Cardinal Pole in Elizabeth's England

ASSESSMENT TITLE PAGE STUDENT ID: 10070664 UNIT NO.: CT220 UNIT NAME: Church History 2 DUE DATE: 13/8/2016 WORD COUNT: 3,165 LECTURER: CRB/EAL QUESTION / TOPIC NO.: Cardinal Pole QUESTION / TOPIC TITLE: Assessment in Moore Theological College is anonymous. Do not include your name anywhere within this assignment. Cardinal Pole was in many ways an enigmatic Catholic leader. From exile in Italy during the reign of Henry VIII, to representing the Pope as legate in England under Mary I, much has been said about the man and his actions. This essay will examine the account of Reginald Pole penned in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, and assess the validity of those accounts against other historic sources. Foxe’s work, although helping the Protestant cause throughout the 17th century and beyond, has also been criticised for being a form of propaganda, fuelling the persecution of Catholics for centuries after it was written.1 This essay seeks to survey Foxe’s account of Pole and asses its accuracy. In arguing for Foxe’s overall leniency towards Pole’s culpability in the deaths of hundreds of Protestants, we will be primarily examining the second edition of his Book of Martyrs, published 1570. The first edition of the book (published 1563) is not readily available but has been described by Thomas Harding, an influential Catholic scholar as a ‘huge dunghill of your stinking martyrs, full of a thousand lies’.2 Of course, such a reception is to be expected by a Catholic audience. But whatever the truth behind these ‘lies’, there was evidently a significant shift in Foxe’s estimations of Pole between the first and second editions of his book. Lambeth Palace Library comments that ‘the first editions saw the unequivocal commendation of Pole as orchestrator of much Protestant misery under the command of Mary I’.3 This is emphatically not the case in the second edition, which takes a much more moderate view on Pole. By examining other primary and secondary sources, I will argue that the account Foxe’s second edition is fair insofar as it shows that Pole was actually much less brutal than many contemporaries, 1 Jasper Godwin Ridley, The Life and times of Mary Tudor, (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973), 171. 2 J. F. Mozley, John Foxe and His Book, (New York: Macmillan Company, 1940), 138. 3 Lambeth Palace Library, Lambeth Palace Library Research Guide: ‘Reginald Pole, Archbishop of Canterbury’, accessed 2/8/16 at http://www.lambethpalacelibrary.org/files/Reginald_Pole.pdf and we can show he was not directly responsible for the deaths of several notable martyrs that Foxe examines. But although more measured and less violent in his attack on Protestants than his contemporaries, Pole was actually the driving force behind the passing of the law which made these deaths possible and also displayed real contempt for those Protestants who died for the faith. Behind each of these executions discussed by Foxe, Pole was legate. His letters to parliament and to Mary I were the driving force behind the bloodshed. Overall, then, we will argue that Foxe’s account of Pole is indeed too lenient; for he neglects this all important fact. The first martyr under Reginald Pole as papal legate was John Rogers, on the 4th February 1555. Rogers had been treated brutally by order of Edmund Bonner, Bishop of London. Bonner had a reputation for being particularly brutal, even being given the nickname ‘Bloody Bonner’. He appears often in the Book of Martyrs and plays a more prominent role in the persecutions than Pole. It would seem this is a fair impression to give: a survey of correspondence between Bonner and Pole however shows that Pole rarely spoke to him concerning the trials of Protestants. Rather, almost every recorded correspondence shows Pole either cautioning restraint, granting absolution to individuals that Bonner had condemned, or they contain menial administration.4 In a letter dated 9th September 1556 we see that Bonner wrote to Pole concerning a group of Protestants awaiting execution saying: ‘Would have had them here and done with, but since you were offended by my last process, please let me know what to do this time’.5 Pole had seemingly objected to the use of church property as a venue for burning heretics. Foxe actually quotes this letter in his book, writing, ‘These persons were brought before Bonner, who would have immediately sent them to 4 Reginald Pole and Thomas F. Mayer, The Correspondence of Reginald Pole, Vol. 3. (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002), 33, 41, 46, 71, 99, 114, 126, 141, 159, 164, 167, 178, 180, 191, 192, 204, 230, 241, 243, 253, 274, 278, 281, 283, 297, 310, 314, 317, 325, 336, 358, 360, 376, 378, 397, 400, 408, 460, 484, 495, 496, 500, 508. 5 Pole and Mayer, The Correspondence of Reginald Pole. Vol. 3, 297. execution, but Cardinal Pole was for more merciful measures, and Bonner, in a letter of his to the cardinal, seems to be sensible that he had displeased him, for he has this expression: I thought to have them all hither to Fulham, and to have given sentence against them; nevertheless, perceiving by my last doing that your grace was offended, I thought it my duty, before I proceeded further, to inform your grace.’ This shows two things. We can see the historical accuracy of Foxe’s account with regards to Pole, his research has been thorough and he has engaged properly with the relevant primary documents on this matter. Secondly, Pole is shown to be a compassionate judge. If he had been a tyrant, one would not expect him to have been offended by Bonner’s tactics. Perhaps Foxe is correct not to make mention of Pole as much as his bishops such as Bonner, who, we see here, Pole had actually worked to restrain. Foxe gives accounts of Pole at a number of other points in his book. Recounting the trial of Dr Robert Farrar, Pole is only mentioned in passing, as Farrar wanted to appeal his death sentence to him. We read: ‘He [Farrar] was six times brought up before Henry Morgan, bishop of St. David's, who demanded if he would abjure; from which he zealously dissented, and appealed to Cardinal Pole; notwithstanding which, the bishop, proceeding in his rage, pronounced him a heretic excommunicate, and surrendered him to the secular power’.6 Here, Pole is once again contrasted with Morgan as a more merciful judge. Farrar’s appeal could simply have been on the grounds of seeking a judgment from a higher authority, the papal legate. On the other hand, it could have been the case that Pole was known for absolving those who were condemned. Certainly his correspondence with bishops at the time does show a number of absolutions.7 The account certainly paints Pole as a moderate character. 6 John Foxe, Foxe's Book of Martyrs, (London: Daye, 1570), 310. 7 See footnote 7 for references to correspondence between Pole and Bonner. There is no martyr of greater significance in Foxe’s account than Thomas Cranmer, the former archbishop of Canterbury. His imprisonment and trial are recorded at length in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. Whilst there is no mention of Pole, we read that all of the Pope’s delegates were present, including some from Rome who had come specifically for the trial so it is fair to assume that Pole—who was already based in England—was in attendance.8 Indeed, we can see from other sources that he was very much involved in Cranmer’s trial: he wrote two letters to Cranmer whilst he was in prison. The first has been lost, but the second one has been preserved. Upon Cranmer being handed a death sentence, Pole wrote to him, ‘May God give you repentance, as I pray daily myself, especially for obstinate who need grace most. Your judges have given up and passed the most horrible sentence possible. I so horrified, would do anything to bring you benefit of salvation, rather than gain greatest benefit to myself’.9 This tone is not something that would be expected from a man who himself had suffered at the hands of ‘Protestant’ blood thirst. Henry VII had ordered for Pole’s entire family to be murdered in response to his refusal to endorse his divorce from Catherine of Aragon.10 It is astonishing that Pole is so measured and reserved in his contempt towards such a prominent Protestant figure as Cranmer. This letter would surely testify to his pastoral character and tendency towards compassion. However, despite the pleasantries of the introduction, Pole continues, ‘You swore also to the Pope, intending to ‘crucify’ his authority. You became archbishop through fraud and swore false oath against the whole realm. God’s exclusion of you is only just and he has blinded you. Your letters reveal ignorance.’11 Thus while being sympathetic towards Cranmer, we see that Pole was also 8 Foxe, Foxe's Book of Martyrs, 377. 9 Reginald Pole and Thomas F. Mayer, The Correspondence of Reginald Pole, Vol. 4, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002), 188. 10 D. M. Loades, The Reign of Mary Tudor: Politics, Government, and Religion in England, 1553-1558, (New York: St. Martin's, 1979), 170. 11 Pole and Mayer, The Correspondence of Reginald Pole, Vol. 4, 189. steadfast in his condemnation of his Protestant teaching. Fenlon succinctly sums this up: ‘Pole was not averse to the principle of persecution. On the contrary, he shared the general conviction of his age…that protection of the faithful from corrupting influence (by force if necessary) was the first duty of the Christian pastor.’12 But the surprisingly moderate way in which he wished this duty to be carried out can be seen again in a letter he sent to the citizens of London. He wrote to them: ‘Tempre your favour under such maner, that if you can converte them by any ways unto the unite of the Church, then doo it…but if ye cannot, and you suffer or favour them, there cannot be a greater work of cruelty ageynst the commonwelthe’.13 He wanted to see the conversion of those who would teach a faith different to that of Rome, yet he was determined that those who would not demit their convictions would need to be silenced. But the means that he used were political, and Foxe rightly does not ascribe to him the same brutality that characterised many others in the Catholic church at the time. It is surprising that Foxe did