Annotatio V §.VIII reply (1): solace from presence not Oral alone; we dispute only corporal/oral-carnal
Reply (1): good that he will not hang solace on Oral alone but fetches true presence — yet he wrongly says we also dispute presence and true sacramental (spiritual) eating.
As with Danhauer: we never dispute spiritual presence or spiritual sacramental eating with Lutherans; we forever oppose corporal or oral-carnal
Latin
Respondeo (1) Bene habet, quòd Autor soli Manducationi corporis Christi Orali in tantum non fidit, ut succum solatii ab ea dependere arbitretur, præsentiam potiùs veram corporis & sanguinis Christi huc arcessat, & ab hac, eóque ab ipso corpore & sanguine Christi succum solatii omnem derivet; Sed perperam, & hîc, & alibi, tùm suprâ, tùm infrà, non de sola Manducatione Orali & Indignorum, sed de ipsâ etiam præsentia, & vera Sacramentali Manducatione, nos inter disputari arguit; id quod retrò Præceptori suo Danhauer o castigandum commisimus, nunquam & nusquam de præsentia corporis Christi, vel de vera sacramentali Manducatione, Spiritualibus puta, cum quoquam Lutheranorum, disceptaturi, oblocuturi interim perpetuò tùm Corporali indeque locali & naturali præsentiæ, tùm Orali, eóque eatenus & naturali & carnali Manducationi corporis Christi, sive à Lutherano, sive ab alio quocunque doceatur.