Critical Apparatus for this Page
Commentary on the TextCommentary on the Woodcuts
Names and Places on this Page
Unavailable for this Edition
1330 [1330]

K. Henry. 8. Robert Packington. Collins with his dogge burned.

the wyne to be truly his bloud, accordyng to the wordes of the institution of the same Sacramēt: but in a certein wise, that is to witte, figuratiuely, Sacramētally, or significatiuely, accordyng to the exposition of the Doctours before recited and hereafter folowyng. And to this exposition of the old Doctours, am I enforced, both by the Articles of my Crede, and also by the circumstances of the sayd Scripture, as after shall more largely appeare. But by the same can I not finde the naturall body of our Sauiour to be there naturally, but rather absent, both from the Sacrament, and from all the world, collocate and remainyng in heauen, where he by promise must abyde corporally vnto the end of the worlde.

[Back to Top]

The same holy Doctor, writing agaynst one Faustus, sayeth in lyke maner: Si Machabæcos cum ingenti admiratione præferrimus, quia escas quibus nūc Christiani licitè vtuntur, artingere noluerunt (quia pro tempore tunc Prophetico non licebat) quanto nunc magis pro Baptismo Christi, pro Eucharistia Christi, pro signo Christi? &c. MarginaliaAugust. contra Fanstum.If vve do preferre vvith great admiratiō the Machabees, because they vvould not once touch the meates vvhich Christian men novv lavvfullye vse to eate of, for that it vvas not lavvfull for that time, thē beyng propheticall, that is, in the time of the olde Testament: hovv much rather novve ought a Christian to be more ready to suffer all thinges for the Baptisme of Christ, and for the Sacrament of thankes geuing, & for the signe of Christ, seing that those of the old Testament vvere the promises of the thinges to be cōplet & fulfilled, & these Sacramentes in the nevv Testament are the tokens of thinges complete and finished? In this do I note, that according to the expositions before shewed, he calleth the Sacramēt of Baptisme and the Sacrament of Christes body & bloud, MarginaliaThe signe of Christ.otherwise properlye named Eucharistia, signum Christi, and that in the singular number, for as much as they both do signifye welnygh one thynge. In both thē is testifyed the death of our Sauiour. And moreouer he called them, Indicia rerum completarū: that is to witte, the tokens or benefytes þt we shall receyue by þe beliefe of Christ for vs crucifyed. And thē doth he call vsually both the Sacramentes, signū Christi, in the singular nomber. As the same S. Augustin in hys 50. treatise, vpon þe Gospell of S. Iohn teacheth, where he saith thus: Si bonus es, si ad corp9 Christi pertines, (quod significat Petrus) habes Christū, & in præsenti & in futuro. In præsenti per fidē. &c. MarginaliaAugust. in Ioan. tract. 50.If thou be good, if thou pertayn to the body of Christ (vvhich this vvord, Petrus, doth signifie) then hast thou Christ both here present & in tyme to come: Here present through fayth: here present by the signe and figure of Christ: here present by the Sacrament of Baptisme: here present by the meate and drinke of the Altar. &c.

[Back to Top]

More there was that Iohn Lambert wrote to the king, but thus much onely came to our handes 

Commentary  *  Close

It appears that from this comment that Foxe is working from a manuscript, but actually he is simply paraphrasing what Bale said in A treatyse by Johan Lambert…, ed. John Bale (Wesel, 1548?), fo. 32v.

.

¶ The death of Robert Packington.

MarginaliaRobert Packinton.
1538.
AMonge other Actes and matters 

Commentary  *  Close
Murders and martyrdoms

The following accounts all have one common theme: they deal with the (alleged) murders or executions of evangelicals or evangelical sympathisers by senior Henrician clerics. Thus what appear to be random, isolated cases are really - as Foxe presents them - part of the violent persecution inflicted by the False Church on the members of the True Church. In assigning all of these incidents to the year 1538, Foxe blatantly disregarded the dates given by his sources and even by himself in his earlier editions (Packington was murdered on 13 November 1536. Foxe gives the correct year for Packington's death in the Rerum (p. 146), but misdates it to 1537 in his first edition and to 1538 in subsequent editions. Similarly, the evidence would point to Collins being burned in July 1540 but Foxe dates it differently). This, one may readily deduce, was not the result of careless chronology, but stemmed from Foxe's desire to group these stories together in order to maximise their emotional impact.

