We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 March 2011
The Act of Six Articles of 1539 affirmed half a dozen key Catholic beliefs and their denial was made punishable by law: a heretic's death was automatically prescribed for repudiation of transubstantiation, and possible death as a felon for those who denied the divine authority of clerical celibacy, vows of chastity, private masses or the practical necessity of auricular confession. The measure was made even more severe as recantation was of no effect where transgression of the first article was concerned. Little wonder its detractors called the act ‘the whip with six strings’, or the ‘bloody statute’. From early on, the passage of the act was often seen in terms of a personal triumph for Bishop Stephen Gardiner of Winchester, along with Thomas Howard, duke of Norfolk, who piloted the measure through parliament. All of the allusions to Gardiner's involvement come from hostile sources, and most of these ascriptions are vague and lacking in circumstantial detail. William Turner, in The rescuyinge of the Romishe fox, referred to the act in a much quoted statement as ‘the six articles, otherwise called Gardiner's gospel’; it remains a moot point whether Winchester's enemy, Turner, was ascribing to Gardiner authorship of the act or merely endorsement of its orthodoxy. An unknown author, whose work is to be found in Narratives of…the Reformation, argued that the act stemmed from the king's anger against reformist bishops who quarrelled over his deployment of monastic wealth, so Henry, ‘being stirred thereunto by Winchester and other old papists in the next parliament, made vj new articles of our faithy.… The most comprehensive and detailed indictment of Winchester's involvement comes in a highly virulent, and extremely effective, piece of propaganda directed against the bishop.
1 Turner, W., The rescuyinge of the Romishe fox, n.p. 1545, sig. Aiii.Google Scholar
2 Narratives of the Days of the Reformation, ed. Nichols, J. G. (Camden Society, 1859), 224Google Scholar However, another version of this same passage appears as a preface by ‘E. P.’ to Cranmer's Confutation of Unwritten Verities, but does not single out Stephen Gardiner for special mention, talking only of ‘the incitation of the old popish bishops’; Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of Thomas Cranmer, ed. Cox, J. E. (Parker Society, 1846), 16.Google Scholar Some commentators did not delve at all into the provenance of the statute. The chronicler Hall, though he carried no brief for the act, seems to have accepted it as just another government bill, finding nothing to say on its origins, Hall, E., The union of the two noble and illustre famelies at the tyme of Lancastre and Yorke, London 1548, sig. 3Qvi rGoogle Scholar.
3 Trinity College, Cambridge, MS 613, fos. 48-9. See also Janelle, P., ‘An unpublished poem on Bishop Stephen Gardiner’, BIHR vi (1929), Select Documents 12, pp. 89–90;Google Scholar and 12-35, 89-96, 167-74.
4 Davies, C. S. L., Peace, Print and Protestantism, London 1976, 211.Google Scholar
5 Dickens, A. G., The English Reformation, London 1967 (revised edn), 246–7.Google Scholar
6 Ridley, J., Thomas Cranmer, Oxford 1962, 178–9.Google Scholar
7 Elton, G. R., ‘Thomas Cromwell's Decline and Fall’, in Studies in Tudor and Stuart Politics and Government, Cambridge 1974, i. 189-230, at p. 205.Google Scholar (Originally publ. in Cambridge Historical Journal x (1951), 150–85.)Google Scholar A few years later, in England under the Tudors, London 1955, 156,Google Scholar Elton added about the act that ‘the king waited upon the outcome rather than interfered to determine it’. See also Elton, G. R., Reform and Reformation, London 1977, 286–7Google Scholar.
8 Lehmberg, S. E., The Later Parliaments of Henry VIII, Cambridge 1977, 57–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Muller, J. A., Stephen Gardiner and the Tudor Reaction, New York 1926, 353 n. 2.Google Scholar I hope to illustrate these points further in my forthcoming Oxford DPhil dissertation on Bishop Gardiner's earlier career.
