The History of England, Volume III Henry VIII The universities consulteed about the king’s marriage
by David Hume
Dr. Thomas Cranmer, fellow of Jesus-College in Cambridge, was a man remarkable in that university for his learning, and still more, for the candour and disinterestedness of his temper. He fell one evening by accident into company with Gardiner, now secretary of state, and Fox, the king’s almoner; and as the business of the divorce became the subject of conversation, he observed, that the readiest way, either to quiet Henry’s conscience or extort the pope s consent, would be to consult all the universities of Europe with regard to this controverted point: If they agreed to approve of the king’s marriage with Catharine, his remorses would naturally cease; if they condemned it, the pope would find it difficult to resist the solicitations of so great a monarch, seconded by the opinion of all the learned men in Christendom.t When the king was informed of the proposal, he was delighted with it; and swore, with more alacrity than delicacy, that Cranmer had got the right sow by the ear: He sent for that divine; entered into conversation with him; conceived a high opinion of his virtue and understanding; engaged him to write in defence of the divorce; and immediately, in prosecution of the scheme proposed, employed his agents to collect the judgments of all the universities in Europe.
Had the question of Henry’s marriage with Catharine been examined by the principles of sound philosophy, exempt from superstition, it seemed not liable to much difficulty. The natural reason, why marriages in certain degrees is prohibited by the civil laws, and condemned by the moral sentiments, of all nations, is derived from men’s care to preserve purity of manners; while they reflect, that, if a commerce of love were authorized between near relations, the frequent opportunities of intimate conversation, especially during early youth, would introduce an universal dissoluteness and corruption. But as the customs of countries vary considerably, and open an intercourse, more or less restrained, between different families, or between the several members of the same family, we find, that the moral precept, varying with its cause, is susceptible, without any inconvenience, of very different latitude in the several ages and nations of the world. The extreme delicacy of the Greeks permitted no communication between persons of different sexes, except where they lived under the same roof; and even the apartment of a step-mother, and her daughters, were almost as much shut up against visits from the husband’s sons, as against those from any stranger or more distant relation: Hence, in that nation, it was lawful for a man to marry, not only his niece, but his half-sister by the father: A liberty unknown to the Romans, and other nations, where a more open intercourse was authorized between the sexes. Reasoning from this principle, it would appear, that the ordinary commerce of life, among great princes, is so obstructed by ceremony and numerous attendants, that no ill consequence would result, among them, from marrying a brother’s widow; especially if the dispensation of the supreme priest be previously required, in order to justify what may in common cases be condemned, and to hinder the precedent from becoming too common and familiar. And as strong motives of public interest and tranquillity may frequently require such alliances between the foreign families, there is the less reason for extending towards them the full rigour of the rule, which has place among individuals.NOTE [G]
[1530.] But in opposition to these reasons, and many more which might be collected, Henry had custom and precedent on his side, the principle by which men are almost wholly governed in their actions and opinions. The marrying of a brother’s widow was so unusual, that no other instance of it could be found in any history or record of any Christian nation; and though the popes were accustomed to dispense with more essential precepts of morality, and even permitted marriages within other prohibited degrees, such as those of uncle and niece, the imaginations of men were not yet reconciled to this particular exercise of his authority. Several universities of Europe, therefore, without hesitation, as well as without interest or reward,w gave verdict in the king’s favour; not only those of France, Paris, Orleans, Bourges, Tolouse, Angiers, which might be supposed to lie under the influence of their prince, ally to Henry; but also those of Italy, Venice, Ferrara, Padua; even Bologna itself, though under the immediate jurisdiction of Clement. Oxford alonex and Cambridgey made some difficulty; because these universities, alarmed at the progress of Lutheranism, and dreading a defection from the holy see, scrupled to give their sanction to measures, whose consequences, they feared, would prove fatal to the ancient religion. Their opinion, however, conformable to that of the other universities of Europe, was at last obtained; and the king, in order to give more weight to all these authorities, engaged his nobility to write a letter to the pope, recommending his cause to the holy father, and threatening him with the most dangerous consequences in case of a denial of justice.z The convocations too, both of Canterbury and York, pronounced the king’s marriage invalid, irregular, and contrary to the law of God, with which no human power had authority to dispense.a But Clement, lying still under the influence of the emperor, continued to summon the king to appear, either by himself or proxy, before his tribunal at Rome; and the king, who knew that he could expect no fair trial there, refused to submit to such a condition, and would not even admit of any citation, which he regarded as a high insult, and a violation of his royal prerogative. The father of Anne Boleyn, created earl of Wiltshire, carried to the pope the king’s reasons for not appearing by proxy; and, as the first instance of disrespect from England, refused to kiss his holiness’s foot, which he very graciously held out to him for that purpose.b
[t] Fox, p. 1860, 2d edit. Burnet, vol. i. p. 79. Speed, p. 769. Heylin, p. 5.
[NOTE [G]] Even judging of this question by the Scripture, to which the appeal was every moment made, the arguments for the king’s cause appear but lame and imperfect. Marriage in the degree of affinity which had place between Henry and Catherine, is, indeed, prohibited in Leviticus; but it is natural to interpret that prohibition as a part of the Jewish ceremonial or municipal law: And though it is there said, in the conclusion, that the gentile nations, by violating those degrees of consanguinity, had incurred the divine displeasure, the extension of this maxim to every precise case before specified, is supposing the Scriptures to be composed with a minute accuracy and precision, to which, we know with certainty, the sacred penmen did not think proper to confine themselves. The descent of mankind from one common father, obliged them, in the first generation, to marry in the nearest degrees of consanguinity: Instances of a like nature occur among the patriarchs: And the marriage of a brother’s widow was, in certain cases, not only permitted, but even enjoined as a positive precept by the Mosaical law. It is in vain to say, that this precept was an exception to the rule; and an exception confined merely to the Jewish nation. The inference is still just, that such a marriage can contain no natural or moral turpitude; otherwise God, who is the author of all purity, would never, in any case, have enjoined it.
