power of the pope, and having got this opinion to act upon it, without waiting for the "frustatory delays" of the Ecclesiastical Courts. "If the king rightly understood his own office, neither pope nor any other potentate hath anything to do with him or any of his actions . . . within his own realm." Cranmer's words were repeated to the king by Gardiner and Fox. They came at an opportune moment. "That man hath the right sow by the ear," he said; and forthwith sending for him, he "heard him discourse upon the marriage, and well observing the gravity and modesty of the man, resolved to cherish and make. much of him." He was commanded to put his opinions into writing without delay, and to put aside all other work until this was accomplished.

We can hardly agree with Dr. Mason (in his recent work) that Cranmer was the "most guileless and unsuspicious of men," or suppose that he accepted in its literalness Henry's statement that he only sought for a dissolution of his marriage because it was a burden to his conscience. Cranmer was far too astute a man for this. We cannot praise his action in the matter; it was politic, but it savoured rather of the wisdom of the serpent than of the guilelessness of the dove. However that may be, the king took his advice, in so far that he formally asked the opinion of the great universities of Europe as to the power of the pope in such a matter. But it must not be supposed that the universities were left undirected. As far as possible they were helped to form their opinions. The University of Paris hesitated as to their verdict, and were assisted in the operation of making up their minds by a message from the French king, whose

only thought was to make the rift between Henry and Charles as great as possible. All the Lutherans oddly enough were against Henry. Was it that they were honest beyond others, or only that they were far enough away from him, and near enough to Charles, to permit them to be indifferent to England? But it is unnecessary to dwell on the verdict of the continental universities; on the whole, opinion was fairly balanced.

At present our interest centres on Cambridge, for there we find on the list of those chosen to sit in Commission on the divorce the name of Hugh Latimer, and he is spoken of as favourably disposed to the king. Amongst the State Papers is a long letter from Gardiner to Henry, telling him of his visit to Cambridge and his efforts to further the king's purpose by conversation with the Vice-Chancellor and others. "On Sunday," he continues, " all the doctors, B.A.'s and M.A.'s, were assembled to the number of nearly two hundred, when we delivered the king's letter, which was read by the Vice-Chancellor." 1 At Oxford, a little time before this, the same sort of "consultation of the university had been held. The heads of houses and the senior members generally had been disposed to be submissive and give the verdict the king desired. But the younger members were not so meek, and showed some inclination to be troublesome, whereupon the king wrote them a letter, which at once produced the desired result. Doubtless Henry thought Cambridge would follow. But Cambridge, as we have already noted, was at this time more independent in thought than Oxford, and perhaps less ready there1 State Papers, iv. iii. 6247.

fore to submit to royal authority and grant the desired verdict. The Vice-Chancellor, having read the king's letter, "then called the doctors apart and asked their opinion. . . there was great confusion . . and very different answers. At last they were willing that answers should be made to the questions by indifferent men, but they make exception to the Abbot of St. Benet's, Dr. Reppes, and Dr. Crome, and generally to all who approved of Cranmer's book, as having declared their opinion already. We said that way they would except all, as in so notable a question every learned man must have told his friend what he thought. At last the Vice-Chancellor ordered every man to his seat and bade him state his mind secretly, whether they would be content with such an order as he had conceived for answer to be made by the university to the king's letter. They could not agree that night. . . Next day the Vice-Chancellor proposed a grace after the enclosed form. At first this was refused . . . at last opponents left the house, and it was carried. . . . The grace proposed and obtained referred the question in the king's letter to the following persons, the decision of two parts of whom shall be taken as the determination of the whole university, provided the matter be disputed publicly and be read beforehand in the presence of the university-Ten doctors, sixteen masters of theology, two procurators and the Vice-Chancellor. "We are sure of as many as are needed save three, and we have good hopes of four if we get two of these and obtain of another to be absent, it is sufficient for our purpose." " 1 Latimer is one of the

1 State Papers, iv. iii. 6247.

sixteen masters of theology, and against his name is the mark signifying "sure." He must therefore have expressed himself definitely on the king's side. It is interesting to note the king's peculiar method of advising with his universities, but the resultant opinion can hardly be considered very valuable. There is little further record, so far as we can find, of Latimer taking any part in the discussion of the divorce, except a somewhat lengthy paragraph in a letter to Sir E. Baynton1 in which he sets forth the argument that "not everything whereupon followeth dissension causeth dissension." Though it be shewed you never so often, that an opinion or manner of teaching which causeth dissension in a Christian congregation is not of God . . . I would that they that shewed you that would also shew you whether this opinion that a man may not marry his brother's wife be of God or of men; if it be of men, then, as Gamaliel said, dissolvetur; but if it be of God, as I think it is, and perchance your friends also,' quis potest dissolvere nisi (?) qui videbitur Deo repugnare.' And yet there

be many who dissent from the same which could bear full evil to hear said unto them, 'Vos ex patre diabolo estis.'

"2

In Foxe we read that a Dr. Butts, the king's physician, came to Cambridge at this time on the matter of the king's divorce. This Dr. Butts, a singular good man and a special favourer of good

1 Sir Edward Baynton was a relative of Cardinal Pole, the head of an ancient and honourable family in Wiltshire, and in great favour with Henry VIII. His property was within a few miles of Latimer's parish.

2 Letter to Sir E. Baynton, State Papers, v. 703.

1

proceedings," was very highly impressed with Latimer, and it is probable enough that he reported favourably of him to the king, and that it was by his means that Latimer was brought from Cambridge to Windsor to preach before the king on the Sunday following the decision of the university. Dr. Buckmaster, ViceChancellor of Cambridge, in a letter to Dr. Edmunds, tells how he came to Windsor, and how he was in time to hear part of Mr. Latimer's sermon. "After evensong I delivered my letters to the king. The king greatly praised Latimer's sermon, but said, this displeaseth greatly the Vice-Chancellor yonder-yon same, he said, pointing to me, is the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge." It seems to have been very far from satisfactory to Dr. Buckmaster to have Latimer on the Divorce Committee, and we can easily understand how galling it must have been to the Vice-Chancellor to find him winning high favour with the king. Latimer must have been a constantly recurring irritation to Dr. Buckmaster at this period. He could not get quit of him. He had only been back in Cambridge a short time when he received a letter from the king (May 1530), desiring him to appoint twelve of the "best learned men in divinity" to examine, along with twelve Oxford men, certain heretical books commonly read among the people. Among the twelve selected was Hugh Latimer, who must therefore have had some little reputation in the university as a theologian as well as a preacher, although, as has already been noted, there is little trace of the learned theologian in such writings as have been preserved to us. The king in his letter

1 State Papers, iv. iii. App. 1530.