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

they confirm individual points with the scriptures. For when it is asked, for example, whether the logos Word in John ought to be understood as the substantial, eternal Word, or as an oracle of God, or even as Jesus the mere man called the Word because he preached the Word of God: here Irenaeus and Justin, who heard the successors of the Apostles and sustained the punishment of death for the faith of Christ, teach that the substantial Word must be understood, through which all things were created by God. And by bringing forward other passages of the scriptures, they show that the Logos Word, existing from the beginning, created this world, and that the same person redeemed and repaired man, his creature, who had fallen into sin and death. All pious teachers and martyrs teach the same with constant consensus. On the contrary, Blandrata Giorgio Biandrata, a prominent anti-Trinitarian physician and reformer with his followers teaches that by the name of the Word, a mere man is signified, and he denies that the world was created by him, but imagines that only a new world and a new creature were made by Christ. Since he departs not only from the opinion of the ancients but also from the clear, simple, and genuine sense of the words, why should I take his interpretation as an oracle and simply reject the interpretation of the ancients, which is confirmed by many scriptures, and call it Antichristian? I could never approve the judgment of those who abuse the mere name of the church and think that all the opinions of the fathers must be approved without judgment or selection, and who falsely feign a consensus of antiquity to protect received errors. But I no less abhor those who dare to shake all the writings of the ancients from the hands of men...