Cromwell's Reformation Dbq

Cromwell, according to Elton, was the architect of the Henrician reformation, in his establishment of royal supremacy over the Church and national sovereignty enacted by parliamentary statute. Nevertheless, Scarisbrick challenges this, by emphasising the role of Henry, who he argues was devoted to reform before Cromwell entered the inner circle. However, the question of significance to the advancement of the reformation also brings into question the role of Cranmer who held responsibility for the divorce decree, but also was involved in parliamentary statute to an extent. This essay will weigh these arguments along with primary sources to show that, it was Cromwell who was more significant in the advancement of the reformation.

It can be said

that Cromwell was significant for the advancement of the reformation in that he was able to seize ‘opportunities presented by Henry’s marital problems’ to begin the works of the establishment of a sovereign state ; diminishing the significance of Henry as the ‘architect of anything least of all the English reformation’ . Thus emphasising Cromwell’s involvement in providing a solution for annulment , evident in the form of the 1533 Act of Appeals that Elton suggests signalled ‘the triumph of the radical policy’ . Hence, empowering Henry as a ‘de facto Head of the Church’, in extending his royal authority over affairs, suppressing any dictation from outside the kingdom , which, when combined with the orchestrating of events by Cromwell at the beginning of the reformation , demonstrates Cromwell as ‘an administer genius’ , with his handling of parliamentary power of legislating, to assert Henry’s authority . This notion is emphasised within Source 1 in which Chapuys speaks of Cromwell’s ability to use other positions such as that of the chancellor as a ‘tool’ for his own expense, to rise ‘above everyone’, ‘...credit[ing] more with his master’, suggesting his greater significance. What makes this source reliable is that with it being written in 1535, it would be expected that Chapuys, a Roman Catholic , would be critical of Cromwell, this criticism is clearly illustrated towards the start of the letter, despite so, Chapuys’s addressing of Cromwell as ‘Sir, Master Cromwell’ and the credit he gives to Cromwell suggests otherwise. This significance of Cromwell’s parliamentary power for the reformation is further emphasised by the Act of Supremacy , establishing further the outright sovereignty of the King-in-Parliament and the suppressing of the Pope’s jurisdiction over the English Church. With the Act illustrating the means by which non-religious powers dominated clerical rivals , clarifying the king as justly and rightfully ‘...the supreme head of the Church of England’ , demonstrating the significance of Cromwell in initiating the recognition of Henry as the divinely-appointed and constitutional authority of the kingdom. Thus, suggesting the spearheaded significance of Cromwell in steering primary legislation through parliament, contributing to the advancement of the reformation, demonstrating his effectiveness.

Without doubt, Cromwell’s ability to exert as a broker instilled Henry with the greater ability to reflect his view as a king-in-parliament, in that essentially Cromwell worked as the glue that brought these two together , enabling Henry to use his determination in an unprecedented manner , in order to act as the sovereign head. Elton furthers this argument, suggesting Cromwell’s effectiveness in working with the complex interests of the King as to what the reformation hoped to achieve . Source 2 , by connecting the monasteries to ‘...manifest sin, vicious, carnal and abominable living’, and thus calling for ‘...such small houses [to be] utterly suppressed’ in order to advance the reformation, illustrates the instrumental role of Cromwell in the Dissolution of the Monasteries. Source 2 is quite reliable in illustrating Cromwell’s effectiveness in translating views into statutory form (the act itself being written by Cromwell) but less reliable in terms of the clear motives of for this, whereas Source 1 in connection to Source 2 reiterates the idea of Cromwell’s significance being linked to his promise ‘...to make [Henry] the richest sovereign that ever reigned in England’, which he was able to accomplish by cloaking it with religious and political grievances. Thus, illustrating the unique power of Cromwell (acting as Vicegerent) as emphasised by Pollard , meaning that although the intentions of the dissolution may not have been wholly religious it signalled for the extremity of the radical policy orchestrated by Cromwell , in empowering Henry by overcoming traditional precedence . Therefore, though it may have been the works of both Henry and Cromwell along with others of the inner circle, without Cromwell’s personal involvement Henry’s supremacy that furthered the strength of the crown’s position may have fallen short of advancing the reformation. This is reinforced by Source 3 which concurs with Source 1 and 2 to some extent in emphasising Cromwell’s undoubted significance as a mover for reformation in that Cranmer credits Cromwell’s role in ‘...procuring the King’s highness to set forth God’s word’ alluding to his significance in establishing the King as the leader of the nation, with ‘God’s faithful people’ obliged to the essence of ‘his word’. However, the Source can be considered unreliable because it is an extract taken from a letter written in 1537 which Cranmer seeks for an official promotion of an English Bible written by him and others of the inner circle, meaning that it is undoubtedly inclined to praise Cromwell. Despite so, the mutual consensus reached between Sources 1, 2 and 3 suggest that Cromwell was significant in the move towards an ultimate aim of establishing a sovereign state with the King deeply integrated into the authority of the Church.

