assured this is our case in the adoration of the Host And hence wee cannot but condemn your intollerable rashness in saying that it s an intollerable boldness to auer that there is the same reason for the adoration of the Host as there is for the adoration of Christs Diuinity for if you vnderstand our Doctrin which is that there is as much reason for adoring an Host truly consecrated as there is for adoring the Diuinity of Christ it is most manifestly true wheras Faith teacheth vs that the Host truly consecrated is God and man Iesus Christ really present If you do not vnderstand our doctrin its intollerablerashness in you to censure what you do not vnderstand Half Communion We will declare our Tenet by a comparison of the Communion with the Sacrament of Baptism both are commanded by Christ if one be not born again by vvater and the Spirit he shall not enter into the King dom of Heauen Io. c. 6. and in the same chap. if you do not eate the sllesh of the son of Man and drink his bloud you shall not haue lyfe in you In the Sacrament of Baptism you must distinguish the substance and essence of it from the circumstances and manner of receiuing it The substance and essence of it consists in being regenerated by water for that is required by Christ expresly in the text the manner how this regeneration is made is by one total immersion of the Body in water or by three distinct immersions or without any total immersion but by sprinkling some principal part of the Body with water what concerns the essence of this Sacrament to be by vvater is indispensably requisit cannot be altered what concerns the manner of receiuing it Christ left that arbitrary to the Church and did not oblige either to one total immersion nor to three nor to sprinkling but to either of the three wayes Hence it is that though Christ did baptize the Apostles with a total immersion of their Bodyes as Ancient Authors do auerr if by three or one immersion wee know not though this manner of Baptizing by a total immersion was practised by the first age and some ages of the Church and that wee do not reade that Baptism should haue been administred in those ages by a sprinkling of the Body with water yet the Church in succeeding ages for iust reasons requiring it has seueral tymes altered this manner some tyme they ordained that Baptism should be giuen with three total immersions in hatred of the Heresy of them that denyed three persons in God and to signify that there was in God but vnity as well in Person as in Nature would not baptize but with one immersion Some tyme the Church commanded Baptism to be giuen with one immersion in opposition of Hereticks that would not baptize but with three to signify that the three Persons were of different Natures Thus you will find that in the 50. Canon of the Apostles three immersions are commanded in the 4. Council of Toledo but One S. Gregory writing to S. Leander sayes it may be administred either of both wayes and lastly the Church in consideration that many Infants especially in the Northren Kingdoms through the Coldness of the Climat dyed by the total immersion of their Bodyes commanded the Sacrament should be administred with the sprinkling of some principal part of the Body with water and this manner is vsed also by the Protestants who do not rebuke the Church for omitting the triple immersion practised by the Apostles Thus in the Eucharist wee must distinguish the essence of it from the circumstances That consists in eating and drinking the Body and blood either vnder Accidents of bread alone or wine alone or bread and wine together this is indispensably requisit to neither in particular did Christ oblige vs but left it arbitrary to the Church to determin as tymes and iust occasions required and that Christ did not oblige vs to any of those different manners in particular but left it arbitrary to the Church first the text it self declares it for when he gaue the Cup he did not absolutly command the vse of it saying Do this in commemoration of me but Do this as often as you shall drink in commemoration of me which is not a command of Drinking but when wee shall drink to do it in commemoration of him Secondly wee haue a positiue example of Christ himself that once gaue the Communion in the accidents of bread alone to his disciples in the way towards Emaus wee haue no positiue example in Scripture that Christ should baptize som tymes by sprinkling the Body with water sometymes by one total immersion and yet wee confess that Baptism may be administred any of these three wayes as the Church shall ordain wee haue no positiue example that Christ should haue giuen the Eucharist sometymes in Leuen sometymes in Azim bread and yet the Church may giue it in either and hauing a positiue example that he gaue the Sacrament once in bread and wyne and once at least in bread alone why cannot wee conclude that the Church may do so also Christ gaue the Sacrament at night is it therefore it cannot be giuen in the morning Christ gaue it after the corporal repast is it therefore it cannot be receiued fasting Christ washed his Apostles feet when he gaue it is it therefore needfull to wash the receiuers feet That non obstante of the Council of Constance that so much surprises poore Mr Sall as if the Council had been presumptious in prohibiting the vse of the Chalice hauing confessed that Christ and the Apostles gaue it to the faithfull argues nothing of presumption for as the Council knew that Christ and the Apostles gaue the Cup to the Layty so it knew also that sometymes they gaue only the Bread and therby did vnderstand that it was left in the power of the Church to giue the Sacrament in either of both kinds Vpon this ground did the Council of Constance and does the Church now prohibit the Chalice iust reasons mouing them to it First that if the Cup should be giuen that would hinder the frequent Communion to which the Church doth exhort vs much for wherethe wine is scant and deere and the Communicants thousands in number the expences would be great secondly People would conceiue a horror against the Communion if they were obliged to drink out of the same Cup with sickly Persons perhaps with contagious diseases Thirdly the Communion would be morally impossible to many that can not endure the tast of wyne Fourthly the danger of the effusion of some drops in a great multitude of Communicants these and many other reasons haue moued the Church to command the vse of the bread alone Heere indeed comes very pertinently Mr Salls argument against the real Presence The Communion vnder both kinds is not needfull neither for the verifying of Christs words in the institution of the Sacrament nor for the effects which by it