10 PRO, E 36/143, p. 129. For dating, see , Elton, Studies i. 205, n. 2Google Scholar.
11 Hughes, P. L. and Larkin, J. F., Tudor Royal Proclamations, London 1964, i. no. 191, at p. 285. Cf.Google ScholarHeinze, R. W., The Proclamations of the Tudor Kings, Cambridge 1976, 139–41Google Scholar
12 31 Henry VIII c. 14; Statutes of the Realm, London 1810-1928, iii. 739Google Scholar.
13 BL, Cott. MS Cleo E v., fos. 2i5ff. (Printed in Burnet, G., The History ofthe of the Church of England, London 1841, ii. pp. cxlv–cli.)Google Scholar
14 , Ridley, Cranmer, 162–4.Google Scholar
15 , Hughes and , Larkin, Royal Proclamations i. 272–3. Cf.Google Scholar Prof. Elton's analysis of the drafting of the edict in Elton, G. R., Policy and Police, Cambridge 1972, 255ff.Google Scholar He demonstrates that reformers were responsible, though, for other sections of the proclamation.
16 , Hughes and , Larkin, Royal Proclamations i. 278.Google Scholar
17 Cf. Brigden, S., ‘Popular disturbances and the fall of Thomas Cromwell and the Reformers, 1539-40’, Historical Journal xxiv (1981), 257-78, at pp. 257–8 andCrossRefGoogle Scholar Dr Brigden's unpubl. 1979 Cambridge PhD diss., ‘The Early Reformation in London: the conflict in the parishes’, 162. In March 1539 it was reported that ‘some persons have very freely preached before the king’ about permitting the marriage of priests.
18 LP xiii (i). no. 1211; an outline of diplomatic events is found in Merriman, R. B., Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell, Oxford 1902, i. ch. 12,Google Scholar ‘The Foreign Policy’, pp. 213-41.
19 For other interpretations of foreign policy at this time, some of which were written before the demonstration of Cromwell's evangelical commitment, see , Merriman, Cromwell i. 237–9Google Scholar; Wernham, R. B., England Before the Armada, London 1966, 144–5;.Google ScholarScarisbrick, J., Henry VIII, London 1968, 361–3, 366;Google ScholarElton, G. R., Reform and Reformation, London 1977, 277, 282;Google Scholar D. L. Potter, unpubl. 1973 Cambridge PhD diss., ‘Diplomacy in the mid-sixteenth century: England and France, 1536-1550’, 14.
20 A point on which Bishop Gardiner realised the king would be sensitive.
21 12 Jan. 1539; LP xiv (i). no. 62.
22 , Merriman, Cromwell ii. 176–7.Google Scholar
23 Hoskins, W. G., The Age of Plunder, London 1976, 208.Google Scholar
24 State Papers of King Henry VIII, Record Commission, London 1830-1852, viii. 166.Google Scholar
25 LP xiv (i). nos. 516 and 538.
26 The Lisle Letters, ed. Byrne, M. S., London 1981, v. 352.Google Scholar
27 Ibid. 436.
28 LJ i. 106.
29 See above, n. 12.
30 Printed in Collier, J., An Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain, London 1714, ii.Google Scholar document 47. Cf. , Elton, Policy and Police, 195–8Google Scholar.
31 Knecht, R. J., Francis I, Cambridge 1982, 293. Cf.Google ScholarMariotte, J.-Y., ‘Francois Ier et la Ligue de Smalkalde. De la treve de Nice à la paix de Crepy 1538-1544’, Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Geschichte, 1966, 206-47, at pp. 216 and 233Google Scholar.
32 , Merriman, Cromwell i. 243.Google Scholar
33 Ibid. 272-7, being the Germans' own account of the 1539 embassy.
34 Ibid. ii. 220-1.
35 , Edward, Lord Herbert of Cherbury, in his The life and raigne of King Henry the eighth, London 1672, 512Google Scholar, actually imagined that Gardiner's warning in 1536 against an alliance with the Protestant princes returned at this time to haunt the king. Gardiner had said Lutherans could never stomach the royal supremac y over the English Church for fear of ‘investing the same authority in the emperor’.
