An opening seemed to be offered in these expressions which was caught at by Cranmer’s kind-hearted casuistry.  If Sir Thomas More could not condemn others for taking the oath, the archbishop said, Sir Thomas More could not be sure that it was sin to take it; while his duty to his king and to the parliament was open and unquestioned.

More hesitated for an instant, but he speedily recovered his firmness.  He had considered what he ought to do, he said; his conscience was clear about it, and he could say no more than he had said already.  They continued to argue with him, but without effect; he had made up his mind; the victory, as he said, had been won.

Cromwell was deeply affected.  In his passionate regret, he exclaimed, that he had rather his only son had lost his head than that More should have refused the oath.  No one knew better than Cromwell that intercession would be of no further use; that he could not himself advise the king to give way.  The parliament, after grave consideration, had passed a law which they held necessary to secure the peace of the country; and two persons of high rank refused obedience to it, whose example would tell in every English household.  Either, therefore, the act was not worth the parchment on which it was written, or the penalties of it must be enforced:  no middle way, no compromise, no acquiescent reservations, could in such a case be admitted.  The law must have its way.

The recusants were committed for four days to the keeping of the Abbot of Westminster; and the council met to determine on the course to be pursued.  Their offence, by the act, was misprision of treason.  On the other hand, they had both offered to acknowledge the Princess Elizabeth as the lawful heir to the throne; and the question was raised whether this offer should be accepted.  It was equivalent to a demand that the form should be altered, not for them only, but for every man.  If persons of their rank and notoriety were permitted to swear with a qualification, the same privilege must be conceded to all.  But there was so much anxiety to avoid extremities, and so warm a regard was personally felt for Sir Thomas More, that this objection was not allowed to be fatal.  It was thought that possibly an exception might be made, yet kept a secret from the world; and the fact that they had sworn under any form might go far to silence objectors and reconcile the better class of the disaffected.[717] This view was particularly urged by Cranmer, always gentle, hoping, and illogical.[718] But, in fact, secresy was impossible.  If More’s discretion could have been relied upon, Fisher’s babbling tongue would have trumpeted his victory to all the winds.  Nor would the government consent to pass censure on its own conduct by evading the question whether the act was or was not just.  If it was not just, it ought not to be:  maintained at all; if it was just, there must be no respect of persons.