations of the princes of Almain’. No details are given, and this may have been nothing more than a bargaining tactic; but it is astonishing that Henry could even think of playing the Lutheran card so soon, and when harsh anti-Lutheran heresy measures were in force in England. Then in June that year Henry bizarrely threatened to appeal over the pope’s head to ‘the true Vicar of Christ’, though he left the identity of this august personage undisclosed. In November – still 1529, when Cromwell was trying to rebuild his career after Wolsey’s fall – Henry told Chapuys of his dissatisfaction with the pope and his cardinals, and that if Luther had only attacked the vices and abuses of the church rather than the sacraments, then Henry would have supported him rather than condemned him. Luther’s books did contain heresies, admitted Henry, but some truth as well. Henry was now determined on a reform the English church. Next month the ambassador told the emperor about his fears that Henry would soon marry Anne, who was acting as if she were queen already. The English ‘will not care much for Rome’, Chapuys predicted. ‘Neither the leaders nor the rest of the party can now refrain from slandering the pope’. Chapuys and the French ambassador were expecting the measure to be brought before parliament any time.3