not include the letter in his account of Cranmer’s trial as it is sheds great light on both Pole’s character and convictions. But it is hard to see how this letter would alter Foxe’s opinions of Pole as laid out in his book’s second edition. Foxe goes on to give an account of Pole’s ‘Commission into Heretics’ at Cambridge, which raises one of the most curious aspects of Pole’s character. In perhaps the lengthiest of Foxe’s accounts concerning Pole he states, ‘The beginning of the year 1557, was remarkable for the visit of Cardinal Pole to the University of Cambridge, which seemed to stand in need of much cleansing from heretical preachers and reformed doctrines. One object was also to play the popish farce of trying 12 Dermot Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience in Tridentine Italy; Cardinal Pole and the Counter Reformation. (Cambridge: U, 1972), 252. 13 John Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials: Relating Chiefly to Religion and the Reformation of It, and the Emergencies of the Church of England, under King Henry VIII, King Edward VI and Queen Mary the First ... with a Large Appendix to Each Volume, Containing Original Papers, Records, (London: Printed for John Wyat, 1721), 487. Martin Bucer and Paulus Phagius, who had been buried about three or four years.’14 Here, Foxe is referring to Pole’s practice of exhuming and burning those who had already been martyred. One must question what Pole hoped to achieve by such trials. There is no record of veneration of graves, and certainly those who had already been martyred could not defend themselves against charges. It could be that these actions were mere lip service to the cause of purging England of Protestants, a show of Pole’s convictions yet without taking lives. Foxe gives a further account of this practice of exhuming and burning those deemed to be heretics: ‘Cardinal Pole also inflicted his harmless rage upon the dead body of Peter Martyr's wife, who, by his command, was dug out of her grave, and buried on a distant dunghill, partly because her bones lay near St. Fridewide's relics, held once in great esteem in that college, and partly because he wished to purify Oxford of heretical remains as well as Cambridge’.15 Concerning Foxe’s verdict on this degrading behavior, Ridley states that Foxe ‘gives Pole credit for being a less savage persecutor than most of the other persons in authority, and says that he preferred digging up and burning the corpses of dead heretics rather than burning live ones’.16 According to Foxe, Pole’s rage against Protestants was indeed ‘harmless’. It certainly shows a contempt towards the Protestant faith—and in this light he appears to be less ‘measured’—but of course Foxe is correct that it did not actually cause harm to these martyrs who were already with the Lord. Whilst it is true that this particular practice did not lead directly to anyone’s death, Pole’s influence was anything but harmless. In all of this, the crucial point that Foxe fails to mention in his reassessment of Pole is his responsibility with regards to the repealing of laws passed in the so-called ‘Reformation Parliament’ of 1529-1532. Despite his exile from England in 1526, Pole rose through 14 Foxe, Foxe's Book of Martyrs, 392. 15 Foxe, Foxe's Book of Martyrs, 396. 16 Ridley, The Life and Times of Mary Tudor, 176. the ranks of the Catholic church; he was made a cardinal in 1537 and, following the death of Edward VI and the ascension of Mary I, he returned to England as papal legate. Pole had a firm mission for his time in England, seen clearly in his correspondence to Mary: to return England to the ways of Rome and the rule of the Pope, thus reversing the work of the Reformers in previous years. This was not to be a straightforward task. Loades comments that by 1553 ‘only someone as detached from English events as Reginald Pole could seriously maintain that it was the Queen’s duty to ignore as invalid all those acts of parliament which had affected the church since 1532’.17 In December 1533 Pole wrote to parliament, showing how England was the first state to embrace Christendom,18 and thus was a privileged land,19 but also England had many enemies, which he called ‘infidels’,20 who sought to disrupt that Christian heritage with falsehoods and ideas that were not orthodox. He argued that the acts of parliament of the previous years were exactly that— corrupt laws that had taken England away from the one true Roman church. Urging Parliament to repeal pro-Protestant laws he wrote: ‘You can be examples of true religion, true obedience and of proper prudence civil’.21 The way to accomplish that was to grant Mary the authority to consecrate bishops, which he did on 27th March 1554.22 Following that catastrophic development, Protestant teachers and laypeople could be legally tried for heresy. If found guilty, imprisonment and even death was certain. Once Pole had ensured the passing of the laws, he arrived in England on the 20th November 1554. 17 Loades, The Reign of Mary Tudor, 43. 18 William Haller, The Elect Nation: The Meaning and Relevance of Foxe's Book of Martyrs. (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), 19. 