[Back to Top]

Foxe rewrote these stories considerably in his first two editions. In the case of the story of Cowbridge, this was due to Nicholas Harpsfield's effective criticisms. In most cases, however, it was because Foxe started with very limited information and enhanced it through the contributions of individual informants. All of the stories appear in the Rerum. The killing of Robert Packington (Rerum, p. 146) was possibly inspired by John Bale's brief, but polemically laden, description of the crime in The image of both churches (Antwerp?, 1545), STC 1269.5, pp. 440-41; but its details are taken from Edward Hall, The unyon of the twoo noble andillustre families of Lancastre and York (London, 1550), STC 12723a, fo. 211v). William Collins (Rerum, pp. 180-81) was listed as a martyr by John Bale (The Epistle exhoratorye of an Englishe Christiane [Antwerp, 1544?], STC 1291, fo.13v), while More caustically dismissed him as a madman. Foxe probably obtained his gossipy and possibly inaccurate account of Collins from conversation with Bale. Foxe states (only in the Rerum (p. 139)) that he was an eye-witness to the execution of William Cowbridge; he is almost certainly his own source for the event, particularly since Bale and other evangelical writes never mentioned Cowbridge. Foxe's brief account account of Leyton closely follows that of Bale in the Epistle exhortatorye (fo. 13v). Bale didn't mention Puttedew but he still may have informed Foxe about him. Peke was merely listed as a martyr - 'peke of yppsewich' - in the Epistle exhortatorye (fo. 13r), but Bale may also have supplied Foxe with the only other fact that Foxe mentions about Peke in the Rerum: that Peke was executed for feeding communion wafers to a dog; see Rerum, pp. 117-118).

[Back to Top]

Although these accounts are full of corroborative detail (and the account of Peke's execution certainly looks accurate), the nature of Foxe's sources make them less than completely reliable. Foxe's allegations regarding the causes and people involved in Packington's murder are, to put it mildly, unsubstantiated (In the Rerum (p. 146), Foxe claimed that John Stokesley, the bishop of London, ordered the murder of Packington whilst in 1563, Foxe amended this to claim that John Incent, the dean of St. Paul's, ordered the murder. Foxe was almost certainly relating hot gossip about the murder yet the fact that there were rumours implicating Stokesley and Incent in Packington's murder does not, of course, make them true). Foxe provides one of several not completely compatible versions of the sufferings ofWilliam Collins. And his account of Cowbridge had to be abridged due to Nicholas Harpsfield's substantive criticisms.

[Back to Top]

Thomas S. Freeman

passed and done this present yeare 
Commentary  *  Close

Packington was murdered on 13 November 1536. Foxe gives the correct year for Packington's death in the Rerum (p. 146), but misdates it to 1537 in his first edition and to 1538 in subsequent editions.

, whiche is of the Lord. 1538. here is not to be silenced the vnworthy and lamentable death of Robert Packington, Mercer of London, brought & caused by the enemies of Gods worde, and of all good procedings. The story is this: The sayd Robert Packington, beyng a man of substance 
Commentary  *  Close

The details of Packington's murder was reported, mostly verbatim, from Hall's chronicle (Edward Hall, The unyon of twoo noble and illustre families of Lancastre and York [London, 1550], STC 12723a, fo. 231v). Foxe went further than Hall, however, in identifying the mastermind behind the murder. Where Hall simply blamed the clergy, Foxe accused first Bishop John Stokesley and subsequently Dean Incent of responsibility for the crime.

