The Rise and Fall of Thomas Cromwell

by John Schofield

  Besides economic grievances, the pilgrim-rebels complained bitterly over the abolishing of holy days, the attacks on the saints and purgatory, the suppression of the monasteries, the advancement of evangelical clergy and ministers ‘of low birth’ like Cromwell, and various other reformist measures associated with him. Cromwell was the chief target of the rebels’ bile. A Buckinghamshire official wished he could kill the Vicegerent with his own hands, while a chaplain in Wakefield taught boys rude ditties about him. A crowd in Dent wished it could ‘crum him that he was never as crummed’. A mob seized one of his servants and set a pack of dogs on him. The rebels demanded that Henry ‘put down the Lord Cromwell, that heretic, and all his sect, the which made the king put down praying and fasting’. Rebel leader Robert Aske charged Cromwell – along with Audley, Cranmer, Latimer and Barnes – of filling the realm with heresy. Lord Darcy accused Cromwell of being the ‘very original and chief causer of all this rebellion and mischief’, and like Anne Boleyn before him, Darcy longed to see Cromwell’s head struck off. This ‘naughty Cromwell’, once a mere ‘shearman’, was compared the villain Haman again.22

  Cromwell was unfazed and unharmed by the howls, screams and taunts flying at him from the north. Because Henry had sanctioned the reforms that had roused the rebels to fury, the king saw the rising as a challenge to his own royal authority. He sent Norfolk north, first to play for time, and then, as soon as the royal armies had gathered sufficient strength, to crush the rebellion without mercy. When Queen Jane, fearing that the disturbances might betoken divine judgement on a schismatic kingdom, appealed to Henry to restore the abbeys being suppressed, Henry roughly told her not to meddle with matters of state, and reminded her of Anne’s fate. This was not the only sign around this time (November 1536) that Henry’s love for Jane was fading. Chapuys heard from Mary that Henry no longer expected male children from his new wife, and that he was hoping for a grandson as an heir. Cromwell also confided to Chapuys that ‘the king has no hope of male succession’.23

  Meanwhile, though Cromwell did appeal to Henry to show restraint during the early stages of the rising, he assured Sir Ralph Evers that if the rebels continued to defy the king, they would be ‘so subdued as their example shall be fearful to all subjects whiles the world doth endure’. By January 1537, Cromwell was receiving reports from his own men like Ralph Sadler, now darting between York and Newcastle. Soon it became clear that the rebellion had failed. By April the Council was confident that danger had passed. At Cromwell’s suggestion, letters were sent to all justices urging action against the ‘Papistical faction’, and regretting how too many people ‘retain their old fond fantasies and superstitions, muttering in dark corners as they dare’. Justices were also ordered to deal with those who spread false rumours about the honour of the king and the laws of the land.24

  In more ways than one, the northern rebellion actually worked to Cromwell’s advantage. From a witness at Aske’s execution Cromwell learned, if he did not know it already, Chapuys had had contact with rebel leaders. Aske had admitted hearing from Darcy that Darcy had spoken to Chapuys about his purpose in the rebellion, and had received encouragement. The rising also ensured that Norfolk, a potential rival of Cromwell’s, instead of making trouble for Cromwell at court could now be sent north to do the things he was good at doing and enjoyed doing, like fighting, soldiering, besieging towns and hanging rebels. Norfolk went lustily about his task. He ordered his officers to ‘spare not frankly to slay plenty of those false rebels’, and ‘pitch now no courtesy to shed blood of false traitors’. He told Mr Comptroller on the Council to get himself a new bailey because Norfolk was going to hang the present one, ‘and I think some of your tenants will keep him company’. Henry approved Norfolk’s stern measures, and on the basis of reports from others, he commended the duke for proclaiming the Royal Supremacy vigorously in the north.25

  Norfolk proved his unqualified loyality to Henry throughout the course of 1536 and into 1537, even though he might have been expected to feel a little secret sympathy for some of the rebels’ attacks on Cromwell. Nevertheless, it was Norfolk who recommended to Cromwell that Henry should befriend Aske, ‘and wade him with fair words’, and thereby make him ‘cough out as much as he knows concerning Lord Darcy and Richard Constable’. As events turned out, therefore, the chief suppressors of this very medieval religious rising were not the hated evangelical trio of Cromwell, Cranmer and Audley. What began largely as a resistance movement against Cromwellian reforms was ruthlessly put down by a king still broadly Catholic at heart, and by his foremost Catholic peer and military commander.26

