From the fact that the Queen advocated sermons at the stake it has been inferred that Philip exercised considerable influence on the persecution, as it was the Spanish custom for preachments to be held at the _autos da fe_ of heretics. But indeed the custom was quite as much an English as it was a Spanish one. At the burning of Friar Forest, for refusing to acknowledge Henry’s ecclesiastical supremacy, Hugh Latimer preached for three hours against the Papal claims, when the martyr fixing his eyes on him said: “Seven years back thou durst not have made such a sermon for thy life!” It is probable, that neither Philip nor Mary was keen to punish as heresy, the rebellious spirit manifested by the religionists. The persecution was a movement of expediency, set on foot by the Council, as a means of coping with the disturbances. The Emperor and Renard were distinctly opposed to it, and now the Spanish friar, Alfonso de Castro, Philip’s confessor, in preaching before the court, strenuously denounced the measure, which he would scarcely have ventured to do in so public a manner, if it had been ardently desired by the King and Queen. Moreover, the most enlightened among the English clergy, including the Bishop of London, who had at first been in favour of it, though agreeing in the general principle, that erroneous thinking led to erroneous acting, were against its adoption at this juncture. But Parliament willed it, and “it was not therefore,” says an authority on English law, “the policy of the church but of the crown, and not merely of the crown but of the state. It was the act of the crown with the authority of Parliament, and the assent of the council.”[531] The same writer, accentuating this opinion, which appears incontrovertible, says in another place:— “With reference to this unhappy persecution, it appears important to observe, that it was not the will of the church but of the state, that it was the result not of the religious bigotry of ecclesiastics, but of state policy, and there is reason to believe not a little, of the worst and vilest state craft. It did not commence until after the marriage with the Spanish King, nor until after the lapse of two years after the restoration of the ancient religion, and then it was not only not instigated but it was rather discouraged by the prelates; and though it was no doubt authorized by the sovereign, it was at the advice of her council, composed chiefly of laymen. The Cardinal Legate opposed it, the King’s confessor preached against it, the prelates acted only upon compulsion, and there is reason to believe from the Queen’s reply to the representation of the council, that she rather yielded to their advice, and desired the execution of the measure not only to be moderated, but to be directed rather against popular agitators, than against mere private holders of heretical opinions.”[532]