Henry VIII and John Lambert faced off in one of the most extraordinary moments of the English Reformation—a public debate that revealed the king’s fierce commitment to religious authority. When Lambert challenged the doctrine of transubstantiation, Henry didn’t delegate the response to bishops or scholars; he took the floor himself. This dramatic encounter wasn’t just about theology—it was a display of power, a warning to reformers, and a turning point in the battle over England’s spiritual future
Rough transcript of The Heretic and the King: Henry VIII Debates John Lambert in Wolf Hall
Today, we are going to do another Wolf Hall Reaction video. The second series is on in the US now. It was on in the UK in the autumn. I have a whole playlist of all the reaction videos that I did when it was on in the UK. And I’m also doing some more now this go around because you can never have too much Wolf Hall.
So last night was Episode 4. There was a whole lot happening. Cromwell has a daughter. Jane Seymour dies. I did a whole talk about that, a whole video about that as well, and talks more about that in another video later this week. But today I want to talk about the debate that Henry VIII did with John Lambert.
Henry VIII and the Reformation
This is an interesting period in the Reformation. The English Reformation was never clean. It was very messy because Henry VIII was never really a Catholic right. He just didn’t want the Pope telling him he could or couldn’t get divorced. So Henry VIII never denied transubstantiation, which is the miracle of the mass, that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.
That was something Henry hung on to his whole life, and he would execute people for heresy for denying that. But he also didn’t like the straight-up Catholics there. There was one week 1544/45, I think, where he executed Catholics for being too Pope-ish obviously. And and in the same week he executed Protestants for heresy.
So you really couldn’t win with Henry, like in a lot of things. And we start to see that and he waffled back and forth. At one point, he released the English Bible, which was a monumental event. Every church was supposed to have a Bible in English so the people could have the word of the Lord available to them. It did a lot to increase literacy, for example.
But then, he also would execute people for denying transubstantiation. It all depended on who was talking to him. He saw people like Stephen Gardiner would rise in favor and fall based on what was happening.
So Henry went back and forth, and this is evidence of that, so it’s one of the most astonishing scenes that we have where Henry isn’t just observing, but he actually steps forward to argue theology with John Lambert, a condemned man. This wasn’t a private discussion in a back chamber. This was a public theatrical showdown, a monarch versus a heretic.
And while it makes for riveting drama, it is actually drawn directly from history because this was a spectacle and this was more than a debate. It really happened. And for John Lambert, it was in fact his death sentence. So we’re gonna get into that today.
Henry VIII really fancied himself a theologian. If you think back to the earlier years before the Reformation, he actually wrote this pamphlet against Martin Luther. That’s what earned him the title Defender of the Faith. He really studied this stuff and thought that he was really well-informed and could debate with the best theologians around. So when he had this opportunity, he took it. So let’s talk about who John Lambert was to start with.
John Lambert’s Background
He was a Cambridge-educated Protestant, and he was an articulate critic of Catholic doctrine, particularly transubstantiation. Like we said, that’s the idea that during the mass, the bread and the wine literally become the body and blood of Christ.
For Lambert, this teaching was unscriptural and he wasn’t shy about saying so. He’d already been in trouble once before. Charges were brought against him in 1531, but the case fizzled out when Archbishop Warham died. This was William Warham. who was the archbishop before Cranmer and that reprieve gave Lambert a few more years of freedom.
The Trial and Execution
But by 1538, his luck and his hope that Henry VIII might hear him out had run out. The timing of this trial wasn’t an accident. By 1538, Henry had broken with Rome, had declared himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England, and had started dissolving dozens of monasteries.
He didn’t start embracing every Protestant idea that was coming out of Germany or Geneva. He wanted to draw a very clear line between what was acceptable reform and what was dangerous heresy.
Lambert with his outspoken denial of transubstantiation was the perfect example of what Henry would not tolerate. Executing him wasn’t just about theology, it was about optics. Henry needed Europe. He needed his own bishops to see that he hadn’t gone soft. Henry decided not to delegate this one.
