Such punishments for such offences, wherever they were inflicted, could not fail to rouse a spirit of inquiry. Men would naturally turn from a spectacle so horrifying to investigate the basis of the institution it was intended to support, and to search into the expediency of intrusting the rule of faith with human beings, whose fallibility did not abate a particle of their bigotry. The more conspicuous the sufferings of the martyrs were made, the more certainly and extensively did they tend to the dissemination of truth and freedom.
The faithful historian, having recorded and done honour to the Christian heroism of several “constant professors of Christ” who were burned at Colchester, Stratford le Bow, Smithfield, and Gloucester, thus proceeds:—
“Three burnt at Beckles. [37]
“After the death of these aboue rehearsed, were three menne burnt at Beckles in Suffolk, in one fire, about the 21 day of May, An. 1556, whose names are hereunder specified—
“Thomas Spicer, of Winston, laborer,
“John Deny, and Edmund Poole.
“This Thomas Spicer was a single man, of the age of nineteene yeares, and by vocation a labourer, dwelling in Winston, the countie of Suffolke, and there taken in his maister’s house in summer, about or anone after the rising of the sunne, (being in his bed,) by James Ling and John Keretch of the same towne, and Wil. Dauies of Debnam, in the saide Countie.
“The occasion of his taking was, for that he would not go to their popish church to heare masse, and receive their idoll at the commandement of Sir John Tirrell, Knight, of Gipping hall in Suffolke, and certaine other Justices there, whoe sent both him and them to Eye dungeon, in Suffolke, till at length they were all three togither brought before Dunning, then chancellor of Norwich, and M. Mings the Register, sitting at the town of Beckles, to be examined.
“And there the said Chancellor perswading what he coulde to turn them from the truth, could by no meanes preuaile of his purpose. Whereby minding in the ende to giue sentence on them, hee burst out in teares, intreating them to remember themselues, and to turne againe to the holie mother church, for that they were deceiued and out of the truth, and that they shold not wilfully cast awaie themselues, with such like words.
“Now as he was thus labouring them and seemed very loth to read the sentence, (for they were the first that he condemned in that dioces,) the Register there sitting by, being weary, belike, of tarying, or else perceiuing the constant martyrs to bee at a point, called upon the chancellor in haste, to rid them out of the waie, and to make an ende. At the which words the chancellor read the condemnation ouer them with teares, and deliuered them to the secular power.
“Their Articles.
“The articles obiected to these, and commonlie to all other condemned in that diocesse by Doctor Hopton, Bishoppe of Norwich, and by Dunning his chancellor, were these:
“1. First, was articulate against them that they beleeued not the Pope of Rome to bee supreame head immediatelie under Christ in earth of the uniuersall catholike church.
“2. Item, that they beleeued not holie bread and holie water, ashes, palmes, and all other like ceremonies used in the church to bee good and laudable for stirring up the people to deuotion.
“3. Item, that they beleeued not, after the words of consecration spoken by the priest, the very naturall body of Christ, and no other substance of bread and wine to be in the sacrament of the altar.
“4. Item, that they beleeued it to be idolatry to worship Christ in the sacrament of the altar.
“5. Item, that they tooke bread and Wine in remembrance of Christ’s passion.
“6. Item, that they would not followe the crosse in procession, nor be confessed to a priest.
“7. Item, that they affirmed no mortall man to haue in himselfe free will to do good or euill. [40]
“For this doctrine and articles aboue prefixed these three (as is aforesaid) were condemned by doctor Dunning, and committed to the secular power, Sir John Sylliard beinge the same time high sheriffe of Northfolke and Suffolke.
“And the next day following uppon the same they were all burnt togither in the said towne of Beckles. [41a] Whereupon it is to be thought that the writte de comburendo was not yet come downe nor could not be, the Lord Chancellor, Bishoppe Heath, being the same time at London. [41b] Which, if it bee true, then it is plaine, that both they went beyond their commission that were the executioners, and also the clergie, which were the instigatours thereof, cannot make good that they now pretend, saying that they did nothing but by a lawe. But this let the Lord finde out when he seeth his time.
“In the meane time, while these good men were at the stake, and had praied, they saide their beleefe; and when they came to the reciting of ‘the catholike church,’ Sir John Silliard spake to them; ‘That is well said, sirs, quoth he, I am glad to heare you saie you do beleeue the catholike church; that is the best word I heard of you yet.’
“To which his sayings, Edmund Poole answered, thogh they beleeue the catholike church, yet doe they not beleeue in their popish church, which is no part of Christ’s catholike church, and therefore no part of their beliefe.
“When they rose from praier, they all went ioyfullie to the stake, and being bound therto, and the fire burning about them, they praised God in such an audible voice, that it was wonderful to all those that stood by and heard them.
“Then one Robert Bacon, dwelling in the saide Beckles, a very enemie to God’s truth, and a persecutor of his people, being there present within hearing thereof, willed the tormentors to throwe on faggots to stop the knaues’ breathes, as he tearmed them; so hot was his burning charitie. But these good men, not regarding their malice, confessed the truth, and yeelded their lives to the death, for the testimonie of the same, very gloriouslie and ioyfullie. The which their constancie, in the like cause, the Lord grant wee may imitate and followe unto the ende: whether it bee death or life, to glorifie the name of Christ. Amen.”