are conueyed vnto vs not for the effects conueyed wheras what Christ promised to the Receiuers of the bread and Cup he promises to the Receiuers of the bread alone He that eats this bread shall liue for euer Io. 6.38 which he repeats three tymes in that chap. is not this all that is promised to the Receiuers of the Bread and Cup not for the verifying of Christ his words for that text Io. 6. which is the strongest that our aduersaryes can alleadge if you do not eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you shall not haue lyfe in you The particle and which seems to require the taking of the Cup as well as the bread Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 25. and Suar. in 3. par disp 71. sect 2. do manifestly proue that it must be vnderstood disiunctiuly and signify or and the sence of the text is if you do eat the flesh of the son of Man or drink his blood c. And that in the Hebrew or Syriach language wherin Christ did speake it signifyes so and that the Apostle S. Iohn writing in Greek retained the Hebrew Phrase Now that the particle and which vsually is Copulatiue somtymes in Scripture signifyes disiunctiuly they proue it by seueral examples of Scripture as when S. Peter was asked an alms Act. 3. he answered I haue no syluer and Gold meaning that he had neither syluer nor Gold otherwise the excuse was friuolous Ex. 15. and 21. He that vvill kill his Father and Mother let him dye the sence is Father or Mother Psal 1. the impious shall not ryse in iudgment and the sinners in the Council of the Iust The sence is nor the sinners So in that text if you do not eat the flesh of the son of Man and drink his blood c. The word and must be taken in a disiunctiue sence and signify he that vvill not eat his flesh nor drink his blood which is declared by Christ his subsequent words He that eats this bread shall liue for euer signifying that eating alone and consequently or drinking alone was sufficient But say you Christ Mat. 26. after giuing the bread and commanding to Eat gaue the Cup and said drink ye all of this If the Apostles only were commanded to drink they only were commanded to eat and so as the Layty is excluded from drinking they must be also excluded from eating and if the command of eating did reach to the Layty the command also of drinking did extend to them For to answer this Obiection you must obserue the difference betwixt a sacrifice and a Sacrament a sacrifice is a worship of God by the oblation of some visible thing which wee offer in homage of his greatness so that a sacrifice is directed to God and consists in an Action exhibited to his honour A Sacrament is a sensible sign giuen to a Creature for some spiritual inuisible effect so that the Nature of a Sacrament consists in the Reception of a visible sign by Gods Creatures and is directed to them for a spiritual effect The Eucharist is a Sacrifice a Sacrament It s a sacrifice of Christs body and blood vnder the Accidents of bread and wyne offered to God in representation of Christs body sacrificed on the Cross and that the representation should be full and compleat it was ordained in bread to signify his body broken for vs and in the liquid species of wyne to represent his blood effused This sacrifice is offered not only by the Priest and for the Priests that consecrats but by and for the whole congregation but because each Person of the multitude is not the immediat Minister of the sacrifice but all do offer it by the hands of consecrated Persons on whom Christ layd the commend of sacrificing Do this in commemoration of me commanding them to do as then he did it is not need full that each particular of the congregation should receiue either the bread or the vvyne consecrated as it is a sacrifice but that the immediat Minister who offers it for all should receiue both Hence I confess that Christ in the institution of this Sacrifice in the last supper directed his commands of eating and drinking only to the Apostles and their successors which he then consecrated Ministers of the Sacrifice and that neither the word Drink nor eat in those texts extend to oblige the Layty But the Eucharist is also a Sacrament for that very body and blood of Christ which he ordained to be a sacrifice to God vnder the accidēts of bread and wyne he ordained them to be giuen vnder the same Accidents to man for the spiritual nourishment of his soule I say vnder the same Accidents not that both kind of Accidents of bread and vvyne are needfull for the perfect receiuing of a Sacrament but either for the Eucharist in the Accidents of bread alone is a sensible sign containing the body and blood of Christ which nourishes the soul and giues lyfe euerlasting He that eats this bread shall liue for euer therefore its a perfect Sacrament whence I conclude that since it is giuen to Creatures as a Sacrament and not as a Sacrifice its sufficient they receiue vnder the sensible signs either of bread alone or wyne alone for in either its a perfect Sacrament and only in both a perfect Sacrifice If you ask where then if not in