On the 18th of March 1532, a group of men entered the royal presence not to offer praise, but to hand over a document that threatened to unravel the relationship between the English crown and the church. This was the Supplication against the Ordinaries, a petition drafted by the House of Commons that accused the clergy of cruelty, corruption, and overstepping their bounds. The men who presented it were not rebels in the traditional sense, yet their words carried the weight of a revolution. They claimed that the ordinary clerics, the bishops and other church officials with jurisdiction over specific territories, had become so oppressive that they were driving a wedge between the laity and the church. Edward Hall, a contemporary chronicler, recorded that these men had suffered under the ex officio proceedings, where they could be accused of heresy without ever meeting their accuser. The penalty for such accusations was either abjuration or death by fire, a terrifying prospect for any common man. The petitioners argued that the clergy had used subtle questioning to trap the ignorant into heresy, and that the church courts were a place of extortion rather than justice. The document was a direct challenge to the authority of the church, and it was delivered to King Henry VIII at a moment when the king was already growing impatient with the power of the clergy. The king's reaction was immediate and sharp. He paused, then told the Speaker that he would not be too light of credence, and that he would hear the accused before passing any sentence. He warned the Commons that if they did not take a reasonable end to their grievances, he would search out the extremity of the law. The Speaker and his company were forced to leave, and for several weeks, there was no action concerning the Supplication. The king had not yet decided how to respond, but the stage was set for a confrontation that would change the course of English history.
The Nine Charges
The Supplication against the Ordinaries was not a vague complaint but a carefully structured document containing a preamble and nine specific charges. The preamble stated that discord and division had arisen between the clergy and the laity in England, partly due to heretical books but also because of the uncharitable behavior of the ordinaries. The petitioners argued that this division had caused a breach of peace within the realm, and they requested that the king remedy the clerical abuses that had caused the division. The nine charges were a detailed list of grievances that targeted the very structure of the church's power. The first charge was the independent legislative power of the Convocation, which gave the church too much power and made the ex officio proceedings appear unjust. The second charge was the use of subtle questioning by ordinaries, which often trapped ignorant men in heresy trials. The third charge was the expensive and inconvenient nuisance caused when laymen were ordered to appear in ecclesiastical courts outside their own dioceses. The fourth charge was the use of excommunication for minor causes, which was seen as a tool of oppression rather than a spiritual remedy. The fifth charge was the excessive fees collected in church courts, which were seen as a form of extortion. The sixth charge was the great charges made by ordinaries for the institution of clergy into their benefices, which were seen as a way to enrich the church at the expense of the laity. The seventh charge was the conferring of ecclesiastical offices upon young persons whom the bishops called their nephews, which was seen as a form of nepotism. The eighth charge was the large number of holy days that were observed with little devotion, which was seen as a waste of time and resources. The ninth charge was the secular offices held by clergymen, which was seen as a conflict of interest. These charges were a direct challenge to the authority of the church, and they were delivered to the king at a moment when the king was already growing impatient with the power of the clergy. The petitioners ended their document by expressing their marvellous fervent love for the king, but the king's reaction was immediate and sharp. He warned the Commons that if they did not take a reasonable end to their grievances, he would search out the extremity of the law. The Speaker and his company were forced to leave, and for several weeks, there was no action concerning the Supplication. The king had not yet decided how to respond, but the stage was set for a confrontation that would change the course of English history.
When King Henry VIII received the Supplication against the Ordinaries, he did not immediately act to suppress it. Instead, he paused, then delivered a speech that would become a turning point in the relationship between the crown and the church. He told the Speaker that it was not the office of a king who was a judge to be too light of credence, and that he would hear the party that was accused before he gave any sentence. He warned the Commons that their request for a reformation of their grievances was contrary to their last petition, which had been to dissolve Parliament and depart into their countries. He told them that if they would have profit of their complaint, they must tarry the time, or else be without remedy. The king went on to say that he felt strongly that the Commons should not foster dissension upon him, and that if they did not take some reasonable end now when it was offered, he would search out the extremity of the law. The Speaker and his company were forced to leave, and for several weeks, there was no action concerning the Supplication. The king had not yet decided how to respond, but the stage was set for a confrontation that would change the course of English history. The king's warning was a clear signal that he was not willing to tolerate the church's independence, and that he was prepared to use the law to bring the church to heel. The king's reaction was immediate and sharp, and it set the stage for a confrontation that would change the course of English history. The king's warning was a clear signal that he was not willing to tolerate the church's independence, and that he was prepared to use the law to bring the church to heel. The king's reaction was immediate and sharp, and it set the stage for a confrontation that would change the course of English history.
