Assertio orthodoxae doctrinae de duabus naturis Christi, servatoris nostri, opposita blasphemiis & sophismatibus Simonis Budnaei nuper ab ipso in Lituania evulgatis

upon those who embrace a sentiment different from
his own. In which, indeed, I marvel at his
inconsideration or temerity, that he dared to write
these things to your Magnificence, and with the same
inconsistency judges similarly regarding other great
men. For he calls Martin Luther a man of God
and an incomparable man; Johannes a Lasco, a man
than whom Sarmatia original: "Sarmatia," referring to Poland/Lithuania has never produced
anyone either more learned or more excellent in piety.
Rightly and truly he attributes these praises to them,
but since it is established that they embraced a
different sentiment, how could one be excellent in
piety and the other a man of God, if both (as he
himself thinks) erred in the foundation of faith,
and taught old wives' tales, things more vain than
Sicilian trivialities, Antichristian ravings, fostered a
most pestilent dogma, and led many men to destruction?
We also acknowledge Luther as a man of God,
although there is a grave contest between us and
him, truly not concerning the foundation of faith, but
only concerning the mode of the presence of Christ's
body in the holy Supper. For since we both
acknowledge the true and life-giving communion of
the faithful with Christ the head, which is sealed
to us in the holy supper, and there is only
controversy as to how the true body of Christ, the
bread of eternal life, by which no one doubts we are
fed and given life, is present in the Lord's Supper,
we do not think those who differ from us and err in
this matter are straightaway leading men to
destruction, and therefore we nonetheless feel and
speak of them piously and honorably. But by what
conscience Budny could praise those for their piety
whom he testifies