  A further sign of the government’s confidence in the face of danger was that Cromwell continued to push forward with the Lutheran policy. Contacts between England and the Schmalkaldic League were renewed in early 1537. The League decided to send a messenger to Henry explaining its position regarding a future General Council of the Church, but this friendly intent was almost ruined by clumsy diplomatic mismanagement. Instead of a formal embassy to England, a humble Hamburg sailor arrived with little advance announcement and the minimum of ceremony. He was introduced to Cromwell by John Whalley before giving an unimpressive performance at court. Henry and Cromwell were not amused. Cromwell then despatched a trusty young evangelical agent to Germany to protest, and to urge the League to treat Henry with more respect. The initiative worked. Arrangements quickly began for a major German embassy to England to discuss religion, politics, and a common Anglo-German approach should the pope call a General Council. Henry continued to hope, and ask for, a visit from Melanchthon.27

  Henry was now putting his mind to religious affairs again. The Ten Articles of the previous year were not intended to be a completely comprehensive statement of faith, and neither had they succeeded in laying all discussions to rest. For example, four sacraments of the medieval church – marriage, ordination, confirmation and unction – went unmentioned in the articles, leaving some observers wondering what the official policy was on these points. Leaving them out of the Ten Articles was another Cromwellian success. It is, as he no doubt calculated, easier to delete something than restore it, and the onus now lay on his opponents to explain why the missing sacraments should be reinstated.28

  The following is a summary of the narrative of Convocation in 1537 written by Alexander Alesius, now living in England, and, according to his own account, on cordial terms with Cromwell. One day Alesius met Cromwell in the street, and at his invitation, accompanied him into Westminster. At the sight of Cromwell, the bishops rose and ‘did obeisance unto him as to their vicar-general’. Cromwell saluted them and sat down ‘in the highest place’. Cromwell then opened proceedings; invoking the king’s name, he called for a dignified debate on theology, and he urged all present to be guided by Scripture, as the king wished. When the debate began, Bishop Stokesley argued the case for the four missing sacraments. Cranmer replied for the evangelical party. He appealed to Convocation to consider the substance of Christian doctrine, the grand themes of salvation, forgiveness of sins and the true use of sacraments; and to reflect on whether ceremonies of confirmation, ordination and healing really were worthy to be compared with baptism and the Eucharist. Quoting the Sermon on the Mount – ‘Blessed are the peace-makers’ – he appealed for an end to brawling, and for sober reflection.29

  Cromwell then intervened and bid Alesius speak, introducing him slightly flatteringly as the ‘king’s scholar’. Quoting Augustine and other ancient authorities, Alesius argued that Scripture recognised only two sacraments, baptism and the Eucharist. Stokesley was furious at having to suffer a lecture on theology from this upstart, and he rose noisily to press the case for the Seven Sacraments, as many prominent doctors in the history of the church had done. This was a mistake; it allowed Edward Foxe, a Cromwell supporter, to remind the company that even the church fathers occasionally had their disagreements, so Convocation should settle the matter from Scripture alone. Foxe then commended the Germans for their translation of Bible
, so that ‘many things may be better understood without any glosses at all, than by the commentaries of the doctors’. He followed this up with a broadly Lutheran speech, defining a sacrament as a divine institution accompanied by a promise of grace, which cannot be altered by popes or the church. Again Stokesley leapt to his feet, insisting furiously that Convocation should consider the merits of church traditions, not the Bible alone. At this point, Alesius recalled, Cromwell and the evangelical bishops ‘smiled upon one another’.

  Bringing Alesius into Convocation was another piece of Cromwellian gamesmanship designed to wind up the clumsy Stokesley and derail his case, because the terms of debate – authorised by Henry and Cromwell – required speakers to stick to arguments from Scripture, not church traditions. Officially supposed to be above the fray as Vicegerent, Cromwell was manipulating events to the advantage of the evangelicals. Though debates and disagreements over the four missing sacraments continued, they failed to regain equality with baptism, penance and the Eucharist. It was another Cromwellian, evangelical victory.