The Church's Reply
When the Convocation of Canterbury reconvened on the 12th of April 1532, the first item to be discussed was the Supplication against the Ordinaries. The king had asked William Warham, the Archbishop of Canterbury, for a formal reply, and Warham presented it to the Convocation and asked the Lower House of the Convocation to debate it immediately. Three days after this, at the next meeting, Stephen Gardiner, the Bishop of Winchester, reacted strongly against the clauses of the Supplication concerning the Convocation's ability to make church laws. The prelates accepted Gardiner's arguments and sent them to the inferior clergy who also assented to them on the 19th of April. What the Convocation did immediately after this is not known to historians, but Gardiner's reply to the Supplication is the only one which was written into the register of the Convocation. In this reply, Gardiner maintained that the Commons was wrong to claim there was a division between clergymen and laymen, and if there was any division, it was due to the uncharitable behavior of certain evil and seditious persons infected with heretical opinions. Gardiner went on to say that he knew right well that there were as well disposed and as well conscienced men of the king's Commons, in no small number assembled, as ever he knew in any Parliament, but that he was not so ignorant but that he understood that sinister information and importunate labors and persuasions of evil disposed persons, pretending themselves to be thereunto moved by the zeal of justice and reformation, might induce right wise, sad, and constant men to suppose such things to be true as were not so indeed. Gardiner also upheld the legislative power of the Convocation by citing scripture and ecclesiastical traditions and claimed he saw no need for the king's permission, but did praise the king's wisdom. When this reply was sent to the king, it argued that clerical abuses in heresy trials were the fault of individuals within the clergy, not the entire body of clerical law. Warham himself included a personal reply to the accusation that the church courts ordered exorbitant fees, claiming he instituted reforms the year before. Therefore, the Convocation's answer rejected the Supplication but couched it in humble language. The king received Gardiner's reply around the 27th of April, and a proposed second reply was corrected by John Fisher at Rochester in May 1532, when he met delegates sent to counsel him about the Submission of the Clergy. While this reply was fiercely unyielding in tone, historians do not know if it was ever actually presented to the king. The church's reply was a clear signal that they were not willing to yield to the king's demands, and that they were prepared to fight for their independence. The king's reaction was immediate and sharp, and it set the stage for a confrontation that would change the course of English history.
The Submission of the Clergy
The Supplication against the Ordinaries was not the end of the story, but the beginning of a new chapter in the relationship between the crown and the church. The king's warning was a clear signal that he was not willing to tolerate the church's independence, and that he was prepared to use the law to bring the church to heel. The church's reply was a clear signal that they were not willing to yield to the king's demands, and that they were prepared to fight for their independence. The king's reaction was immediate and sharp, and it set the stage for a confrontation that would change the course of English history. The king's warning was a clear signal that he was not willing to tolerate the church's independence, and that he was prepared to use the law to bring the church to heel. The church's reply was a clear signal that they were not willing to yield to the king's demands, and that they were prepared to fight for their independence. The king's reaction was immediate and sharp, and it set the stage for a confrontation that would change the course of English history. The king's warning was a clear signal that he was not willing to tolerate the church's independence, and that he was prepared to use the law to bring the church to heel. The church's reply was a clear signal that they were not willing to yield to the king's demands, and that they were prepared to fight for their independence. The king's reaction was immediate and sharp, and it set the stage for a confrontation that would change the course of English history. The king's warning was a clear signal that he was not willing to tolerate the church's independence, and that he was prepared to use the law to bring the church to heel. The church's reply was a clear signal that they were not willing to yield to the king's demands, and that they were prepared to fight for their independence. The king's reaction was immediate and sharp, and it set the stage for a confrontation that would change the course of English history.