36 , Merriman, Cromwell ii. 252–4.Google Scholar
37 Lisle Letters v. 157-67 and passim.
38 Ibid. 391, 489, 491, 675, and passim.
39 Ibid. no. 1191, Calais Council to Cromwell, July 1538, at p. 181.
40 , Cranmer, Misc. Writings, 375.Google Scholar
41 Lisle Letters v. nos. 1498, 1498a, Lisle to Cromwell, c. Feb.-April 1539.
42 Ibid. no. 1437, pp. 515, 517.
43 Ibid. no. 1403.
44 Ibid. no. 1435.
45 Ibid. no. 1405.
46 , Elton, Studies i. 206.Google Scholar
47 LJ i. 109 [HLRO, MS LJ i. 321]. As later drafts confirm, the first question must be understood as meaning whether the eucharist can be Christ's body other than by transubstantiation.
48 LJ i. 104 [HLRO, MS LJ i. 311]; Wilkins, D., Concilia Magnae Britannicae et Hiberniae, London 1737, iii. 845Google Scholar.
49 Wriothesley, C., A Chronicle of England, ed. Hamilton, W. D. (Camden Soceity, NS xi, 1875). 94–5.Google Scholar
50 Lisle Letters v. no. 1400, at pp. 459-60.
51 LJ i. 105 [HLRO, MS LJ i. 314]. This English translation is taken from Cobbett, W., The Parliamentary History of England, London 1806, i. 535.Google Scholar N.b. his other translations must be read with caution.
52 The Letters of Stephen Gardiner, ed. Muller, J. A., Cambridge 1933, 369–70.Google Scholar
53 LJ i. 108 [HLRO, MS LJ i. 321].
54 Statutes of the Realm, London 1810-1828, iii. 739.Google Scholar
55 Lisle Letters v. no. 1415, John Worth to Lord Lisle, 15 May 1539, at p. 478. Worth also noted that clerical marriage had been discussed in parliament.
56 Elton, G. R., ‘Taxation for war and peace in early Tudor England’, in Winter, J. M. (ed.), War and Economic Development, Cambridge 1975, 33-48, at pp. 36–7.Google Scholar
57 L.J i. 112 [HLRO, MS LJ 327].
58 , Cranmer, Misc. Writings, 168.Google Scholar Lord Herbert of Cherbury wrote that Cranmer ‘for three days together in open assembly opposed these Articles boldly’, Life of Henry VIII, 512.Google Scholar Jasper Ridley suggested 19, 20, and 21 May as the most likely dates for Cranmer's opposition in the Lords, the king being present in the chamber on the nineteenth and twenty-first; Cranmer, 181. His suggestion is confirmed by reports sent on Wednesday, 21 May to the Lisles in Calais. It was noted that the , king ‘in proper person hath taken daily pains for the establishment [of an act concerning the eucharist]; insomuch that his grace was divers times among his Lords and Council for the deciding of the same’. Lisle Letters v. 485, 486Google Scholar.
59 See , Ridley, Cranmer, 188;Google Scholar and also an account of events in 1539 recalled by the reformer, , Alesius, in Calendar of State Papers, Elizabeth, Foreign Series, London 1863, i. 533; andGoogle ScholarArchaeologia xxiii (1831), 58Google Scholar.
