1570 Edition | Book 8 | Page 1200 
London. an. 1527. that he notwithstãdyng might haue and peruse them, with a letter also sent to him from the sayd Byshop, or rather by the aduise of other Bishops, desiryng hym that hee would shewe hys cunnyng and play the prety mã, lyke a Demosthenes, in expugnyng the doctrine of these bookes and opinions: MarginaliaM. More the bishops agent in confuting the Lutherans.who, albeit he was no great diuine, yet because hee sawe some towardnes in hym, by hys booke of Vtopia, and other fine Poetry of hys, therfore hee thought hym a mete man for theyr purpose, to withstand the procedynges of the Gospell, either in makyng some apparance of reason agaynst it, or at least, to outface it and dashe it out of countenance. Wherein there lacked on his part, neither good will, nor labour, to serue the Byshops turne, so farre forth as all hys rethoricke could reache: fillyng vp with fines of wytte, and scoffyng termes, where true knowledge & iudgement of Scripture did fayle: as by his workes and writyngs agaynst Bilney, Tyndall, Frith, Fish, Barnes, Luther. &c. may soone be discerned, if the reasons and maner of his hãdlyng be well wayd, & ryghtly examined, with the touchstone of the Scriptures. But now to fall into our story againe:
[Back to Top]Vpon this fierse & terrible proclamation aforesayd, thus deuised & set out in þe kinges name, an. 1529. þe bishops which wer þe procurers therof, had þt now, which they would haue: neither did there lacke on their parte any study vnapplied, any stone vnremoued, any corner vnsearched, for the diligent executiõ of the same. Wherupon ensued greuous persecution, and slaughter of the faythfull. Of whom the first that went to wracke was Thomas Bilney, of whom sufficiently afore hath bene sayd: and the next was Rich. Bayfild, as in the storye here followeth.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaRichard Bayfild, Martyr.FOlowyng the order
CloseThis sentence is largely to recounting the ordeals of a number of evangelicals, who suffered during an extensive crackdown on heresy conducted in 1531-2 while Thomas More was Lord Chancellor. More was clearly acting in an unofficial partnership with John Stokesley, bishop of London, and he played a major role in the persecution of three of these martyrs: Richard Bayfield, John Tewkesbury and James Bainham. There are also a few other individuals whose sufferings are described here: an obscure and unnamed old man in Buckinghamshire; John Randall, a Cambridge student and evangelical who was allegedly murdered around 1531, and Edward Freese, who was arrested for heresy in 1534.
[Back to Top]Foxe's major source for these accounts, particularly those of Bayfield, Tewkesbury and Bainham, was now lost court books of Bishop Stokesley and Tunstall.. In one case, Foxe drew on Tunstall's register (Guildhall MS 9531/10, fo. 123r-v). He also drew on works by John Bale and Thomas More (see especially Bale, Catalogus; Bale, The epistle exhortatorye of an English Christiane [Antwerp, 1544?], STC 1291.5, fo. 13v; The Confutation of Tyndale's Answer, ed. L. A. Schuster, Richard C. Marius, James P. Lusardi and Richard J. Schoeck, CWTM 8[3 vols., New Haven, CT, 1973], I, p. 8). Foxe, however, also drew on information supplied by individual informants, particularly for the accounts of Tewkesbury, Randall, Freese and Bainham. One of these sources was Joan Fish, the widow of James Bainham (For Joan Bainham as a source for other accounts in Foxe see Thomas S. Freeman, 'The importance of dying earnestly: the metamorphosis of the account of James Bainham in "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" in The Church Retrospective, ed. R. N. Swanson, Studies in Church History 33 (Woodbridge, 1997), pp. 272-3). In the case of John Randall, Foxe's source was clearly his wife or his wife's family.
[Back to Top]These sources presented several problems for Foxe. The first was that of confusion, because Foxe was getting different information on the same people for different sources at different times. As a result, the material on Bayfield and Bainham, in particular, is badly organised. In fact, the description of a recantation, which is attributed to John Tewkesbury in the first edition, is attributed to James Bainham in subsequent editions. The second problem is that the material coming from individual informants was, occasionally, unreliable. The account of Randall's murder is almost certainly an exaggeration of a family tragedy (for instance, Nicholas Harpsfield questioned how a murderer could have killed Randall, place him in a noose, and then leave the room, with the door bolted from the inside?), while the account of Bainham's last words is probably a pious invention (Thomas S. Freeman, 'The importance of dying earnestly: the metamorphosis of the account of James Bainham in "Foxe's Book of Martyrs"' in The Church Retrospective, ed. R. N. Swanson, Sudies in Church History 33 (Woodbridge, 1997), pp. 278-81).
[Back to Top]Thomas S. Freeman
CloseAccording to one contemporary, Bayfield was burned on 4 December 1531. (See Charles Wriothesley, A Chronicle of England during the reigns of the Tudors, ed. W. D. Hamilton, Camden Society, new series, 11 and 20 {2 vols., London, 1875-77], I, p. 17).
CloseThis material on Bayfield's background comes from a knowledgeable informant (Robert Barnes attended the University of Louvain in the years 1517-21 (ODNB). Edmund Rougham matriculated there in 1520 (Emden A, p. 243). The knowledge of the activities of Maxwell and Stacy (see comment after next) and the account's greater detail on what happened to Bayfield in London suggest that this informant was based in the capital.
[Back to Top]
CloseI.e. a monk in the great Benedictine abbey at Bury St. Edmunds.