  Cromwell did not attend Convocation every day, but Foxe, Cranmer and Latimer kept him informed of developments. In July Cromwell heard that discussions on religion had almost finished, and that a book entitled the Institution of a Christian Man – more commonly known as the Bishops’ Book – would soon be ready to submit to Henry for his approval. Shortly after the synod was prorogued, Cromwell was made Knight of the Garter. He was also absorbed in another project especially dear to him after the death of William Tyndale – the English Bible.30

  Miles Coverdale, a long time friend of Cromwell’s, had finished his translation of the Bible in late 1535. Recognizing Cromwell’s ‘preferment of God’s Word’, he then sought Cromwell’s help to persuade the king to accept it. It was in circulation the following year, and the first draft of Cromwell’s 1536 Injunctions required a Bible in every parish, though for reasons not entirely clear, this point did not appear in the final version. Coverdale’s biographer suspects that because Anne Boleyn had also supported Coverdale’s work, Cromwell withdrew this requirement in case it angered Henry. This may be so, though there is no definite proof. Another possibility is that Coverdale’s edition was based largely on the Vulgate, Erasmus and Luther, and that Cromwell was already thinking of an English translation directly from the original Biblical languages. Whatever the reason, Coverdale’s Bible narrowly missed being the first authorised Bible in the country.31

  It was, however, reprinted in 1537 by James Nicholson of Southwark, though by now it had a rival known as the ‘Matthew Bible’. Printed in Antwerp, this work bore an arresting title: ‘The Bible … translated by Thomas Matthew’, with a call to ‘Hearken to ye heavens and thou earth give ear: For the Lord speaketh’. The Matthew was made up as follows: the New Testament was Tyndale’s 1534 version; the Pentateuch was also Tyndale’s, though with minor revisions; the Psalms and Prophets were from Coverdale; while the origin of the historical books of the Old Testament (Joshua to 2 Chronicles in our English Bibles) is uncertain, though they were probably Tyndale’s as well. Thomas Matthew was an alias for John Rogers, another of Cromwell’s evangelical protégées, and a friend of Tyndale’s.32

  The Matthew met with almost instant princely sanction. On 4 August Cranmer commended it to Cromwell, and asked him to present it to Henry and obtain royal authority for it to be ‘sold and read of every person’ in the land. Within days Cromwell had done so. Cranmer was delighted, and thanked his friend for his ‘high and acceptable service’ for God and the king, ‘which shall so much redound to your honour that, besides God’s reward, you shall obtain perpetual memory for the same within this realm’. Cranmer’s joy at the tidings suggests that Henry’s approval was far from a formality. What persuasions Cromwell used on Henry to secure so favourable a result so soon, we do not know. However, as Queen Jane was now in the last weeks of her pregnancy, it may not be too fanciful to wonder whether Cromwell delicately invited the king to consider what imminent divine favour he might look forward to if he approved the publication of the Word of God right now. The safe delivery of the heir Your Grace has desired so long, perhaps? A subtle hint would be enough. Whatever actually happened between the king and his minister, Grafton the publisher then sent Cromwell six Bibles as a gift, and asked for a license ‘under your Privy Seal’ as a defence against ‘all enemies and adversaries’. Grafton also asked for a monopoly to prevent others undercutting him – these were valid fears and he was not being merely mercenary. Cromwell did not comply exactly with Grafton’s request; instead he arranged for Nicholson to produce the Coverdale Bible and Grafton the Matthew.33

  On 12 October, to universal rejoicing throughout the land, Prince Edward was born. The gratifying duty of announcing the birth to foreign ambassadors belonged to Cromwell. The christening three days later seemed to have an agreeably unifying effect, bringing together such diverse parties as Mary, Elizabeth and Thomas Boleyn, as well as all the leading councillors, lords and ladies of the realm. At last Henry could look upon his son and heir. Yet unhappily for Henry, and also for Cromwell as events would ere long turn out, the joy was short-lived. Scarcely had the strains of thanksgiving faded away when fate exacted a cruel price for this long delayed blessing. Within a fortnight Queen Jane was dead, following a severe post-natal illness. She was buried at Windsor on 12 November, in a very Catholic funeral.34