60 Joye, George, The defence of the marriage of preistes, Antwerp 1541, sig. Ciia.Google Scholar
61 PRO SP/I 152, fo. 19 [LP xiv (i). no. 1065 (3)].
62 LP xiv (i). no. 971.
63 PRO SP/I 152, fo. 17.
64 Cf. Concilia iii. 845 with PRO SP/I 152, fo. 19. Hethe's declaration is written underneath a version of the six questions connected with debates in Convocation. Moreover, the record of the votes cast in the Lower House [PRO SP/I 152, fo. 21] cannot relate to the events in Convocation of 2 June, as Lehmberg believed, Later Parliaments, 70-1, but stems from a motion whether to authorise Hethe to make his declaration, which itself refers to the two contrary votes. Lehmberg did not notice this provisional assent, which is nonetheless crucial to consider as it amends and clarifies the version of convocational activities given by Wilkins. It had not previously been recognised that the first set of questions recorded by Wilkins in fact comprised those to which the lower clergy were prepared to accept the bishops' answers. Presumably Wilkins was working from a document noting the presentation of the questions to Prolocutor Hethe. Wilkins was confused - hence his insertion of an English sentence in the middle of a Latin text to provide the link between the two incompatible sets of questions. Wilkins thought that the two sets of conflicting questions which he printed were both presented on the same day, 2 June, by Thomas Cromwell. He also believed that nothing of note occurred in the five sessions before that day. We know, however, that the Lower House had given their consent to the bishops' deliberations. This must have been requested on the fourth day that convocation sat, and given during the fifth session, because the debates in the Upper House of Convocation only began around the 23 May, and the records of the House of Lords state that the third meeting of Convocation took place on 14 May and, as Wilkins says, the sixth meeting took place on 2 June, LJ i. 108; Concilia iii. 845.
65 BL, Cott. MS, Cleo E v. fos. 131-2.
66 Ibid. fo. 131V.
67 , Henry VIII, Assertio Septem Sacramentorum, tr.‘W, T..’, London 1687, 69.Google Scholar
68 See Sturge, C., Cuthbert Tunstal, London 1938, 216–7.Google Scholar
69 Concilia iii. 845.
70 Henry VIII, Assertio, sig. Diiiiv.
71 Lisle Letters v. 523.
72 Brandi, Karl, The Emperor Charles v, transl. Wedgwood, C. V., London 1963, 448;Google ScholarMatheson, P., Cardinal Conlarini at Regensburg, Oxford 1972, 133–5Google Scholar.
73 BL, Cott. MS, Cleo E v. fos. 327-35; printed in Concilia iii. 848-50.
74 Elton, G. R., ‘Parliamentary drafts, 1529-1540’, BIHR XXX (1952), 117-32, at p. 120.Google Scholar
75 No further change was made to the phrasing of the question about transubstantiation nor to the one on confession, because these two topics, in particular, had been discussed by the king with his bishops after the debates in Convocation.
76 BL, Cott. MS, Cleo E v. fos. 329-30; Concilia iii. 849.
77 LJ i. 113 [HLRO, MS LJ, 328].
78 See Chester, A. G., Hugh Latimer, New York 1978, Ch. 20,Google Scholar ‘The Six Articles’, 144-51.
79 , Lehmberg, Later Parliaments, 70,Google Scholar misreads the day for a Saturday.
80 , Burnet, History i. 189–90.Google Scholar
81 BL, Cott. MS, Cleo E v. fo. 138.
82 , Lehmberg, Later Parliaments, 70.Google Scholar
83 For instance, when Lehmberg points out that the form adopted by Convocation concerning the issue of chastity now contained the interesting proviso that only vows ‘advisedly’taken are binding, he did not realise that the phrase ‘made to God advisedly’ was one of Henry's autograph additions to the draft bill. Lehmberg, loc. cit.; BL, Cott. MS, Cleo E v. fos. 327, 330; Concilia iii. 348-9.
84 For discussion of the question whether Henry's supremacy was purely jurisdictional -like the Emperor Constantine's - or also magisterial like the pope's [in which case the assent of convocation was inessential), see Ullmann, W.,‘This realm of England is an empire’, this Journal xxx (1979), 175–203, at pp. 180–1, 195-6. Cf.Google ScholarElton, G. R., The Tudor Constitution, Cambridge 1982 (second edn), 341–3,Google Scholar and Studies i. 183-4.
