978 [978]
K. Henry. 8. Defence of Rich. Hunne agaynst Cope. Elizabeth Stāford. Joanne Sampson.
greyng to other stories, and also refuted by the wordes of Sir Thomas More his owne author, who reporteth that Hunne (in suyng his premunire agaynst the Priest) being set vppon a glorye of victorye, made his boast among his frendes that he trusted to haue the matter long spokē of, and to bee called Hunnes case.
Commentary
See Dialogi sex, pp. 848-9. Harpsfield is, as Foxe declares, is repeating More (see CWTM, 6, I, pp. 326-7).
Wherby it appeareth, that
Hūne was not then in prison clapte vp for heresie: but was abroad seeking counsaile among the lawyers, and boastyng amongest hys frendes,
MarginaliaTho. Morus. Dial. lib. 3.as writeth
More. lib. 3. Dial.[Back to Top]MarginaliaAn other vntruth in Cope noted.After this heape of vntruthes aboue passed, adde yet further an other copie of Copes false dealing: who seking all corners, & euery heare how to pycke matter against my former history,
Commentary
chargeth me w
t arrogancie, as though I tooke so hyeghly vppon me to vndoe and derogate the kynges actes and iudgementes in the acquitall of
D. Horsey. If it so pleased the kyng to acquitte
D. Horsey, by his gracious pardon,
Commentary
Technically, Horsey was never pardoned. He was acquitted by means of a directed verdict.
I am not agaynst it, neither doe I denye but the kyng so did, neither doe I saye, nor euer did, but the kyng of his supereminent prerogatiue, maye so doe: and wherein then doe I vnryppe or loose the kynges actes here done and concluded?
MarginaliaAnswere to Copes cauillation.But if the question be this, whether
D. Horsey, with hys coniurates did kill
Richard Hunne or no: then do I say, that the pardon of the kyng doth not take away the veritie of the crime cōmitted, but remoueth away the penaltie of the law deserued: and so if the life of them was saued by way of pardon (as
M. More hym selfe semeth not to denye)
Commentary
See CWTM, 6, I, p. 325, for More explaining that Hunne's accepting what was, in effect, a royal pardon did not necessarily mean that Horsey was guilty.
then was it not throughe their innocencie claimyng iustice, that they escaped, but through petition standyng in nede of mercy. For what nedeth pardon, where iustice absolueth? yea who sueth pardon, but in so doyng muste yelde hym selfe giltye? for pardon neuer commeth lightlye either with God or man, excepte the crime firste bee confessed.
MarginaliaThe escapyng of Horsey came rather of fauour, then of hys demerites.Wherefore if they escaped by Iustice, as
Cope pretendeth, howe then doth
M. More say they were saued by pardō? And if they escaped by pardō,how then doth
Cope say they were not giltie? And bee it admitted, that the sentence of the kinges atturney, in the kyngs name did absolue them as vngiltie, according as þ
e king was then informed by the cardinall & sute of frēdes: yet afterward þ
e kyng beyng better informed by the Parlament, and the truth better knowen, detested and abhorred their facte, and yet continued his pardon vnto them, as by the kynges owne actes and hys broad seale appeared, yet remaynyng in recordes to be sene.
[Back to Top]And as touchyng my former histories set forth in Latine and in Englishe, whiche speake first of the foreman of the quest, then of the kynges atturney to be labored with some giftes or money: as Cope hath yet proued no vntruth in my saying, so lesse cā he find any repugnance or disagreyng in þe same.
Commentary
In the Rerum (p. 121), Foxe stated that the foreman of the coroner's jury had been bribed to find Horsey not guilty. In the 1563 edition (p. 391), he claimed that the King's Attorney had been bribed to find Horsey innocent. Harpsfield pointed out the contradiction and demanded what proof Foxe had of either charge? (Dialogi sex, p. 848). Foxe avoids the issue of bribery (by 1570, he knows that Henry VIII ordered Horsey to found innocent) by stating, after some bluster, that he had repeated what Edward Hall had said in his chronicle.
[Back to Top] For he that speaketh of bribyng first of one persō, and then afterward of an other, where both might be bribed together, is not cōtrary (I thinke) to him selfe, but rather doth comprehend that in the one booke, which he before leueth out in the other, and yet no great repugnance either in the one or in the other, seyng þ
t which is sayd, may be verified in both, as it is no other lyke but in this matter it was. For howe is it otherwise lyke or possible, but that there must needes be founde some priuie packyng in this matter, seyng after such euidēce found & brought in by þ
e Crowners enquest & Iury of xxiiij. chosen persons, after so many markes & tokens of the murder so cleare and demonstrable, and layd forth so playne to the eyes of all the worlde that no man could denye, or not see the same: yet throughe the handlyng of the foresayd Atturney, and of the foreman of the quest, þ
e murderers were borne out, & cōfessed to be no murderers? If such bolstering out of matters & partialitie were then such a rare case in the realme of England in þ
e tyme of Cardinall
Wolsey, who then vnder the kyng and in in the kinges name did what he lyste: then let it seme vntrue in my former storyes, that I haue written. And yet the wordes of my story whiche
Cope carpeth at so much, be not myne, but the wordes of
Edward Halle hys owne author.
Commentary
Edward Hall, The unyon of the twoo noble and illustre families of Lancastre and York (London, 1550), fo. Lv.
Wherfore if his disposition be so set, that he must nedes be a censor of other mens writynges, let hym expostulate with
Halle, and not with me.