He took center stage. A group of 10 bishops stood as enforcers of orthodoxy forming what looked less like a court and more like an inquisition. Lambert, perhaps naively thought that he might reason with the king and thought that he could appeal to scripture, logic and conscience.
A lot of times I think Henry enjoyed catching people off because of the reformer who thought look, Henry broke from Rome. He’s doing all of this stuff. He’s putting the Bible in English, all this stuff that’s really reform-minded. Surely we can appeal to that.
But Lambert quickly realized that the outcome had already been decided. The bishops heckled the crowd, jeered and Henry dressed as a king in his regal splendor, grilled him personally.
What say you to this?, he demanded again and again, and finally, when Lambert refused to recant, the king pronounced his judgment, you’re heretic, and you shall burn. This was theatrical. This was a demonstration of Henry’s authority and it was designed to send a message, a chilling message to other would-be Protestants out there.
Henry was interested potentially in reform, but only up to a limit. You cross that limit and you’re gonna be burned as a heretic. So what was Cromwell‘s role in all of this? Cromwell and John Lambert weren’t strangers to each other. They both studied at Cambridge. They may have crossed paths during their early reformist years, but by 1538, Cromwell was in a very different position.
He was the architect of the legal side of the English Reformation. Yes. But he was also walking a political tightrope. Did he try to help Lambert? Probably not in any meaningful way. The risks were just too high for Cromwell. Wolf Hall actually shows Cromwell having this moment of quiet anguish hinting at potential regret.
One account of dubious origin claims that Cromwell stood at the execution and wept. There’s no strong evidence for that, but it’s easy to see why Hilary Mantel would have imagined this period of anguish for Cromwell. When it came to John Lambert’s execution, Lambert’s death sentence was by burning.
Henry wanted it done slowly as a warning. Eyewitness’ accounts say that it was especially brutal as the flames rose, Lambert is said to have repeated a single phrase over and over, “None but Christ.” He didn’t curse his accusers or plead for mercy. He just clung to his faith. That image of John Lambert would live on and Lambert became one of the first Protestant martyrs in England.
The Aftermath and Historical Impact
His name appears in later works like Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. Remembered not for his rebellion or for treason, but for standing firm on his theology in a world where theology could kill you.
One interesting note about why heretics were burned then. It was actually seen as a merciful punishment. It was designed to give you a taste of the flames of hell while you were still alive and could recant. So that is where the the punishment for heresy as burning comes from, which is a little macabre, but if you think about it, they were thinking about your immortal soul, which is a bigger idea than just the temporary pains of the flesh, who knows?
In Wolf Hall, the Lambert trial is about the shifting ground beneath Cromwell’s feet. The more radical the Reformation becomes, the more dangerous Cromwell’s position is, the more Henry goes back to Gardiner.
Henry uses the child to reassert his control, reminding everybody that he, Henry defines the orthodoxy, not Rome, not the reformers, certainly not Cromwell. The debate dramatizes the kingdom at war with itself.
This would last throughout Henry’s reign if we think another seven years, eight years into the future with Katherine Parr. Gardiner was a conservative. He was Catholic. His star was on the rise, and he thought he could bring down Katherine Parr for heresy. And there’s that whole story that he actually had an arrest warrant drawn up.
Katherine got word of it and got to Henry first and pled her case of saying she was just an ignorant woman who needed him to educate her, and it all fell apart for Gardiner. He also tried to do the same thing to Cranmer, had an arrest warrant drawn up and everything, and tried to have Cranmer executed for heresy, but of course, it didn’t work out for him with either of those.
He might have overreached a bit. This is really, we see this back and forth with Henry of going towards the reformer side, but then they would get too much power and he would go back towards the conservative side and just playing each side back and forth against the other.
For Cromwell, the ice is cracking beneath him and things are starting to really spin out of control for him. So a king debating a heretic and then ordering his execution by fire, what would you have done? Would you have spoken up for him or would you have stayed silent?
