Stephen Gardiner was imprisoned in the Tower from 30 June 1548 until 3 August 1553.

Note that Foxe restricts this to 'papists'; two radical Protestants, Joan Bocher and George van Parris, were burned during Edward VI's reign.

This is one of the rare times when the account Foxe started with in the Rerum ended up being larger than what was printed in any of the editions of the Acts and Monuments. In the Rerum (on p. 201), Foxe gave the account of Thomas Dobbes, which was translated and reprinted in each edition of the Acts and Monuments. But Foxe also printed (on p. 202) brief accounts of the executions of two religious radicals, Joan Bocher and George van Parris, who were executed in 1550 and 1551. He also printed two stories condemning these executions. In the first story, John Rogers, who would become the first Marian martyr, was approached by an unnamed friend (generally assumed by scholars to be Foxe himself) and urged to intercede on behalf of Joan. When Rogers not only refused to intervene, but also defended burning as merciful, given the heinousness of heresy, his friend bitterly (and prophetically) told him that one day he might receive such gentle treatment himself (Rerum, p. 202). Foxe also included an account of Humphrey Middleton, another future Marian martyr, being accused of heresy by Cranmer during Edward VI's reign, and grimly prophesying that Cranmer would one day find himself in a similar position (Rerum, p. 202).

All of these stories are an indication of the strength of Foxe's aversion to punishing heretics with death. Yet only the account of Thomas Dobbes was reprinted in the Acts and Monuments. (The executions of Joan Bocher and George van Parris are merely mentioned in the Acts and Monuments, see later in Book 9). Foxe was unwilling the surrender the moral high ground by admitting that his martyrs were persecutors themselves. And an admission that Protestants persecuted each other, only served to support the validity of Catholic charges of Protestant disunity. However, Foxe did add one short account to this section, that of John Hume. This, however, did not end in an execution and was thus fairly innocuous.

Most of Foxe's sources for these persecutions drew on his own experiences or on accounts from informants. However, Foxe's limited knowledge of the case of John Hume, was entirely based on the sparse entry on the case in Cranmer's register.

Thomas S. Freeman

These articles included beliefs that Foxe himself regarded as heretical, such as denial of Christ's human nature and denial of the Trinity. Foxe was reluctant to even rehearse such deviant theology.

Foxe first printed this account of Thomas Dobbe in the Rerum (p. 201), which means that he obtained this account during his exile. The account, which must have been received from a informant, is rather puzzling. Two of the individuals named (John Taylor and Roger Hutchinson) were prominent evangelicals and are very unlikely to have objected to Dobbe's wishing to marry. Perhaps there were other, more personal reasons, for Dobbe's bad relations with the other fellows. Perhaps Dobbe's religious beliefs were more radical than Foxe describes. In any case, it would seem there is more to this story.

Foxe probably obtained this brief account of John Hume from Archbishop Cranmer's register. It reads very much like an official account and Foxe makes it clear that his only source was some sort of document. Unfortunately, no such account survives in Cranmer's register. However, in the section of the register containing heresy trials (LPL, Cranmer Register, fos. 67r-79r), there are two missing folios (76r-77v). It is quite possible that the information on Hume was on one of these missing folios; in fact, the folios may have been sent to Foxe and never returned. No one (including Foxe), knows how this case turned out, but presumably no action was taken against Hume.

Henry VIII's will established a council of regency in order to govern during the minority of Edward VI. It excluded leaders of the conservative opposition: Stephen Gardiner, Edmund Bonner, and Thomas Howard II, 3rd Duke of Norfolk. On 31 January 1547, only three days following the death of King Henry, the council of regency elected Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford, Lord Protector, a traditional assignment for the eldest uncle of a minor king. Seymour was created Duke of Somerset on 17 February at the same time that John Dudley became Earl of Warwick. Seymour had effected a coup d'état that enabled him to govern effectively as king and, in violation of the royal will, to replace the legitimate council of regency with a Privy council that he selected personally. Contrary to the tradition, this council did not unite in support of ensuing religious reforms. Protector Somerset acted without consulting councilors, sometimes falsifying records to suit his purposes. His overbearing circumvention of the Privy council contributed to the eventual alienation of almost all of his original supporters. Hoak, King's Council, pp. 167, 177-79, 189-90, and passim.

John King

Supporters of Edward VI praised him as a New Josiah on the ground that the boy king who purged Israel of idolatrous images and shrines (2 Kings 22-23) provided a precedent for pursuing a legally dubious policy of religious reform during the minority of King Edward. King, Tudor Royal Iconography, pp. 93-94, 160; Aston, King's Bedpost, pp. 26-36.

Stephen Gardiner disputed the legality of pursuing ecclesiastical reformation during a royal minority. Alford, Kingship and Politics, pp. 57-58.

Beginning in May 1547, the royal visitation of all English bishoprics represented the opening move toward the introduction of changes in religion. It was the first action of this kind since Thomas Cromwell's vice-gerency over the Church of England. The six parties of commissioners were packed with evangelical sympathizers. MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer, pp. 369-70.

Dehort: to exhort against taking action.

Foxe paraphrases the Royal Injunctions of Edward VI. The King's Printer, Richard Grafton, published Iniunccions geuen by the Kynges Maiestie in seven separate editions on 31 July 1547 (STC 10087.5-10091). In addition to reaffirming the Royal Injunctions of 1538, these injunctions advance in a firmly Protestant direction.

The Act for Submission of the Clergy (1534), Act of Supremacy (1534), and related legislation.

Injunction 1.

I.e., 'creature'. Injunction 2 orders clerics at least on a quarterly basis preach in favor of the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone and against superstitious works including veneration of religious images and relics or pilgrimages to shrines containing them. The sermons on faith and good works in the Book of Homilies (see Injunction 32), almost certainly composed by Archbishop Cranmer, reinforce the forthright Protestant provisions of this article.

Injunction 3 cautiously endorses iconoclastic destruction of images 'abused' by pilgrimages, offerings, or censings. It permits employment of images as objects of 'remembraunce, whereby, men may be admonished, of the holy liues and conuersacion of theim, that the saide Images do represent: whiche Images, if thei do abuse for any other intent, thei commit Ydolatrye in the same, to the great daungier of their soules' (a3v). Taken in conjunction with Injunction 28, this provision renders apparent the iconoclastic thrust of official policy.

Injunction 3 forbids the burning of candles except for two on the high altar. This apparently simple alteration resulted in a radical change in the appearance of churches where, in accordance with the 1538 Royal Injunctions, candles had continued to flicker before roods (oversize crucifixes above chancel screens) and sepulchers. Duffy, Stripping of the Altars, p. 451.