Contrastingly, Scarisbrick that Henry was significant for the advancement of the reformation, contrasting with Elton , suggesting Henry’s view for outright authority was presence before Cromwell became part of the inner circle . The desire of Henry to dominate the clergy was made evident in the handling of petitions of grievances within the 1529 first session of the reformation parliament . Evidence of Henrician erastianism had strung across his reign in regards to religious reform, evident in the attack in 1530-31 on the presence of any clerical jurisdiction not under royal control . Therefore, illustrating his greater role with Pollard arguing that the reformation only advanced due to the act of Henry will , as supported in Source 4 , contrasting with the previous sources by emphasising Henry’s role as the figurehead of all decisions that led to the advancement of the reformation , clearly evident in his granting of permission to Cranmer to act on his behalf, praising Cranmer’s ‘boldness’ and ‘rude writing’ in obtaining his approval. Therefore, suggesting that the orchestrating of the reformation did not derive from the divorce, rather Henry’s determination to exert power , indicating his significance. Despite so, the letter fails to suggest any of Henry’s motives for the reformation, making the source unreliable and ineffective in illustrating Henry’s significance, shedding light on the greater role of Cranmer as opposed to Henry.

The divorce is clearly the starting point for the reformation, so although Cromwell initiated the first legislation for reform , Cranmer’s involvement in the advancement of the reformation is also significant.

Cranmer’s divorce decree directly challenged the Pope’s authority, by establishing Henry’s sovereign entity . Thus illustrating Cranmer’s ability to exert his position to such an extent in order to strengthen Henry’s position is partially significance for the reformation . This evident in Source 4 where Henry credits Cranmer for operating his ‘...said office in so weighty and great a cause, pertaining in [his] most humble wise’ despite being the king’s ‘subject’, thus illustrating Cranmer’s wider role, parallel to Cromwell, but with Cranmer credited largely for helping ‘set some direction and end in the said cause of matrimony’ in a period of discontinuity of action by the clergy in orchestrating a solution. Thus illustrating the idea of Cranmer as the ‘...principal minister of spiritual jurisdiction’ as noted by Henry, in that although Henry, Cranmer carried out the ideals for the reformation: ‘...to the pleasure of Almighty God’, to which he could only agree to.” This is clearly evident in the significance of Cranmer’s granting of the divorce, thus disagreeing largely with Sources 1, 2 and 3 on Cromwell’s significance. Although, Source 4 is unreliable to some extent in suggesting Henry’s motives, it is reliable in implying Cranmer’s significance, providing sufficient indication of Cranmer’s role. Nevertheless, the significance of the divorce can be challenged by Ridley who states that if the royal supremacy was believed to be by ‘the people at the time and many historians since’ to do with the King ‘changing his woman’, it would be considered a ‘serious injustice’ . Thus, although the decree satisfied the king it was of minimal significance, reinforced by Cranmer’s part in Source 5 (a letter written by Cranmer to Henry on the fall of Anne Boleyn),

contrasting with Source 4, by stating ‘...[Henry’s] favour to the gospel was not led by affection unto [Anne]’, undermining the significance of the divorce to the reformation, emphasising its orchestration due to other reasons. This is clearly illustrated by the underlying motives of the Act of Supremacy and the Dissolution of the Monasteries that occurred on Cromwell’s part, suggesting Cromwell’s significance in the advancement of the reformation.

Nevertheless, Cranmer was vital for Henry’s supremacy in that at times he was able to effectively as an ‘inside man’ imposing the ideas of Henry and Cromwell , but also providing advice, as noted by Source 6 (a letter from Cranmer to Cromwell) where he offers advice on Fisher and More. With Cranmer stating that Cromwell should press on with ‘...either the diminution of the authority of the bishop of Rome, or else the reprobation of the king’s first pretensed matrimony’, in that ‘...the succession comprised within the said act is good and according to God’s laws’, suggesting that they both be allowed to take the oath. Although, Source 6 illustrates Cranmer’s role to an extent, it also suggests his ineffectiveness in that this idea failed to materialise into success with the rejection by both to take the oath . Despite so, Source 6 can be considered reliable in the sense that when combined with Source 4, stresses Cranmer’s wider role with his involvement in areas aside from the divorce, disagreeing with first three sources. This is evident in his pivotal role in distributing the English Bible, supporting Cromwell’s initial injunctions of 1538 . Therefore, without the assistance of Cranmer in the passage of Reform Acts would have been difficult with the absence of support and influence Cranmer had obtained, but also his own work from which ideas for religious reform derived such as the English Bible .
In conclusion, there is no doubt that Cromwell and Cranmer pushed for religious change . However, the significance of Cranmer is undermined in the minimal significance of the divorce for the advancement of the reformation, in comparison, to the Act of Appeals, the Act of Supremacy and the Dissolution of the Monasteries. In this sense, although Cranmer had been a part of the reformation process, Cromwell’s ability to rise in significant by using his position as suggested by Source 1, suggest his crucial role, in that it was him who translated the King’s ideas into statutory form and action, further emphasised in Sources 2 and 3. He was ‘a man who knew precisely where he was going and who nearly always achieved the end he had in view’ , by masterminding the means of parliamentary statute; using it to advance the reformation process . Thus, starkly opposing the role of Henry and Cranmer as noted in Sources 4, 5 and 6, in the disposal of greater credit to Cromwell. This is noted by the fact that when Cromwell had fell from power much of the aims of the reformation had been met, with the establishment of a sovereign state, a supreme head of the church and an English Bible that was in the works. Therefore, it can be argued that it was Cromwell who was the main driving force for the advancement of the Henrician reformation .