[Back to Top]
, and dwelling in Chepeside, vsed euery daye at. v. of the clocke, winter and sommer to goe to prayer at a church 
Commentary  *  Close

Hall stated that Packington went daily to Mass (Edward Hall, The unyon of twoo noble and illustre families of Lancastre and York [London, 1550], STC 12723a, fo. 231v); Foxe here rewrites this inconvenient passage.

then called S. Thomas of Acres, but nowe named Mercers Chappel. And one morning amongest all other, beinge a great mystye morning, suche as hathe seldome beene sene, euen as he was crossing the strete from his house to the church, he was sodenly murthered with a gūne, which of the neyghbours was playnlye heard: and by a great nomber of labourers standinge at Soper lane end, he was both seene go forthe of his house, and the clappe of the Gunne was heard, but the deede doer was a great while vnespied and vnknown. Althoughe many in þe meane time were suspected, yet none coulde be foūd fautie therin. The murder so couertly was cōueyed, till at length, MarginaliaDoct Incent Dean of Paules, murderer of Packinton.by the confession of Doct. Incent Deane of Paules, in his death bed, it was knowen & by hym confessed that he hym selfe was the author ther of, by hyeryng an Italian for lx. crownes or thereabout to do the feite 
Commentary  *  Close

In the Rerum (p. 146), Foxe claimed that John Stokesley, the bishop of London, ordered the murder of Packington. In 1563, Foxe amended this to claim that John Incent, the dean of St. Paul's, ordered the murder, adding the detail that the killer was an Italian. In neither case, should it be assumed that Foxe was inventing these details; instead he was almost certainly relating hot gossip about the murder. (Note Foxe's claim that he could produce witnesses in support of his story; see next comment). Yet the fact that there were rumours implicating Stokesley and Incent in Packington's murder does not, of course, make them true. (For the background to the murder see Peter Marshall, 'The Shooting of Robert Packington' in Religious Identities in Henry VIII's England (Aldershot, 2006), pp. 61-79).

[Back to Top]
. For the testimonie whereof, and also of the repentant woordes of the sayd Incent, the names both of them which heard hym confesse it, and of them, whiche heard the witnesses reporte it, remaine yet in memory, to be produced if neede required. 
Commentary  *  Close

[Back to Top]

The cause why he was so litle fauored with þe Clergye, was this, for that he was knowen to bee a man of great courage, and one that could both speake, and also would be heard: for at the same time, he was one of the Burgesses of the Parlament for the Citie of London, and had talked somewhat agaynst the couetousnes & crueltie of the Clergie, wherefore he was had in contempt with thē: & was thought also to haue some talke with the kyng, for the whiche he was the more had in disdayne with them, and murdered by the sayd Doct. Incent, for his labour, as hath bene aboue declared.

[Back to Top]

And thus much of Rob. Packyngton, whiche was the brother of Austen Packyngton aboue mencioned, MarginaliaRead before pag. 1158.who deceaued Byshop Tonstall in bying the new trāslated Testament of Tyndall. Whose pitious murder although it was priuy and soden, yet hath it so pleased the Lord not to kepe it in darkenes, but to bryng it at length, to light.

[Back to Top]
¶ The burning of one Collins at London.

MarginaliaCollyns with hys dogge burned.N Either is here to be omitted the burninge of one Collins, sometyme a Lawyer and a Gentleman, which suffered þe fier this yere also in Smithfield, An. 1538. 

Commentary  *  Close

The evidence would point to Collins being burned in July 1540 (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 and 1877], I, p. 119).

Whom although I do not here recite, as in the number of Gods professed Martyrs, yet neyther do I thinke him to be cleane sequestered from the companye of the Lords saued flocke and familie, notwithstanding that the Bishop of Romes Churche dyd condempne and burne hym for an heretike: but rather do recounte hym therfore, as one belongyng to the holye cōpany of Sainctes. At least wise this case of hym & of hys ende may be thought to be suche, as maye well reproue and condemne theyr crueltye and madnes, in burning so without all discretiō, this mā beyng madde and distracte of hys perfecte wyttes, as he then was, by this occasion as here foloweth: 
Commentary  *  Close

The preceding passages were added to the account of Collins. Rather surprisingly, Harpsfield did not criticise Foxe for including Collins among the martyrs. Nevertheless, Foxe's remarks indicate his defensiveness on this subject after Harpsfield's attack on his account of Cowbridge.