  Shortly after the tragedy, Henry turned his attention to the Bishops’ Book, sent to him for his comments and approval. The notes he wrote down while alone and with no one to guide or influence him are the nearest we have to a personal confession of faith of the adult king. And astonishingly for a man so eager to see Melanchthon in England, and so willing to seek an alliance with German Lutherans, Henry’s thoughts on justification by faith are about as different from Luther as any man’s in Christendom could be. Henry writes about ‘following precepts and laws’, about ‘living well’, and how ‘by penance and other good works’ we shall be made ‘meet and apt’; but nothing can be found from Henry on free grace, saving faith or the righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer. At one point he even contradicted the Ten Articles issued in his own name, when he jotted a note to the effect that justification was ‘chiefly’ due to divine grace (according to the Ten it should be ‘solely’). Cranmer, when his turn came to reply to the king, faithfully and painstakingly explained the classic Lutheran teaching of justification by faith alone, and how good works and right living were fruits of that faith. Cranmer then diplomatically referred ‘all mine annotations to his grace’s most exact judgement’. No reply from Henry is recorded. He may never have even read Cranmer’s comments. If he did, they singularly failed to register, because Henry would continue with his policy of engagement with the Lutherans, even though he neither agreed with them, nor properly understood them, on the most important theological issue of the Reformation. Luther’s one thing needful – that man’s salvation is entirely God’s gift – was lost on Henry.35

  Cromwell, not Cranmer, was the man who would soon be overwhelmed by the repercussions of this royal gaffe. Both men were living dangerously, and one would pay the price. As the year 1537 drew to its close, Cromwell’s position looked secure enough; but appearances were deceptive. If Henry’s scribblings in the Bishops’ Book faithfully represented his real beliefs – and there is no reason to doubt that this – then in faith and religion the king and his Vicegerent were well nigh an ocean apart.

  Notes

   1 Foxe 5, pp. 376–8, 384; ET, p. 10 = OL 1, p. 15.

   2 LP 10, no. 942.

   3 Elton: Policy pp. 244–5; Merriman 2, pp. 111–13; Burnet 4, pp. 394–5. For the dating, see Elton.

   4 R. McEntegart, Henry VIII, The League of Schmalkalden and the English Reformation, pp. 61–76.

   5 Letters of Stephen Gardiner, ed. J.A. Muller (Cambridge 1933), p. 72.

   6 S. Lehmberg, The Later Parliaments of Henry VIII: 1536–1547 (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 1–16.

/>    7 Mary’s submission: LP 10, no. 1137. Cromwell to Mary: Merriman 2, pp. 17–18 = LP 10, no. 1110 (a ‘mutilated draft’, and this time the LP abstract contains more than Merriman; it is also printed in T. Hearne, Sylloge epistolarum, a variis Angliae scriptarum … (Oxford: 1716), p. 137.) Mary to Cromwell: LP 10, nos 991, 1079, 1108, 1129, 1186; LP 11, nos 6, 334, 1269. Originals printed in Hearne, Sylloge, pp. 125–33, 144–8.

   8 CSP Span., 1536–8, no. 70.

   9 CSP Span., 1536–8, no. 72. There were even rumours that under new Succession Act, Cromwell would become Henry’s heir: LP 12 (1), nos 201 (3–4), 533.

  10 Lehmberg, Later Parliaments, p. 37; LP 11, no. 202 (3); Merriman 2, p. 134; LP 13 (2), no. 508; CSP Span., 1538–42, no. 7, p. 19.

  11 Lehmberg, Later Parliaments, pp. 20–24.

  12 LP 10, no. 1077; D. MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer: A Life (New haven and London, 1996), p. 150; Lehmberg, Later Parliaments, pp. 25–8; Elton, Policy, p. 291; Elton, Tudor Const., p. 341. For further parliamentary business, see Lehmberg, Later Parliaments, pp. 28–35.

  13 McEntegart, Henry VIII, p. 73; Lehmberg, Later Parliaments, pp. 32, 36, 38; A.G. Dickens, The English Reformation (2nd edn, London, 1989), pp. 130, 142–3; Wriothesley 1, pp. 51–2.

  14 The Ten Articles are printed in C.H. Williams (ed.), English Historical Documents, vol. 5, 1485–1588 (London, 1967), pp. 795–805. For a more detailed discussion, including the influence of Melanchthon and the case for Cromwell’s authorship, see J. Schofield, Philip Melanchthon and the English Reformation (Ashgate, 2006), chapter 5.

  15 English Historical Documents 5, pp. 805–8.

  16 For examples of resistance, or grudging acceptance, of the Injunctions, see Elton, Policy, p. 250.

  17 G.R. Elton, England under the Tudors (London, 2001), p. 133.

  18 D. Daniell, William Tyndale: A Biography (New Haven and London, 1994), pp. 361–84; LP 9, nos 275, 498; LP 10, no. 663; Foxe 5, p. 127–8; Hall, p. 818.