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

is, without a doubt, established by him as carnal, corporeal, and finally physical (whatever he may try to pretend). But we demonstrate from the word of God that the true mode of this so sacred conjunction of ours with the flesh of Christ is both spiritual and hyperphysikon supernatural, which does not in the least require the corporeal presence of the flesh of Christ itself or its assistance with the signs. Finally, Selneccer writes that Christ is present in a peculiar way with his body and blood in the Supper, and we also acknowledge this. But we both differ in this: that he thinks it follows necessarily that if Christ is present in that peculiar way in the Supper with his body and blood, then it must be that he is present by corporeal presence and by the substantial and essential association, assistance, and conjunction of the body of Christ with the signs; in short, by the real situation and collocation of the flesh of Christ in these lands. We, however, teach that this presence of the flesh and blood of Christ with the signs is the same in the Supper as it is in Baptism, as it is in the preaching of the Word itself—which he himself and his Achilles, Chemnitius (for he admires this man alone everywhere, even though he formerly considered Andreas Jacobus a little brother, but now, because of some grave disagreement between them regarding the primacy of the German Churches, he strenuously despises him), taught—namely schetikēn relative, not sōmatikēn corporeal; energētikēn efficacious, not ousiōdē essential; just as we also said before.