In the initial stages, the glosses are less adversarial than in much of the Cranmer section because Ridley leaps in more forcefully and dictates the agenda for a time; the glosses mostly respect and emphasize his divisions and offer commentary on procedure and clarification. Once disputation itself begins, the glosses return to a more familiar pattern, with many logical points (e.g. 'A rule of Logike for confirmation of the argument' (1563), '* The rule of Logicke is this A propositione de tertio adiacente, ad eam quæ est de secundo, cum verbo recto significante existentiam, valet consequentia affirmatiue &c', 'This argument holdeth after the same rule as did the other before', 'This argument is not formall in the 2. figure').

As with Cranmer, there is one example of Foxe correcting Ridley (in this case clarifiying a point about the beneficiaries of the promise in bread and wine, '* No promise made to bread & wine, as they be common bread and common wine, but as they be sanctified & made sacramēts of the Lords body and bloud, they are not now called bread nor wine, haue a promise annexed to them, or rather (to say the trueth) annexed to the receauers of thē'). Several definitions of obscure terms are in all editions ('Anthropophagi, are a kinde of brutishe people that feed on mens flesh', 'Anagogicall sense is that which hath a high and misticall vnderstanding that lyeth abstruse & profound vnder the externall letter'). A feature emerging for the first time in this section is the taunting of the martyrs' tormentors with their embarrassing past actions ('D. Smith purposing to write for the mariage of Priestes', 'But where were these Iudges in K. Edwardes tyme', 'D. Weston in K. Edwards dayes subscribed' and 'The Iudges * geue an vntrue verdite: for D. Cranmer meaning by the Counsell, spake no word of Ridley'). It may be that Foxe simply took the opportunity as it arose, but it may also be that the margin's accusations partly served to distract the reader from Ridley's cautious response to the question of his involvement in setting forth the catechism.

This section includes a portion of the 1563 text which is unusually well annotated. This spate of marginalia occurs largely around pp. 961-62 (from the gloss '3'), and does not seem to be focussed on a particular subject (it straddles Ridley's response to the second and third propositions). Many of the references on p. 962 are (unnecessarily, to judge from later practice) repeated pointers to Hebrews 9 and Hebrews 10. They give the impression of an uncertain experiment in adding marginalia in this early version, which may be compared with the grounding of much of the later annotation in the layout and other features of 1563.

As with Cranmer's disputation, several of the glosses offer comments on the sacrament. The gloss 'The Analogie of the sacramēt is the similitude and likenes whiche they haue with the thinges they represent' gives a definition of the analogy of the sacraments, once again emphasising their representative function; the glosses 'The true presence of Christes body in the Supper not denyed' and 'The fayth & confession of D. Ridley in affirming the true presēce in the Sacrament' point to a discussion of the true presence, and to Ridley's belief in it; the gloss 'Christes abode in heauen is no let for him to appeare on earth when he will, but whether he wil, that must be proued. Againe it is one thing to appeare on earth, an other still in the Sacrament, and to be present the same time with his body in heauen, whē he is bodely present in earth' once again points the reader back to the sacramental significance of the discussion of Christ's presence in heaven: these cases are less a matter of comment than of making clear to a less learned reader what was familiar to the disputants. There is a group of references which emphasise the singleness of Christ's sacrifice ('One Christ but not one body, nor after on bodely substance in all places'; 'One Christ and one sacrifice in all places, and how: to wit, christ by veritie the sacrifice by, signification' and 'How one christ is offered in many places at once'): this relates to the implicit opposition between protestant and catholic, the former recognizing the all-sufficiency of a single sacrifice, the latter misled by carnality to endless, unintentionally parodic re-enactments. This also links to the rules of polemical engagement: the importance of presenting oneself as a defender of what is holy and truthful was paramount in mounting these attacks, and the implication that the central rite of the catholic church was a continuous performance of ingratitude and disdain for Christ gave license for just anger.

The gloss 'Quam sit Stupida & crassa responsio tua' is a Latin transcript of insults translated in the text; the point of the translation would seem to be to leave the reader in no doubt of the vehemence of the precise terms employed: once again, a contrast is drawn between the moderate and the railing protagonists. See also 'Sacrifice called vnbloudy is nothing els but a representation of the bloudy Sacrifice of Christ' and 'D. Weston bloweth vp the triumph' (attacking Weston's arrogance). For examples of 1583 being less well produced than earlier editions, see the glosses 'Christes appearing on the earth sometime, taketh not away his residēce in heauen. How christ appeared in earth', 'Quam sit Stupida & crassa responsio tua', 'Of this Catechisme read before pag. 1357'. The gloss 'The protestantes falsely belyed to teach nothing but a figure in the sacrament' uses 'protestantes', a word not in the text, but perhaps more acceptable (or at least accepted) by 1570.