Much of the text in this section is concerned with the discussions between Bradford and various catholic interlocutors. Many of the glosses give prompts and cues to the ebb and flow of this debating, with a good deal of quiet and not-so-quiet moulding of readers' expectations and perceptions in Bradford's favour. There are several examples of a marginal gloss denouncing a catholic assertion as untrue on the strength of it being about to be objected to by Bradford (e.g. 'Boner agayne commeth in with an other vntruth'; 'An other vntruth in Winchester'). At one point when Winchester changes the subject, the gloss announces that he has lost his 'holde' ('Winchester leaueth his holde'; see also the gloss 'Winchester driuen to eate his owne wordes'). A syllogism in the margin assumes that which the catholic interrogator it is directed against sought to disprove ('Argument who so receaue the body of Christ do receiue the fruite and grace of lyfe: no wicked do receiue fruite and grace of lyfe. Ergo, no wicked men receiue the body of Christ'). In addtion to all this there are more direct attacks. The dubious legality of holding Bradford is often alluded to in the margin ('Bradford committed to the tower most vniustly'; 'M. Bradford imprisoned without a cause'; 'Bradford condemned without iust cause but as was gathered at his iudgement against him'; 'Bradford imprisoned for that, for which he had the lawes on his side'), and the point that is made in the case of other martyrs, that they have been imprisoned in order to generate evidence rather than on the strength of any evidence, is also used ('M. Bradford imprisoned not for matter they had, but for matter they would haue agaynst him'). Foxe emphasises anything embarrassing to the papists, producing yet another reference to Winchester's De Vera Obedientia ('Herodes oth quoth Winchester'; 'Winchest. De vera obedientia') and reporting Tunstal's admission about the relative novelty of the doctrine of transubstantiation ('Note how these Bishops themselues do graunt, that the time was, when transubstantiation was not defined by the Church. Tonstall sayth it was more then 800: yeares after Christ'). The catholic preference for acting in darkness is also gets mentioned ('Bradford kept in the Vestrey till darke night'; 'M. Bradford had from the Counter to Newgate by night'), as does Winchester's apparent preference of vows to men over those to God ('The preposterous iudgement of Winchester, to care so little for an othe to God, and so much for his vowe to the Pope'; 'Winchester stumbling at vowes made to mā and leaping ouer solemne othes made to God') which ties in with Foxe's general complaint against catholicism: that it fails to give due weight to the genuinely divine over the merely human. The standard characterisation of the exasperation of the papists in the face of resolved protestants is used three times: twice they are portrayed as 'in a chafe', and once as in a 'pelting chafe' ('The Frier in a chafe'; 'Wynchester in a chafe'; 'Wynchester in a pelting chafe'). An implicit marginal unmasking occurs in the description of Seton as 'flattering' and then as one who 'rayleth' soon after ('The flattering commendation of D. Seton to Mayster Bradford'; 'D. Seton rayleth agaynst M. Bradford').

While in comparison to certain moments in the Oxford disputations Foxe's notes are on the whole less intrusive, the level of aggression in the glosses increases somewhat during Bradford's discussion with Harpsfield; this may be because they go through a more diverse agenda than is usually the case. Alternatively, the fact that they agree on quite a few points and have quite a civilised discussion for the most part may have encouraged Foxe to display more opposition in the glosses. Pendleton is ungenerously treated, for the straightforward reason that he was a turncoat ('Pendleton belike would study out the reasons that moued him to alter, for he had none ready to shew'). As for the contribution of the glosses to the portrayal of Bradford, his ongoing pastoral enthusiasm despite his imprisonment is noted ('Bradford preacheth and ministreth the Sacrament in prison'; 'Byshop Farrar confirmed in the truth, by Iohn Bradford'; see also the gloss 'Note well the Popes way to bring men to fayth', which bemoans the catholic use of imprisonment as a means of conversion), as is the affection shown to him by the people ('The reuerēt regard and affection of the people to M. Bradford'; 'The people in Cheapside bad Bradford farewell') and the tears of the prisoners at his departure ('The prisoners take their leaue of Bradford with teares'). The glosses set Bradford up as the charismatic pastor that his letters in the following section prove him to have been. He also enjoys the martyr's privilege of forseeing his own death ('Bradford dreameth of his burning, according as it came to passe') and is shown to be unworldly ('Bradford content with a little sleepe'). His tearfulness ('Bradfordes teares') and (especially) the mention of his name in connection with mortification ('Bolde confidēce and hope of Gods word and promise, semeth strange among them which are not exercised in mortification') should be read in part as preparatives for the joyfully self-condemnatory nature of the impending letters. There are several cross-references to other places in the book; 1570 has a correct reference to all three citations, 1576 to one, in all other cases, no specific reference is given. There is one example of a gloss badly placed after 1570 and an example of a scriptural reference wrong in 1563 (1. Cor. 12) but correct thereafter (1. Cor. 11).

