Ad Nicolai Selnecceri librum, qui inscribitur Necessaria et brevis repetitio, etc. in quo exegesis saxonica oppugnatur, brevis, modesta et necessaria Lamberti Danaei responsio

Both, perhaps, not without reason, nor without judgment, since rhetoricians sometimes instruct that a Refutation should precede a confirmation, and among other figures of speech, this one (which grammarians call hysteron proteron the latter first) is not ineptly counted. We, however, not indeed after the manner of Mandabulus a reference to a mythic figure who gave away a growing treasure, implying a reversal of order as they say, but will begin from that which is prior by nature and made more polished by the author's long meditation and (as he himself confesses) repetition. Therefore, at this time, we will respond to this later writing of Selneccer, which is A Necessary and brief repetition of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper; and perhaps at another time to that which he titled Refutation of accusations, which although it was placed in the prior position, as we said, nevertheless by the law of nature and order it ought to have been later. For since every speech that is instituted about any matter ought to proceed from a definition and from a simple, brief, true, and clear declaration of the matter (all of which praises Selneccer himself fearlessly and easily attributes to himself and that writing of his), then indeed, that which he has meditated upon for a long time and much, and has as it were reworked, must be held, in my opinion, to be far more solid and firm than what was rashly blurted out recently in the very heat of contention, and at the same moment, under the impulse of anger, was immediately committed to the press and handed over to be printed. Furthermore,