the words of the last supper was there any obligation layd on vs to receiue the Eucharist Sacramentally I answer Io. 6. if you do not eat the flesh of the son of Man c. Mr Sall concludes that by Suarez his confession 3. p. disp 42. s 1. the Accidents of bread and wyne are the constitutes of the Sacrament consequently by taking away the Cup wee depriue the Layty of the Sacrament Suarez sayes that the Accidents of bread and wyne and either of bread or vvyne are constituts of the Sacrament and throughout the whole disput 71. largely proues in three sections that the whole essence of the Sacrament is contained in either kind VVorshipp of Images Mr Sall sayes the worship of Images is expresly prohibited in the 20. Chap. Ex. which text also expresly prohibits the making of grauen Images or the lyknefs of any thing that is in heauen aboue and on the earth or vnder the earth or in the vvaters and then adds in a distinct verse thou shall not adore nor vvorship them If Mr Sall will admit no interpretation of that text but vnderstand it literally the Protestants are also transgressors who make pictures of the King Queen and seueral other things and yet the text prohibits the making of the likness of any thing If he will interpret the text to signify no image must be made to be adored wee say the text does not only prohibit the adoring of them but the making of them if notwithstanding he will still insist vpon his interpretation then he must giue vs also leaue to giue our interpretation
true but what Mr Sall might well condole is the sufferances of the Irish for not taking the oath of supremacy that the King of England is head of the Church and let him consider if it be not cruelty against soules to oblige them to sweare a thing that not only Catholicks but all sectaries out of England denies nay Caluin in cap. 6. Amos Prophetae sayes Qui tantopere extulerunt Henricum Regem Angliae fuerunt homines inconsiderati erant enim Blasphemi cum eum vocarent summum Caput Ecclesiae And the very Protestant Doctors themselues not agreeing in what sence and how far is it true that the King is supream Head of the Church the poore People must be forced to sweare it Then say you the Council of Lateran erred in assuming that Power when it decreed Princes who did not purge their Territories from Heresies should be depriued of their Lands You abuse the Council neither it nor any other Council did no assume that Povver as you say but finding that is was that the probable and perhaps as they supposed the most probable opinion of Diuins that the Church had that power grounded their fact vpon that opinion and issued their Decree of that punishment against such Princes And the Catholicks who deny any such Power in the Church do not nor any man cannot say the Council erred formally that 's to say blameably in that Decree because it was grounded vpon a probable opinion and it is not requisit in any Tribunal for the iustice of a Decree or sentence that it be grounded vpon infallible grounds And the Catholicks who deny that power do say that Decree was Materially erroneous because the opinion vpon which the Council was grounded was false whence you can only gather that the Council may err Materially only in matters of fact such as that was but in Doctrina fidei morum in Doctrin of Faith and Manners it cannot err neither formally nor Materially because it is assisted in that Doctrin constantly by Gods infallible Spirit Transubstantiation How strangly Mr Sall is blinded in calling vs Idolaters for belieuing Christs real personal Presence in the Sacrament and pag. 116. sayes wee will be damned for this and orher Tenets if ignorance does not excuse vs and yet the Lutherans who are the Elder Brethren of the pretended Reformation whom Protestants do embrace and receiue to their Communion belieue that real personal Presence of Christ as well as wee are they Idolaters also and will they be damn'd if ignorance does not excuse them or will it be pardonable in them and damnable in vs He sayes wee haue no pertinent text of scripture for it pag. 21. and 28. but I defy him with all his Diuinity to answer me to these two following syllogism grounded vpon most cleer texts first Luk. 22.19 eate this is my Body vvhich is giuen for you The text declares he gaue them somwhat what to eat wee say it was his Real Body and proue it He gaue to them that which he gaue for them the text sayes it eat this is my Body vvhich is giuen for you But what he gaue for them was not a figure but his real and true Body therefore what he gaue to them was not a figure but his true and Real Body it will be no answer to say that he gaue to them figuratiuely what he gaue for them really for the text makes no distinction betwixt what he gaue to them and what he gaue for them and if you presume to say that what he gaue to them was but a figuratiue why may not wee as well say that what he gaue for them was but a figure and so fetch from Hell again the Heresy of Marcion that what suffered for vs was but a Phantastical Body For to leade you the second syllogism obserue that when the Multitude Io. 6. said This saying is hard hovv can this man giue vs his flesh to eate Christ called them Vnbelieuers There be som of you vvho do not belieue nay sayes they are damnable vnbelieuers v. 54 He that vvill not eat of the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood shall not haue lyfe in him Obserue secondly that what the Iews though hard and impossible was that Christ should giue them to eate his true and real flesh for no man could apprehend any difficulty in that Christ should giue the figure of his Body wheras they did eat yearly the Paschal Lamb which they belieued to be the figure of the Messias Christ promised what they iudged hard and impossible what they iudged hard and impossible was not that he should giue a figure of his flesh but his true and real flesh