[Back to Top]

This Gentleman 

Commentary  *  Close

There are several conflicting accounts of why William Collins was executed. Writing in 1529, Thomas More claimed that 'mad Collins…lasheth out Scripture in bedlam' (Dialogue Concerning Heresies, ed. Thomas Lawler, Germain Marc'hadour and Richard Marius, CWTM, 6 [2 vols., New Haven, CT, 1981], I, p. 433). This suggests at the very least that Collins's mental instability and engagement with evangelicalism were of longer duration than Foxe implies. Collins, however, was almost certainly in prison when More wrote. Later William Collins wrote to Sir Nicholas Hare and declared that he had been in prison for thirteen years, although he had never been convicted or charged with a crime. He denied that he was insane, thanked Hare for trying to free him and begged him to show the letter to the king (TNA SP 1/242, fo. 229r). Probably around the same time, Collins wrote to Cromwell, begging that he be released from the Marshalsea (TNA SP 1/144, fos. 154r-155r). These petitions must have been successful, because William Collins was a free man in 1536, when he was hauled before the Common Council and charged with shooting an arrow at the rood in St Margaret Pattens and for despising and railing against the sacraments (Corporation of London Record Office, Journal 13, fo. 476r). Richard Hilles, a London merchant and evangelical, reported to Heinrich Bullinger that sometime after 16 May (Whitsuntide) 1540 a 'crazed man' named Collins was burned and that his offence was purportedly shooting an arrow at a crucifix, declaring that the cross should be able to defend itself. (Hilles did not doubt that Collins committed this action, but his suspicion was that Hilles's real crime was denouncing certain nobles for exploiting their dependents). Hilles also reported that Collins seemed perfectly rational when he was imprisoned with the sacramentarian John Lambert and that he supplied Lambert with texts to use in his defence (Original Letters Relative to the English Reformation, ed. Hastings Robinson, Parker Society [2 vols., Cambridge, 1846-7], I, pp. 200-201). Finally Charles Wriothesley noted Collins, a 'sacramentary', was burned at Southwark on 7 July 1540 (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 and 1877], I, p. 119).

[Back to Top]
had a wife of exceadinge beautye and comelinesse, but notwithstanding of so lyght behauiour & vnchast condicions (nothing correspondent to the grace of her beautye) that shee forsaking her husband, whiche loued her entirely, betoke her selfe vnto an other paramoure. Which thinge when he vnderstode, he tooke it verye greuouslye and heauelye, more then reason would. At the last being ouercome with ex-

[Back to Top]

¶ The burning of one Collins at London.
woodcut [View a larger version]
Commentary on the Woodcuts  *  Close
The image was made to commemorate a man whose reported offences included shooting an arrow into a crucifix as well -- according to Foxe's account -- as parodying the elevation of the host by holding up his dog . If the stories about this gentleman included doubts of his sanity, they cohere in demonstrating an opposition to idolatry conspicuous enough to cause his death. Foxe, while ready to make the most of this event (the date of which seems unsure) including the burning of the hapless hound, was not prepared to grant Collins a crown of martyrdom. CUL copy: additional orange-toned spots are added freehand to the dog in this copy. WREN copy: the spots on the dog (freehand embellishment) are in an orange-purple colour.

treame dolour and heauinesse, he fell madde, beinge at that tyme a studient of the lawe in London. When he

was
Go To Modern Page No:  
Click on this link to switch between the Modern pagination for this edition and Foxe's original pagination when searching for a page number. Note that the pagination displayed in the transcription is the modern pagination with Foxe's original pagination in square brackets.
Find:
Type a keyword and then restrict it to a particular edition using the dropdown menu. You can search for single words or phrases. When searching for single words, the search engine automatically imposes a wildcard at the end of the keyword in order to retrieve both whole and part words. For example, a search for "queen" will retrieve "queen", "queene" and "queenes" etc.
in:  
Humanities Research Institute  *  HRI Online  *  Feedback
Version 2.0 © 2011 The University of Sheffield