19 Reginald Pole and Thomas F. Mayer, The Correspondence of Reginald Pole. Vol. 2. (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002), 245. 20 Pole and Mayer, The Correspondence of Reginald Pole. Vol. 2, 245. 21 Pole and Mayer, The Correspondence of Reginald Pole. Vol. 2, 247. 22 Pole and Mayer, The Correspondence of Reginald Pole. Vol. 2, 279. Thus Pole was the driving force behind the law which made possible all the martyrdoms of his time as papal legate. During his time as papal legate of England, 285 protestants were martyred.23 Foxe himself records that eighty-four people were martyred in 1557 alone and all at the hands of a Catholic Church that Pole, at least in England, was head of. It is surprising that Foxe would neglect to acknowledge the fact that Pole’s actions lay behind this legal shift that made it even an option. This oversight surely takes away from the validity of Foxe’s account. Without this important detail, Foxe does not give us a full picture of the culpability of Pole with regards to the large number of Protestant martyrdoms that took place under his Catholic ‘rule’. We have therefore seen that there are two sides to Reginald Pole. On the one hand, he is seen to be pastoral, desiring that those condemned would come to an understanding of the truth as he saw it. Of course, this is what one should expect from someone holding high office in the Catholic church. His approach to how England was to be returned to Rome shows that he was a man of reason and one willing to show restraint amidst a context where many of his contemporaries only showed bloodlust. Given that his own family were murdered at the hands of a ‘Protestant’ monarch, Pole’s restraint is undeniably noteworthy and impressive. Foxe does well to communicate this aspect of his character. On the other hand, there is no doubt of Pole’s conviction that it was the will of God that England should be a Catholic country, and that Mary was God’s chosen monarch under whom that was to happen. He appealed to parliament to enact laws that saw the punishment of hundreds for their faith. Furthermore, even though he wrote to absolve many from death, there were many others for whom he did not do that. In the trial of Cranmer, he showed his compassion by way of a letter but he was resolute that the only sentence for such a man, in his refusal to recant, was death. 23 Fenlon, Heresy, 283. Therefore, we must conclude that Foxe paints a picture of Pole which is too soft. Foxe’s account of Pole is reviewed fairly by Fenlon, when he writes: ‘Nobody could accuse Foxe of impartiality. It might seem significant therefore that his account of Pole should be so lenient. He considered that Pole’s lightening was for the most part kindled against the dead. Thus, while he caused the bodies of Fagius and Bucer to be disinterred, and their bones burned before the populace of Cambridge, nevertheless…he thought by this means to discharge his duty towards the Pope’.24 Foxe may well give a sympathetic account of the role that Pole played in the Catholic Counter Reformation when it came to his direct culpability in Protestant deaths. Overall, his focus is those who tried Protestants directly rather than on Pole, who orchestrated their suffering in the first place. But when one considers the power that Pole had at his disposal as papal legate—and how he used that power to persuade Parliament in favour of the Catholic church—we must conclude that Foxe’s account is far too lenient in the important detail that it omits. Soli Deo Gloria. 24 Fenlon, Heresy, 252. Bibliography Fenlon, Dermot. Heresy and Obedience in Tridentine Italy; Cardinal Pole and the Counter Reformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. Foxe, John. Foxe's Book of Martyrs. London: Daye, 1570. Haller, William. The Elect Nation: The Meaning and Relevance of Foxe's Book of Martyrs. New York: Harper & Row, 1963. Lambeth Palace Library. Lambeth Palace Library Research Guide: ‘Reginald Pole, Archbishop of Canterbury (1500-1558)’. Accessed 2/8/16 at http://www.lambethpalacelibrary.org/files/Reginald_Pole.pdf. Loades, D. M. The Reign of Mary Tudor: Politics, Government, and Religion in England, 1553-1558. New York: St. Martin's, 1979. Mozley, J. F. John Foxe and His Book. New York: Macmillan Company, 1940. Pole, Reginald and Thomas F. Mayer. The Correspondence of Reginald Pole. Vol. 2. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002. Pole, Reginald and Thomas F. Mayer. The Correspondence of Reginald Pole. Vol. 3. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002. Pole, Reginald and Thomas F. Mayer. The Correspondence of Reginald Pole. Vol. 4. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002. Ridley, Jasper Godwin. The Life and Times of Mary Tudor. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973. Strype, John. Ecclesiastical Memorials: Relating Chiefly to Religion and the Reformation of It, and the Emergencies of the Church of England, under King Henry VIII, King Edward VI and Queen Mary the First ... with a Large Appendix to Each Volume, Containing Original Papers, Records. C. London: Printed for John Wyat, 1721.