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

who raise questions contrary to piety and good morals. I feel and judge the same concerning the questions of these men, that those who raise such things are truly worthy of punishment and penalty. Nor do we say this because we lack reasons by which we could refute them. For what? Do we believe that the prince of philosophers lacked reasons by which he could prove that parents should be loved, and that perhaps, due to a lack of arguments, he judged those who doubt whether parents should be loved worthy of punishment? Or did he not rather judge this doubt to be impious and harmful to good morals, and that petulant minds should not be allowed to call into question those things which cannot be denied except impiously? Likewise, we also, when we say that those who call the deity of Christ our Savior into doubt are worthy of punishment, are not indeed destitute of arguments and scriptural testimonies by which our opinion is confirmed, but we are pained by the blasphemies with which the holy majesty of our Savior is afflicted. And since these mysteries, which surpass the grasp of the human mind, should be adored rather than scrutinized, we judge that such men—whom the authority of the scriptures and the perpetual consensus of the whole church do not move at all—must be restrained by the fear of punishment, and their petulance, profane curiosity, and impious arrogance must be repressed and chastised by penalties. But since, due to our sins so deserving, the impious dogmas of these men are spread in our age more widely than in any other century, and there are not lacking those who receive and defend them with applause, necessity also compels us to dispute