
On the 8th of February 1555, Laurence Saunders, preacher and rector of All Hallows in London, was burnt for heresy in Coventry. He was the second of the 284 ‘Marian Martyrs’ to die between 1555 and 1558.
I have chosen to commemorate Laurence because I believe that he is of some significance to one of our bloggers.
On November 30th 1554, Mary I reconciled England with Rome and Papal Supremacy was restored. Shortly after this the heresy laws were revived, and, from the 20th of January 1555, the Church courts were, once more, able to prosecute and condemn for heresy. But, Church courts could not, of their own authority, burn those whom they convicted. Burning was a matter for the secular authority and could only be carried out after the issue of a Royal writ. Mary could have used that power sparingly; she did not. The burnings began on the 5th of February 1555 with John Rogers, bible translator and lecturer at St Paul’s Cathedral, who was burned in Smithfield. The second was Laurence Saunders.
Laurence was born in Harrington, Northamptonshire, sometime in the 1500s. He was educated at Eaton and Cambridge, and then, it is alleged, he was apprenticed to a London merchant. It is also alleged that the merchant, seeing that Laurence was more fit for the ministry than commerce, released Laurence from his apprenticeship so that the young man could return to Cambridge.
I will leave it John Foxe to take up the story…
Extract from Foxe’s Book of Martyrs
“Mr. Saunders, after passing some time in the school of Eaton, was chosen to go to King’s College in Cambridge, where he continued three years, and profited in knowledge and learning very much for that time. Shortly after he quitted the university, and went to his parents, but soon returned to Cambridge again to his study, where he began to add to the knowledge of the Latin, the study of the Greek and Hebrew tongues, and gave himself up to the study of the Holy Scriptures, the better to qualify himself for the office of preacher.
In the beginning of King Edward’s reign, when God’s true religion was introduced, after license obtained, he began to preach, and was so well liked of them who then had authority that they appointed him to read a divinity lecture in the College of Forthringham. The College of Fothringham being dissolved he was placed to be a reader in the minster at Litchfield. After a certain space, he departed from Litchfield to a benefice in Leicestershire, called Church-langton, where he held a residence, taught diligently, and kept a liberal house. Thence he was orderly called to take a benefice in the city of London, namely, All-hallows in Bread-street. After this he preached at Northhampton, nothing meddling with the state, but boldly uttering his conscience against the popish doctrines which were likely to spring up again in England, as a just plague for the little love which the English nation then bore to the blessed Word of God, which had been so plentifully offered unto them.
The queen’s party who were there, and heard him, were highly displeased with him for his sermon, and for it kept him among them as a prisoner. But partly for love of his brethren and friends, who were chief actors for the queen among them, and partly because there was no law broken by hbis preaching, they dismissed him.
Some of his friends, perceiving such fearful menacing, counselled him to fly out of the realm, which he refused to do. But seeing he was with violence kept from doing good in that place, he returned towards London, to visit his flock.
In the afternoon of Sunday, October 15, 1554, as he was reading in his church to exhort his people, the bishop of London interrupted him, by sending an officer for him.
His treason and sedition the bishop’s charity was content to let slip until another time, but a heretic he meant to prove him, and all those, he said, who taught and believed that the administration of the Sacraments, and all orders of the Church, are the most pure, which come the nearest to the order of the primitive Church.
After much talk concerning this matter, the bishop desired him to write what he believed of transubstantiation. Lawrence Saunders did so, saying, “My Lord, you seek my blood, and you shall have it: I pray God that you may be so baptized in it that you may ever after loathe blood-sucking, and become a better man.” Upon being closely charged with contumacy, the severe replies of Mr. Saunders to the bishop, (who had before, to get the favor of Henry VIII written and set forth in print, a book of true obedience, wherein he had openly declared Queen Mary to be a bastard) so irritated him that he exclaimed, “Carry away this frenzied fool to prison.”
After this good and faithful martyr had been kept in prison one year and a quarter, the bishops at length called him, as they did his fellow-prisoners, openly to be examined before the queen’s council.
His examination being ended, the officers led him out of the place, and stayed until the rest of his fellow-prisoners were likewise examined, that they might lead them all together to prison.
After his excommunication and delivery over to the secular power, he was brought by the sheriff of London to the Compter, a prison in his own parish of Bread-street, at which he rejoiced greatly, both because he found there a fellow-prisoner, Mr. Cardmaker, with whom he had much Christian and comfortable discourse; and because out of prison, as before in his pulpit, he might have an opportunity of preaching to his parishioners. On the fourth of February, Bonner, bishop of London, came to the prison to degrade him; the day following, in the morning the sheriff of London delivered him to certain of the queen’s guard, who were appointed to carry him to the city of Coventry, there to be burnt.