CloseOn Laurence Maxwell see 1563, p. 418. On James Stacy also see 1563, p. 418 as well as 1570, p. 1161 and p.1185; 1576, p. 993 and 1014; 1583, p.1021 and pp. 1041-1042
CloseEdmund Rougham. In 1545, now apparently more theologically conservative, Rougham would preach at the burning of John Kirby in Bury St. Edmunds. Edward Rougham had formerly been an evangelical sympathiser and a friend of Richard Bayfield and Robert Barnes.
CloseRobert Barnes attended the University of Louvain in the years 1517-21 (ODNB). Edmund Rougham matriculated there in 1520 (Emden A, p. 243). This accurate detail helps to establish the general accuracy of this account.
CloseI.e. in the abbey of Bury St. Edmunds.
CloseThis must have taken place before Christmas Day 1525, when Robert Barnes would preach a sermon that embroiled him in heresy charges (ODNB).
CloseFoxe's account presents difficulties here. Bayfield apparently left Cambridge and went to London before Robert Barnes was convicted of heresy early in 1526. In 1528, he was tried for heresy by Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall of London. Bayfield abjured and various penances were imposed upon him: most notably, that he was to resume wearing his monastic habit, to return to the abbey of Bury St. Edmunds and never to re-enter the diocese of London without episcopal permission. After his abjuration, Bayfield definitely fled overseas. He then began importing heretical works into England, on a large scale. In 1531, Bayfield was again arrested (as Foxe describes) visiting a bookbinder. Either Bayfield went abroad twice, once before and once after, his first arrest for heresy or (more likely) Foxe was confused in dating Bayfield's flight.
[Back to Top]
CloseThe coal house of the bishop of London's palace in the capital was frequently used as an ad-hoc detention centre for prisoners whom the bishop was examining.
CloseThomas Patmore, of Much Hadham. Susan Brigden has persuasively argued that the two Thomas Patmores mentioned by Foxe were, in fact, the same person and that Patmore while still vicar of Much Hadham, became free of the Drapers's Company (Susan Brigden, London and the Reformation [Oxford, 1989], p. 206). She suggests that the purpose of this was to remain incognito and that the Drapers were chosen because of a significant evangelical presence in their membership. But Patmore's purpose may simply have been to acquire London citizenship. And the Drapers's Company may have been chosen beecause his father had been a member of the company. He was arrested but released due to petitions from his supporters to Anne Boleyn and Thomas Cromwell (L&P VII, p. 348).
[Back to Top]MarginaliaThe cruell handling of Rich Bayfild in the Colehouse.Thus Richard Bayfild being in the Colehouse was worser handled, then hee was before in the Lollardes Tower, for there hee was tyed both by the necke, middle, and legges, standyng vpright by the walles diuers times manicled, to accuse other that had bought his bokes, but he accused none, but stode to his religion and confession of his faith vnto the very end, and was in the Consistory of Paules, thrise put to hys trial, whether he would abiure or no. He said he would dispute for his fayth, and so dyd, to their great shame, Stokesley then being his iudge, with the assistaunce of Winchester & other Byshops, wherof here foloweth now the circumstance in order to be sene.
[Back to Top]The Articles layd to Richard Bayfild, by the foresayd Byshops, were these. an. 1531. Nouember. x.
CloseThe articles charged against Bayfield, his answers to them, the sentence of degradation imposed on him and the letter to the mayor and sheriffs of London, are taken from a now lost court book of Bishop John Stokesley. Because Foxe does not mention Bayfield's first trial for heresy, the reader is likely to be confused by the references below to punishments already imposed on Bayfield. This was Bayfield's second trial for heresy.
[Back to Top]Marginalia1.
Articles obiected agaynst Rich. Bayfild.FIrst that he had bene many yeares a monke professed of thorder of S. Benet, of S. Edmonds Bery, in the diocesse of Norwich.
Marginalia2.That he was a priest, and had ministred and continued in the same order, the space of ix. or. x. yeres.
Marginalia3.That sithens the feast of Easter last, he being beyond the sea, bought and procured to haue diuers and many bokes & treatises of sondry sorts, aswel of Martin Luthers own workes, as of diuers other of his dampnable sect, and of Oecolampadius the great hereticke, and diuers other heretikes, both in Laten and English, the names of which bookes were conteined in a litle bil wrytten with hys own hand.
[Back to Top]Marginalia4.
A rancke heresie in the popes church, to geue all lands and prayse to God alone.That in the yere of our Lord. 1528. he was detected & accused to Cutb. then Bishop of London, for affirming and holding certein articles contrary to the holy church, and specially that all laud and prayse should be geuen to God alone, and not to sainctes or creatures,
Marginalia5.That euery priest might preach the word of God by the autority of the gospel, and not to rune to the Pope or Cardinals for lisence, as it appeared (they said) by his confession before the said Bishop.
Marginalia6.That he iudicially abiured the said articles before the said Bishop, and did renounce and forsweare them and all other articles contrary to the determination of holy churche, promising that from thence forth he wold not fal into any of them, nor any other errours.
Marginalia7.That he made a solemne othe vpon a boke, and the holy Euangelists, to fulfil suche penaunce as shoulde be enioyned hym by the said Bishop.
Marginalia8.After his abiuration, it was enioyned to hym for penaūce, that he should go before the crosse in procession, in the parish church of S. Buttols at Billinges gate, and to beare a fagot of wood vpon hys shoulder.
Marginalia9.It was enioyned hym in penaunce, that he should prouide an habite requisite and mete for hys order and profession, as shortlye as he might, and that he should come or go no where wythout such an habite, the which he had not fulfilled.
Marginalia10.That it was likewise enioyned hym in penaunce, that sometime before the feast of the assension thē next ensuing his abiuratiõ, he should go home vnto the Monasterye of Bery, and there remain according to the vow of his profession,