[Back to Top]But I trouble the reader to much in this matter of Richard Hunne, beyng of it selfe so cleare, that no indifferent iudge can doubt therof. As for wranglers and quarelers, they will neuer be satisfied. Wherefore to returne agayne to the purpose of our storye intermitted, in the table aboue, conteinyng the names
Commentary
Lollard martyrs
Foxe's account of these victims of a crackdown against heresy initiated by Bishop Fitzjames of London in the years 1517-20, comes largely from a now lost courtbook of London diocese. Some of the material in this courtbook, however, was summarized in notes taken by Archbishop James Ussher (Trinity College, Dublin, MS 775, fos. 122r-125r). For the case of Thomas Man he appears to have also drawn on a courtbook from Lincoln diocese, which is now missing. He also used the Lincoln court book to correct and amplify cases that he had already discussed. Perhaps Foxe acquired the L courtbook whilst the 1570 edition was being printed. Or alternatively it may be the case that he collated the information he received from individual informants with other material which he found in the diocesan records. Once again, Foxe was concerned use these Lollards to show that there was a 'True Church' before Luther.
[Back to Top]Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield
of them whiche about this tyme of
Richard Hunne, were forced to denye and abiure their professed opinion, pag. 927.
MarginaliaAn. 1517.
Elizabeth Stamford.mention was made of
Elizabeth Stamford, Iohn Houshold & other moe, abiuryng about þ
e yeare of our Lorde. 1517.
Commentary
I.e., members of the Court of Arches, the central ecclesiastical court in medieval England.
Whose vexation & weakenes, although it be pytifull to beholde, yet to consider the confession of their doctrine in those auncient dayes, it is not vnprofitable.
MarginaliaThe teaching of the former tymes to be considered.Wherein wee haue to see the same forme of knowledge and doctrine then taught and plāted in the hartes of our forelders, whiche is nowe publiquely receaued, as well touching þ
e Lordes Sacrament of his body, as also other specialties of sinceritie. And althoughe they lacked then publique authoritie to mainteyne the open preachyng & teachyng of the Gospell, whiche the Lordes mercyfull grace hath geuen vs nowe: yet in secret knowledge and vnderstandyng, they semed then litle or nothyng inferiour to these our times of publique reformation
Commentary
Foxe's warm endorsement of these Lollards for their spiritual knowledge, is a consequence of his desire to show that there was a 'True Church' before Luther. But it also has an interesting, if implicit, anti-authoritarian message, that ordinary people might have spiritual insights denied to their superiors in status and education.
[Back to Top] as may appeare by this confession of
Elizabeth Stamford here vnder written, whiche onely may suffice for example, to vnderstād what rype knowledge of Gods word was thē abroad, although not in Churches publiquely preached, for daunger of the Byshops, yet in secret wise taught and receaued of diuers. In number of whom was this
Elizabeth Stamford,
Commentary
Regrettably there is no surviving record of Elizabeth Stamford's trial. Almost certainly, Foxe obtained it from a London court book.
who beyng brought and examined before
Fitziames Byshop of London. an. 1517.
MarginaliaThomas Beele.confessed that shee was taught by one
Thomas Beele, some tyme dwelling at Henley, these wordes, xi. yeres before: That Christ feedeth, and faste nourisheth his Churche, with his owne precious body, that is, the bread of lyfe cōmyng downe from heauen: this is the worthy woorde that is worthely receaued, and ioyned vnto man for to be in one body with hym. Soth it is that they be both one, they may not be parted: this is the wisely deeming of the holy sacrament Christes owne body: this is not receaued by chewyng of teeth, but by hearing of eares and vnderstandyng with your soule, and wisely working therafter. Therfore sayth S. Paul, I feare me amongst vs, brethren, that many of vs bee feeble and sicke, therfore I counsaile vs brethren to rise and watche, that the great day of dome come not sodenly vpon vs, as þ
e theefe doth vpō the Marchaunt. Also the sayd
Thomas taught and shewed her, that the Sacrament of the altare was not the very bodye of Christ, by very bread: and that the Sacrament, was the very body of Christ put vpon the crosse, after diuine or mysticall maner. And moreouer that the sayd
Thomas Bele did many tymes and oft teach her this foresayd lesson, that she should cōfesse her sinnes to God, and that the Popes pardons and indulgēces were naught worth and profited not, and that worshippyng of Images and pilgrimages are not to be done.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaIanne Sampson.To this Elizabeth Stamford, may also be annexed the doctrine & confession of Ioanne Sampson,
Commentary
This is apparently the Elizabeth Sampson, whose previous trial for heresy in 1509, was also recorded by Foxe. These articles bear a close relation to the previous charges against her, particularly in her denuncia- tion of pilgrimages to the images of the Virgin Mary at Willesden and Bermondsey and in her sacramentarianism. But the charges of her spitting at the Virgin Mary's name, her denouncing the invocation of the Virgin Mary by women during childbirth and her claim that it was better to eat the altercloth than the Eucharist, are new.
[Back to Top] wife of
Iohn Sampson Carpentar of Aldermanbury in London: Agaynst whom beyng cited, and examined before the Byshop of London, certaine witnesses were producted: who vpon their othe beyng sworne, did detecte and denounce the sayd
Ioanne Sampson, in these Articles and opinions folowyng.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaArticles of Ioanne Sampson.
1.First, that shee beyng in her labour, what tyme Ioanne Sampson her predecessour, then beyng aliue, was with her, and after the maner then of wemen, called much vpon the helpe of the virgine Mary, she spitting therat, was in such sort agreaued, that the other partie was compelled to depart the house.
[Back to Top]Marginalia2.Also, that she spape agaynst pilgrimage, and the worshippyng of the blessed virgine, and of all sainctes, affirming that there is none holy but one.
Marginalia3.Item, an other tyme in the hearyng of one Margarete
Anworth
BBb.iij.
1570 Edition | Book 7 | Page 978 