When they had arrived at Coventry, a poor shoemaker, who used to serve him with shoes, came to him, and said, “O my good master, God strengthen and comfort you.” “Good shoemaker,” Mr. Saunders replied, “I desire thee to pray for me, for I am the most unfit man for this high office, that ever was appointed to it; but my gracious God and dear Father is able to make me strong enough.” The next day, being the eighth of February, 1555, he was led to the place of execution, in the park, without the city. He went in an old gown and a shirt, barefooted, and oftentimes fell flat on the ground, and prayed. When he was come to nigh the place, the officer, appointed to see the execution done, said to Mr. Saunders that he was one of them who marred the queen’s realm, but if he would recant, there was pardon for him. “Not I,” replied the holy martyr, “but such as you have injured the realm. The blessed Gospel of Christ is what I hold; that do I believe, that have I taught, and that will I never revoke!” Mr. Saunders then slowly moved towards the fire, sank to the earth and prayed; he then rose up, embraced the stake, and frequently said, “Welcome, thou cross of Christ! welcome everlasting life!” Fire was then put to the fagots, and, he was overwhelmed by the dreadful flames, and sweetly slept in the Lord Jesus.”
Footnote: I suspect that Laurence would not have approved of Mary Queen of Scots, who was beheaded on this day 1587.
I can’t see anything offensive about it Boadicea.
This whole unfortunate business of burning of “heretics” was quite counter-productive, as always. I’m sure that in truth, these doctrinal differences were of no great import. I don’t get the impression that Laurence was intending to meddle in politics at all. The politics would not be of concern perhaps to his congregation.
Thanks, Boa! I’m grateful for your perspective on Foxe’s account, which I have seen before. The branch of the family which eventually produce yours truly continued to be protestant activists, eventually embracing Wesleyan Methodism (for my sins).
We seem to have come a full circle. This was one of the earlier topics on MyT a few years ago. Again, you have to wonder at the nature of a person who will allow himself to be burned alive for the sake of his faith. As is my wont I am going to take the controversial position and make the charge that each party was equally guilty of this crime. If Saunders felt so passionately about his faith that he was prepared to die for it then one could argue that The Queen and her officers felt so passionately about theirs that they felt obliged to carry out the punishment. If his religious fervour was justified, so was theirs. Of course, by modern standards both sides behaved irrationally, but by standards of the day it may not have been so unusual. That all harks back to my comments yesterday about St Thomas More.
Sipu, that’s an interesting logical twist but I reckon it takes more passion/commitment to be burned than to pass sentence. Remember the farm pig who complained to the hen that while she was involved in making the farmer’s breakfast, he was committed.
Janus, you are right, it does. In that case, though, the more passionate one is the more foolish and self destructive would one’s actions appear to be. Logically, one would conclude that on that basis, Saunders is the more guilty of the crime. Seriously though, I would be fascinated to get a real insight into the minds of all parties. Was it fear that they would burn in hell for all eternity or was it a genuine love of God that made them feel their life was worth losing in such horrible circumstances?
Interesting viewpoint in a book called Fires of Faith, by Eamon Duffy, a professor of Church history and incidentally a Catholic. I haven’t read it, but this is taken from a review in the Spectator:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/3702258/cardinal-values.thtml
“Now, in a short, evidence-packed book, exceptionally well provided with illustrations and maps, he has shone a just and equal light on the English church in Mary’s reign. His thesis is that the management of the return to Catholicism from the muddled, opportunistic and destructive Protestantism of Edward VI’s reign was not, as historians have mostly supposed, an ineptly handled throwback to the discredited past. He shows that, in fact, a great deal of new work was done in a very short time; that the appointments made and arrangements decreed to establish a better disciplined, better financed and more theologically grounded episcopate and priesthood were sensible, practical and far from merely nostalgic; and that in all this Cardinal Pole, the last Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury, was the driving force.”
Coventry was a hotbed of heresy in the 15th C, quite a few Lollards met a sticky (or should I say hot!) end there.
I’m absolutely 100% certain that I do not have the ‘passion’ that would allow me to embrace a ‘martyr’s death’ … and I think that I would find most of those who are so committed to be rather uncomfortable people to be around.
It wouldn’t surprise me if Duffy was absolutely right. The Henrician and Edwardian ‘reforms’ were extremely opportunistic – pigs at the trough comes to mind! Whatever else one might say of Mary, her attempt to restore Catholicism was not based on greed, or monetary gain.
A very powerful narrative, and most educating for me, thank you boadicea.
Thanks Shermeen!
Back to the future! The other week, the church hall still frequented by my family was daubed with ‘Zulu Go Home. EDL’ Why? Presumably because the artist objects to the appointment of an African lady who now preaches there – just like the old missionaries, risking life and limb to convert the heathen – this time in the ‘negative’.