No more potent means could have been devised for saturating the national mind with a hatred of Queen Mary, and of her religion, than the diffusion of the _Book of Martyrs_ on this gigantic scale. In a short time, there was scarcely a parish church in England, that did not possess a copy of the work, which was at the disposal of all who could read. Those who were illiterate might frequently be seen standing in a group round the lectern, while one among them read aloud from the graphic pages. In many churches, a chapter was read to the assembled congregations every Sunday evening along with the Bible, and the clergy constantly made its stories of martyrdom the subject of their sermons. One of the indictments against Archbishop Laud, at his trial, was the fact of his having ordered the book to be withdrawn from some churches.[539] But the secret of its charm for Puritan England did not altogether lie in its anti-Marian character, or in the partisanship of its garbled facts, and fictitious heroisms. The simplicity of its vigorous English, the picturesque, though minute circumstances which it detailed, the very boldness with which it lied, and above all, its appeal to the newly awakened passion for the private interpretation of Scripture, endeared it to the children of the new era. Nevertheless, it was undeniably one of the most powerful engines in the conspiracy to blacken Mary’s fame, and cast a lurid light on the few years of her troubled reign. It was not so much an epoch-making book as the embodiment of a movement, the effects of which have not yet passed away, and even the _Pilgrim’s Progress_, a far more imaginative and strictly religious work than Foxe’s, did not displace the _Acts and Monuments_ in the religious life of the nation. The two together did perhaps more than anything else to wean the people from the old faith. But, apart from all misrepresentation, exaggeration, distorted evidence and positive fiction, there remains the fact that a considerable number of persons did perish at the stake in Mary’s reign, although it is as great an historical absurdity to apply to Mary the epithet “bloody,” as it is to attach that of “good” to Queen Elizabeth. Mary did but sanction that which was not only the common practice throughout Christendom, but which had been the law of England for more than 150 years, and which continued in force for upwards of a century after her. Utterly repugnant to modern ideas as is the thought which made it possible to punish any religious propaganda with the death of the propagandist, we must admit that Mary, and those whose business it was to carry out the law, far from entertaining feelings of vengeance, provided every possible loophole of escape for those under examination. Moreover, the accused, even on the showing of Foxe, instead of being the meek and lamb-like martyrs we have been led to consider them, persistently flouted their judges, and treated them with flippant insolence and contempt.