The clauses to which the bishop and the ex-chancellor declined to bind themselves were those which declared illegal the marriage of the king with Catherine, and the marriage legal between the king and Queen Anne.  To refuse these was to declare Mary legitimate, to declare Elizabeth illegitimate, and would do more to strengthen Mary’s claims than could be undone by a thousand oaths.  However large might be More’s estimate of the power of parliament, he could have given no clear answer—­and far less could Fisher have given a clear answer—­if they had been required to say the part which they would take, should the emperor invade the kingdom under the pope’s sanction.  The emperor would come to execute a sentence which in their consciences they believed to be just; how could they retain their allegiance to Henry, when their convictions must be with the invading army?

What ought to have been done let those say who disapprove of what was actually done.  The high character of the prisoners, while it increased the desire, increased the difficulty of sparing them; and to have given way would have been a confession of a doubtful cause, which at such a time would not have been dangerous, but would have been fatal.  Anne Boleyn is said to have urged the king to remain peremptory;[719] but the following letter of Cromwell’s explains the ultimate resolution of the council in a very reasonable manner.  It was written to Cranmer in reply to his arguments for concession.

“My Lord, after mine humble commendation, it may please your Grace to be advertised that I have received your letter, and showed the same to the King’s Highness; who, perceiving that your mind and opinion is, that it were good that the Bishop of Rochester and Master More should be sworn to the act of the king’s succession, and not to the preamble of the same, thinketh that if their oaths should be taken, it were an occasion to all men to refuse the whole, or at least the like.  For, in case they be sworn to the succession, and not to the preamble, it is to be thought that it might be taken not only as a confirmation of the Bishop of Rome’s authority, but also as a reprobation of the king’s second marriage.  Wherefore, to the intent that no such things should be brought into the heads of the people, by the example of the said Bishop of Rochester and Master More, the King’s Highness in no wise willeth but that they shall be sworn as well to the preamble as to the act.  Wherefore his Grace specially trusteth that ye will in no wise attempt to move him to the contrary; for as his Grace supposeth, that manner of swearing, if it shall be suffered, may be an utter destruction to his whole cause, and also to the effect of the law made for the same."[720]