of questions which had been agitated for several years past should have called the press into turbulent activity.* It would be inconsistent with the design of this work to notice the multitude of publications which continued to indicate the ebbings and flowings of the public mind. The present year, however, was memorable for the second edition of a work which rendered effective service to the cause The "King's of reformation. It was entitled "King Frimer." Henry's Primer," to denote that it went forth with the approbation of the sovereign. It, of course, exhibits a very imperfect approximation to the Protestant doctrines; but, nevertheless, it assails certain "pestilent and infectious" prejudices with a boldness that must have been sorely offensive to Gardiner, and to all who, like him, were labouring to retard the progress of reformation, and to make its chariot-wheels drive heavily. It is, indeed, somewhat surprising that the king himself should have consented to give it the sanction of his name: for, although it retains the litany, with the usual addresses to the Virgin, the angels, the apostles, and the saints, it prefixes an introduction which distinctly announces that there is no scriptural warrant for such services, and that the Son of God is our only peace-maker and mediator. It, moreover, condemns the songs and psalms which were "piteously pewled forth" for the souls of our departed brethren; and affirms that the Scripture affords no more countenance to such a practice, "than doth the tale of Robin Hood." It is very doubtful whether Henry would have been prepared, deliberately, and in his own person, to maintain these heretical notions. The influence of Cromwell, however, prevailed; and the repeated editions of the volume attested its general popularity. That Cranmer was concerned in the compilation is by no *The indefatigable Strype will furnish the reader with catalogues of nearly all the works which were called forth at the various stages of the English reformation.-Eccl. Mem. 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."* CHAPTER V. 1535, 1536. Cranmer's provincial Visitation-Opposed by Gardiner-And by Stokes. ley, Bishop of London-Stokesley refuses to assist in revising the Translation of the Bible-Cranmer's care for the Marches of Calais-Negotiations with the Protestant Princes of Germany-Bull of Pius III. against Henry-Official publication of it delayed-The Bull injurious to the Papacy-Changes 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. IT has been already intimated that the attention of the archbishop had been deeply engaged by the conflict of opinions in his own diocess of Canterbury. His care, however, was not confined to this more limited sphere of duty. He resolved Cranmer's pro upon a visitation of his whole province, vincial by virtue of his authority as metropolitan. tion. visita * 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. 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 diocess of Norwich. This diocess, 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 diocess of Winchester. Fortified with the license of his sovereign, the archApril, 1535. Opposed by Gar- bishop despatched his monition to that prelate, the 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 diocess 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 contemptible objection. The title had been immemoriably used by the archbishops of Canterbury; it had never been diner. 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 keensighted 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 diocess, 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 Cromwell ;* 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. In Stokesley, Bishop of London, the primate found another adversary, quite as intractable as Opposed by Gardiner, and armed with an objection of Stokesley. greater plausibility. In the monition of the archbishop he was styled the legate of the Apostolic See; a title, it must be confessed, extremely unbecoming 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 pope :† and Cranmer, *This letter is printed at length in Strype's Cranmer, App. No. 14. † 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. doubtless, valued it about as much as our Protestant kings value 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 afterward 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 form: and, moreover, appeals against the suspension of all other ecclesiastical jurisdiction during the visitation—a power which yet had been uniformly exercised by all the predecessors of Cranmer !* ing the transla ble. Another occasion soon presented itself to the Stokesley refuses Bishop of London for insulting Cranmer, to assist in revis and obstructing his designs. From the tion of the Bi- first moment of his advancement, the archbishop was impatient for the circulation of the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue; and in December, 1534, he had actually prevailed on the convocation to frame an address to the king, beseeching him to decree that the Bible should be translated into English, and that the task should be assigned to such honest and learned men as his highness should be pleased to nominate.† It seems that the Romish prejudices of Henry were not strong enough to resist an appeal which tended, in its obvious consequences, to strengthen his hands against the papal power. In pursuance of this design, Cranmer divided Tindall's Translation of the New Strype's Cranmer, b. i. c. 6. † Ibid. c. 8. |