Annotatio V §.IV: Author’s three charges — doubt Institution; deny presence; erase sacramental vs spiritual
The Author first tries to break Strimesius’s claim that denying Oral (absolute or as to the unworthy) does not wound faith’s foundation — even if Oral were nearer the Spirit’s mind.
Three charges (§. XI): (1) to doubt Oral is to doubt clear Institution words and make Christ a liar; (2) denying Oral denies true substantial presence; (3) it denies sacramental eating and erases spiritual/sacramental distinction.
Latin
Itaque mea prius enervaturus Autor, quibus perhibueram, Negationem Oralis Manducationis Corporis Christi, tam absolutam, quàm ad indignos relatam, haud lædere fundamentum fidei, etiamsi à verô aberrare, & affirmatio opposita, Spiritûs S. menti vicinior esse, concedatur; dicit (1) Non exigui momenti rem esse, Doctrinam in Scriptura clare & perspicuè propositam, vocare in dubium & fidem verbis Christi detrahere, de toto sympeplegmenô pronunciantis: Edite, bibite, hoc est Corpus meum. (2) Eum qui negat Oralem Corporis Christi Manducationem, etiam negare veram & Substantialem præsentiam ejusdem in Cœna. (3) Eundem negare Manducationem Sacramentalem, nec ullum inter Manducationem Spiritualem & Sacramentalem discrimen reliquum facere §. XI.