Bradford's leaving the employment of Sir John Harrington was not this simple. In his final examination of Bradford, Stephen Gardiner accused Bradford of having cheated Harrington out of ?140 and then becoming a 'gospeller'. Bradford indignantly and absolutely denied this accusation. Thomas Sampson, in a brief life of Bradford, which prefaced a 1574 edition of two of Bradford's sermons, wrote that Bradford, while in the service of Harrington, treasurer of Henry VIII's camp during the 1544 expedition to France, had taken money from the royal treasury without Harrington's knowledge. Later Bradford heard a sermon by Hugh Latimer, demanding the return of ill-gotten gains. This sermon seared Bradford's conscience and, following Latimer's counsel, he restored the money (Bradford [PS], I, pp. 32-33).

Sampson's account is partially confirmed by the correspondence of Bradford with his friend John Traves, most of which was first published by Foxe in his 1583 edition. A letter written by Traves to Bradford, probably written about February 1548, contains Traves's advice to Bradford on restoring the money (BL, Harley 416, fos. 33r-34r, printed in Bradford [PS], I, pp. 1-4). In a letter written to Traves a few weeks later, Bradford stated that Latimer had advised him to write to Harrington, giving his former employer two weeks to make restitution. If Harrington refused, Bradford was to report the matter to the duke of Somerset and the privy council. A letter of 22 March 1548, from Bradford to Travers, describes Bradford's efforts to force a reluctant Harrington to return the money. A few weeks later Bradford wrote that Harrington had agreed to repay the money before 'Candlemas next coming' (2 February 1549) and that Latimer thought that this was sufficient. Apparently Harrington did not meet this deadline; in the autumn of 1549, Bradford wrote to Traves that Harrington had promised to make the payment on the following Candlemas. And in a letter to Traves written around February 1550, Bradford rejoiced that restitution had finally been made in full.

From these letters, it would appear that Bradford was a party to some financial irregularity connected with Harrington's official duties on the French campaign in 1544. Years later, his conscience was stirred by Latimer, and following Latimer's advice, he forced Harrington to return the ill-gotten money.

The finest quality wheat bread [OED].

It is not clear what particular abuses Bradford objected to. Perhaps he objected to wearing vestments. It is interesting that Foxe added the passages about Ridley allowing Bradford's ordination to proceed in the 1563 edition. In the early 1560s, some English bishops, such as Edmund Grindal, had ordained clergy, permitting them to officiate without wearing the hated vestments (Collinson [1979], pp. 172-73). Foxe probably added these passages to endorse this policy.

In some of his letters Bradford mentions places in which he preached and it is an impressive list: Manchester, Ashton-under-Lyne, Bolton, Bury, Wigan, Liverpool, Mottrine, Stepport, Winsley, Eccles, Prestwich, Middleton, Radcliff and Chester, as well as Walden in Essex. Apparently Bradford divided his time between Lancashire and Cheshire, on the one hand, and London and Essex on the other.

Bradford was accused of sedition on the occasion of Bourne's sermon; Foxe is careful to characterize Bourne's sermon itself as seditious as a way of defusing the charge against Bradford.