§.VIII: Reply — honor the Philippica; later intra-Lutheran fights were not substance-changes; Art. X twin shift neither substantial nor more Calvinist
To those more modest Dorscheans and Museans we answer:
First, we take what they have said honorably enough of Philip's Confession — and what presses hardest of all: it is not to be odiously harassed.
Second, the insertions later fought over among Augsburg-Confession theologians for example whether the Gospel is a sermon of repentance did not change the substance of the truth set out in the Augsburg articles. Had they done so, those same theologians would not have been fighting the points among themselves.
Third, we contend that Article X's twin mutation — the chief sweat in the attackers' eyes, as if Melanchthon had altered it for the Calvinists, though the article was framed solely to explode pontifical transubstantiation — neither introduces a substantial change, nor favors the so-called Calvinian sense in any part more than the unvaried Article X itself already does.
Latin
Quibus Dorschaeanis modestioribus & Museanis respondemus (1.) Accipiendo quae de Confessione Philippi honorificè satis edisserunt, quaeque omnino urgent, non odiose eam exagitandam esse. (2.) advertendo, Confessioni Philippicae inserta ea, quae postea in controversiam vocarunt Aug. Conf. Theologi inter se (v. g. Num Evangelium sit Concio poenitentiae &c.) non talia fuisse, quae in Substantiam Veritatis, Articulis Augustanae Confessionis expositae, mutationem aliquam intulerunt, alioquin non talia fuissent, quae Augustanae Confess. Theologi, se inter, in controversiam vocassent. (3.) Contestando, articuli Xmi Mutationem duplicem, quae oppugnantibus eam maxima in oculis sudes est, (quasi in gratiam Calvinianorum facta, quae explodendae Pontificiae Transubstantiationi instituta unicè fuerat) nec Mutationem Substantialem inferre, nec Calvinianae, quam ajunt, Sententiae ulla ex parte magis favere, quam ipse Articulus X. invariatus ei favet.