general popularity. That Cranmer was concerned in the compilation, is by no means certain. That it was submitted to his inspection, after it was printed, is beyond all doubt, as appears by a letter addressed by him to Cromwell, in July, 1535; in which he says that he had noted, in the copy, "Such faults as were most worthy of reformation." He adds that there were "divers things therein which (if, before the printing of the book, had been committed unto him to oversee,) he would have amended." He allows, however, that "they were not of that importance, but that, for this time, they might well enough be permitted, and suffered to be read of the people; and that the book itself, no doubt, was very good and commendable '.'

1 This letter is printed in Todd's Cranmer, vol. i. p. 129, from the original MS. in the Chapter House, Westminster. The heads of the King's Primer may be found in Strype, Eccl. Mem. vol. i. c. 31.

CHAPTER V.

1535-1536.

Cranmer's provincial Visitation—Opposed by Gardiner—And by Stokesley, Bishop of London-Stokesley refuses to assist in revising the Translation of the Bible-Cranmer's care for the Marches of Calais-Negociations with the Protestant Princes of Germany-Bull of Pious III. against Henry-Official publication of it delayed-The Bull injurious to the PapacyChanges in the Episcopal Bench-Cromwell made Vicegerent— Dissolution of the Monasteries-Sentiments of Cranmer respecting it-Fall of Anne Boleyn-Cranmer's Letter to the King in her behalf-Her marriage annulled-The King marries Jane Seymour the day after Anne Boleyn's execution.

Cranmer's Provincial Visitation.

IT has been already intimated that the attention of the Archbishop had been deeply engaged by the conflict of opinions in his own diocese of Canterbury. His care, however, was not confined to this more limited sphere of duty. He resolved upon a Visitation of his whole Province, by virtue of his authority as Metropolitan. The measure was somewhat unusual. The general practice of such Provincial Visitations had been suspended for a century; and there were numbers among the Clergy extremely unwilling to see it revived, more especially under such auspices. Nevertheless, Cranmer persevered. He was, doubtless, anxious

for an opportunity of promoting, throughout his province, the doctrine of the Royal Supremacy,-of closely inspecting the conduct of the Bishops and other dignitaries,-and of correcting the superstitious practices of their cathedrals and parish churches. In the preceding year, 1534, he had already exercised. his metropolitan privilege, by visiting the Diocese of Norwich. This Diocese it appears was in a state of deplorable disorder, which demanded the vigorous interference of the Primate. For a time the aged but contumacious Bishop sturdily resisted these proceedings; but was at last brought to submission by the firmness of his superior. An opposition at least equally vexatious awaited the Archbishop from the jealous and crafty spirit that presided over the Diocese of Winchester. Fortified with the licence of his Sovereign, the Archbishop desApril, 1535. patched his monition to that Prelate, Opposed by Gardithe memorable Stephen Gardiner; and the immediate consequence was a complaint to the King, on the part of the Bishop, against this unreasonable and needless exercise of power. In this remonstrance Gardiner represented that his Diocese had been visited by Archbishop Warham five years before-that so speedy a repetition of this measure would expose his Clergy to an oppressive expenseand, lastly, that the language of the official process conveyed an affront to the supreme authority of the King, since it claimed for the Archbishop the title of Primate of all England. The veriest infatuation could not have suggested a more feeble or contempt

ner.

ible objection. used by the Archbishops of Canterbury; it had never been thought injurious to the supremacy of the Pope; and nothing but the blindest malice would venture to suggest that the same title could now be injurious to the supremacy of the King. Besides, till the present moment, the offensive and dangerous tendency of the style had never been discovered by this keen-sighted remonstrant. His care for the royal dignity had slept, until it was awakened by the impending visitation. And, as for the burden it would lay upon the Diocese, it was very easy to show that this objection, if allowed, must have intercepted all the visitations which had actually occurred there within the last ten years, and would intercept all which might be attempted in future. These points are amply insisted upon by Cranmer in a long letter on the subject, addressed by him to Secretary Cromwell1; in which he affirms that if all Bishops were as indifferent as he was to mere names and titles, the King's Highness would find but little difficulty in the satisfactory adjustment of such matters.

The title had been immemoriably

Opposed by
Stokesley.

In Stokesley, Bishop of London, the Primate found another adversary, quite as intractable as Gardiner, and armed with an objection of greater plausibility. In the monition of the Archbishop he was styled the Legate of the Apostolic See; a title, it must be confessed, extremely unbe

This letter is printed at length in Stype's Cranmer, App.

No. 14.

coming in a Prelate who had solemnly abjured all Papal authority, and whose whole life was one continued protest against it. This title, however, like the other, had for ages belonged to the Archbishops of Canterbury, who, by virtue of their Primacy, were regarded as native Legates of the Pope1: and Cranmer, doubtless, valued it about as much as our Protestant Kings valued the title of Defender of the Faith; and kept it purely as a formulary part of his official style. A single word of friendly suggestion would instantly have produced, on his part, an application to the King for permission to lay it aside : and some time afterwards it was, very properly, omitted altogether, and the title of Metropolitan and Primate substituted for it. The ostensible claim of Legatine dignity, however, afforded a valuable opening for perverse opposition. The occasion was eagerly seized by Stokesley, who did not submit to the intrusion of his Metropolitan, till he had entered a formal protest against it on his own register,-not being allowed to do it on that of the Archbishop. In this document he denounces the use of this obnoxious

1 It was one notorious part of the Papal system to depress the Episcopal authority. According to that system, the Pope was the universal Bishop, and all other Bishops held their powers, not by virtue of an Apostolic succession, but merely as delegates of the Supreme Pontiff, the representative on earth of the heavenly and invisible Bishop of our souls. Conformably to this

policy, the Metropolitan of England had for several centuries been distinguished by the title of Legatus natus; apparently a designation of honour; in fact, a perpetual badge of dependence and servitude.