These were the nonconformists of their day. Ignominy and torture were, in their estimation, preferable to the reproaches of an enslaved and guilty soul. But it is not for the purpose of indulging an acrimonious feeling towards the immediate or remote perpetrators of a legalized murder that this account has been introduced. The severity of the punishment is of minor importance, except as it places in a strong light the fallacious and mischievous principle from which it originated. The question is not, whether these men ought in justice to have suffered less than they did; whether, instead of being roasted amidst the scoffs of a depraved and deluded rabble, they should have been burnt in the hand, or branded on the forehead, or scourged and suffered to depart; or whether there should have been substituted for the pangs of martyrdom, only the deprivation of some civil rights, or the exaction of “a peppercorn rent” in testimony that they had “an interest in the services” [44] of the national church, and in acknowledgment of their spiritual allegiance to a blood thirsty and despotic woman. It is not whether on their submission to such terms they should have been pitied on account of their errors, and tolerated on the score of their sincerity and their peaceableness. No. The inquiry which presents itself is, whether the exaction of the very smallest possible penalty, with whatsoever name it might have been gilded over, would not have involved the violation of a principle of incalculable moment to the interests of religion, of justice, and of freedom. The queen would still, if the grounds of modern nonconformity be tenable, have outstepped her province, and have interfered with rights derived from a source paramount to her own.
The charge brought against the Beccles martyrs was, in substance, that their religious creed and observances differed from those of the Roman Catholic church, which had been set forth, by public authority, for the adoption of all. It is deserving of notice, that of the seven articles which constitute their accusation, four relate exclusively to an erroneous belief. Thus the very recesses of the heart were invaded. The faith of the unfortunate man, who could not find the doctrines of popery in his Bible, was extracted from him by interrogatories, and he was compelled to expiate in the flames the crime of preserving “a conscience void of offence towards God.” The remaining allegations relate to outward ceremonies which these individuals regarded as unscriptural and even idolatrous; and the observance of which, by them, must therefore have been an abomination to the Searcher of hearts. [45] Him they refused to mock with a worse than formal service. And for these offences their fellow-creatures proceeded to “rid them out of the way.”
Such is bigotry in the most hideous aspect she assumes. But if the principle be admitted, that faith or practice in religion is a fit subject for magisterial interference, it surely savours of harshness to censure Mary for affording her patronage to the creed she had sincerely imbibed, and to the rites she had been taught by maternal lips to hold sacred. Nor can there be any security that the supreme power in a state, if invested with authority in matters of faith, shall not prefer the licentious speculations of deism, or the delusions of the false prophet. It is in vain to contend that the establishment of the true religion alone is justifiable, for who is to solve the question, What is truth? If the ruler; shall Henry, or Edward, or Mary, or Elizabeth decide? Or shall the prince be guided in his selection by the majority? In England the suffrages may be in favour of episcopacy; in Scotland of presbyterianism; in Ireland and in Canada of Catholicism; in India of polytheism. Accordingly, with the exception of the last, these several forms of religion are at present established under the authority of the crown of Great Britain. Why does not the majority prevail in Ireland or in India? Is the alleged idolatry of the sister island less tolerable than that of the transatlantic colony? or are numbers of less account on the banks of the Ganges than of the St. Lawrence?
But how multifarious and inconsistent a thing would thus be made of religion! How are its beauty tarnished, its name degraded, and its influence neutralized, by this admixture of earthly elements, this rude and needless effort to grasp and to uphold its etherial principles! Is truth thus mutable, or can it be thus bandied from hand to hand?
Whatever is established by the authority, should also be supported by the sanctions of government. And if gentle methods prove insufficient to check an offence cognizable by the magistrate, it is his duty to augment severity in proportion to the obstinacy of the offender. If even the dread of death fail to accomplish the desired reformation; to mitigate the punishment is to exchange the character of a judge for that of a tormentor, to lay aside the semblance of a wise and beneficent discipline, and to indulge the gratification of a wanton and useless cruelty. [48a] It would be easier, in such a case, to justify the infliction of superadded torture, than of the lightest penalty.
It is difficult to conceive that principles leading to such results will ever again be allowed to prevail against the liberties and lives of Englishmen. But if, as some strangely apprehend it may, the Roman Catholic faith should regain the ascendancy in this country, it would be interesting and profitable to observe the course which would be adopted by those who are at once enamoured of establishments, and at deadly feud with popery. Some would, no doubt, be prepared, with Archdeacon Balguy, “to defend, not popery only, but paganism itself—every established religion under heaven.” [48b] But it may reasonably be supposed that such a sentiment would, in the present day, be very generally discarded as antiquated and untenable. The following language of a contemporary clergyman may, probably, be considered as indicating the views with which the supposed event would be more generally met by protestant episcopalians. “If the presbyterians or papists were to-morrow the great majority of the nation, and if the constituted authorities of the land, king, lords, and commons, thinking either of these persuasions the best religion, were to establish it by law, I should then become a dissenter. With my belief in the scriptural authority of episcopacy, I could not conscientiously be a presbyterian; and with my knowledge of the antiscriptural doctrines of the church of Rome, I must separate from her communion.” [49] The intelligent, conscientious, and consistent protestant would make his appeal, as did the martyrs, to the only supreme authority. Here, he would say, placing his hand upon the word of God, here alone, is “the religion of protestants:”
“Here is the judge that stints the strife
When men’s devices fail;
Here is the bread that feeds the life
That death cannot assail.” [50]