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

SELNECCER, page 13.
For we add nothing of our own, we subtract nothing from the words of the testament, we innovate nothing, we change nothing, and we have no cause for departing from the opinion we recited concerning the true manducation of the true body and blood of Christ, even if human reason rebels. For all the pious know that the method of disputing must be applied. For it is one thing to be able to dispute, and to speak splendidly now about these things, now about those, in a philosophical and human manner, regarding which it is said, to lian akribes sykophantas poiei excessive precision makes for sophists/calumniators; but it is quite another thing to restore peace to the conscience.

DANEAU.
Let the pious, and those readers not already preoccupied by any party prejudice, judge whether those who interpret Christ’s sacramental speech sacramentally add anything or subtract from the words of the Testament: or whether it is rather those who explain these words, This is my body, by adding what follows: This, that is, In, Under, or With this bread is the corporeal, substantial, and essential true body of Christ itself present. We see the flood of Selneccer’s style here and elsewhere: We innovate nothing, we change nothing, we add nothing, we have no cause to depart from the opinion. But what does a repeatedly uttered oration cause other than disgust, or even (because a dish warmed up twice is death) nausea?