hat if Charles invaded
England he would be doing "a work as agreeable to
God as going against the Turk," and suggested that
the Emperor should make use of Reginald Pole "to
whom, according to many, the kingdom would belong"
(Chapuys to Charles, 27th September, 1533). Again,
says Chapuys, "the holy Bishop of Rochester would
like you to take active measures immediately, as I
wrote in my last; which advice he has sent to me
again lately to repeat" (10th October, 1533). Canon
Whitney, in criticising Froude (_Engl. Hist. Rev._,
xii., 353), asserts that "nothing Chapuys says
justifies the charge against Fisher!"]

[Footnote 937: This statement has been denounced as
"astounding" in a Roman Catholic periodical; yet if
More believed individual conscience (_i.e._,
private judgment) to be superior to the voice of
the Church, how did he differ from a Protestant?
The statement in the text is merely a paraphrase of
More's own, where he says that men are "not bound
on pain of God's displeasure to change their
conscience for any particular law made anywhere
_except by a general council or a general faith
growing by the working of God universally through
all Christian nations_" (More's _English Works_, p.
1434; _L. and P._, vii., 432).]

[Footnote 938: [Greek: Ou gar ti moi Zeus en ho
keruxas tade oud he xunoikos ton kato theon Dike.]
Sophocles, _Antigone_, 450.]

It was the personal eminence of the victims rather than the merits of
their case that made Europe thrill with horror at the news of their
death; for thousands of others were sacrificing their lives in a
similar cause in most of the countries of Christendom. For the first
and last time in English history a cardinal's head had rolled from an
English scaffold; and Paul III. made an effort to bring into play the
artillery of his temporal powers. As supreme lord over all the princes
of the earth, he arrogated to himself the right to deprive Henry VIII.
of h