Reply to the second: the Author himself shows his Oral-fundamentality case has no force unless propped by the worn fiction that the Reformed deny Christ’s bodily presence in the Supper.
Even Beza — whom the Disputant cites here — exploded that fiction, writing that the Lord’s Supper is emptied if one will not confess Christ’s Flesh most present in the Supper by faith.
Latin
Ad posterius: Autorem in aprico ponere, disputationem suam pro Oralis Manducationis Fundamentalitate, ullius roboris fieri aliter haud posse, quin suffulciatur protrito satis commentô de negata à Reformatis corporis Christi in S. Cœna, præsentia, etiam ab ipso Beza, Disputatori nostro hic loci allegato, prorsus explosô rejectóque, quando Sacram Domini Cœnam evacuari scribit, si minus quis per fidem, præsentissimam esse Christi Carnem, in Cœna fateatur.