his conduct was more satisfactory than had been expected. He adhered in appearance to the English alliance, but he had deceived Henry's hopes that he would unite in a rupture with Rome; he had resisted all entreaties to declare the independence of the Gallican Church; he had laboured to win back the Germans out of schism, partly to consolidate the French influence in Europe as opposed to the Imperial, but partly also, as he had taken pains to prove, that no doubt might be entertained of the position of France in the great question of the Reformation. He had allowed himself, indeed, as a convenience, to open negotiations for a treaty with Solyman; but the Turks, in the eyes of devout Catholics, were less obnoxious than heretics;[1] and the scandal was obscured by an open repentance for past short-comings, and a declaration that for the future he would eschew the crime of toleration, and show no mercy to any Protestant who might fall within his grasp. An English stranger saw Francis of France march through the streets of Paris with the princes of the blood, the Queen, the princesses, the bishops, cardinals, dukes, lords, counts, the 'blue blood' of the nobility.
- ↑ 'The Turks do not compel others to adopt their belief. He who does not attack their religion may profess among them what religion he will; he is safe. But where this pestilent seed is sown, those who do not accept, and those who openly oppose, are in equal peril.'—Reginald Pole: De Unitate Ecclesiæ. For the arch-enemy of England even the name of heretic was too good. 'They err,' says the same writer, elsewhere, 'who call the King of England heretic or schismatic. He has no claims to name so honourable. The heretics and schismatics acknowledge the power and providence of God. He takes God utterly away.'—Apology to Charles the Fifth.