therefore what Christ promised was not a figure but his real and true flesh and Mr Sall himself pag. 63. does acknowledge that the Iews did vnderstand Christ to haue spoken of his true and real flesh The Ievvs vnderstood him to haue spoken of a corporal and fleshy eating as the Papists do Now answer me I pray to this syllogism A damnable vnbelieuer is he who denies a Truth sufficiently proposed to him to be reuealed by God The Iewes in this occasion were damnable vnbelieuers and what they denied was a fleshy eating of his real Body as the Papists belieue it therefore Christ in this occasion did sufficiently propose vnto them a fleashy eating of his real Body as the Papists belieue it Pag. 63. he rayses an argument vpon this text for the figuratiue presence for sayes he the Ievvs vnderstood him to speake of a corporal and fleshy eating of his Body as Papists do and so represented difficulties that reason dictated against the lyke expressions as vvee did in the beginning of this discourse but he did correct their vnderstanding by his subsequent vvords v. 63. it is the spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing the vvords that I speak are spirit and lyfe by vvhich he dravveth them from the apprehension of a corporal eating to that of a spiritual feeding consequently Christ did meane a figuratiue spiritual eating of his flesh thus Mr Sall. By this you acknowledge that the Iews did not apprehend or think of any figuratiue eating consequently they could not either belieue it or deny it for how can a man deny that which neuer fell into his apprehensions tell vs therefore what is that which they denyed and denyed damnably they could not deny but that which they apprehended was spoken and what they apprehended as you confess was a corporal fleshy eating That therefore they must haue denyed therefore they were called vnbelieuers but how were they damnably vnbelieuers if Christ did not sufficiently and credibly propose vnto them a corporal and fleshly eating For none is bound to belieue if the reuealed Truth be not sufficiently and credibly proposed to him either therefore Christ his words My flesh is truly meat my Blood is truly drink did sufficiently and credibly propose a corporal eating of his real flesh or they ought not
to be called damnably vnbelieuers They would not belieue that corporal eating of his real flesh as you do not for the difficulties which reason dictated against the lyke expressions such as you and your fraternity proposes against them and therefore wee say that you are damnably vnbelieuers as they were and you and they are checkt by those wordes of Christ the flesh profiteth nothing it s the spirit that quickneth c which were not to check their vnderstanding for apprehending a corporal eating but to check their obstinacy that for the difficulties which natural reason did suggest against his expressions they would not belieue what he spoke and they vnderstood him to haue spoken the flesh profiteth nothing that was to say to them and to you that they must not iudge of this Mystery by the senses of the flesh nor by natural reason which is adquired by the help of the fleshy senses They cannot vnderstand how that can be It s the spirit that quickneth that 's to say it s the Diuine grace that must enlighten your vnderstandings to know and belieue how this can be Euen as when S. Peter confessed Chist to be the son of the liuing God Christ added it s not flesh and blood that reuealed that vnto thee but my Father that is in heauen Mat. 16 17. which was to say that it was not natural reason nor any knowledge of the senses of flesh or gotten by them but the grace of the heauenly Father that discouered that Mystery to him If you reade that passage in S. Io. 6. you will find that Christ as wee haue euidently proued proposed a corporal eating of his real flesh but did not at all then which is to be obserued propose the manner how he would giue his flesh to be eaten The obligation of the Iews was to belieue that he would giue it and not to dispute hovv that could be or in what manner but they began to think how it could be quomodo potest c. and their natural reason which only they consulted not vnderstanding that it could be otherwyse than by cutting his flesh in morsels to be giuen to them this appearing so absurd to human reason they absolutly denyed the possibility of the Mystery If Christ when he proposed to them his flesh for food had also proposed the manner that he intended of giuing it perhaps they would haue belieued but then he did not but only the eating of his flesh Their error was two fold the one that they denyed the possibility of giuing his flesh to be eaten for which they were called vnbelieuers the other was the cause why they denyed it because the manner of eating it which their natural reason proposed vnto them appeared absurd and therefore not conceiuing how it could be they denyed it therefore Christ checkt this their vnderstanding that the manner of giuing his flesh really to be eaten was in a spiritual way aboue what their natural reason could apprehend and sayd its the Spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing as wee haue expounded but they either because they did not vnderstand this expression or that they obstinatly adheared to their first denyal flincht from him I conclude with this reason you will not deny but that God might if he were pleased haue conuerted the substance of that bread which he took in his hands into his real flesh and Body as by his omnipotent word he created all things of nothing as he conuerted the water into wyne and as the bread which wee eat is by the heat of our stomacks conuerted into our flesh and blood suppose I pray that he intended at the last supper to make such a change or that now he descended from heauen to make it what words could he vse more significant to let vs vnderstand that he gaue vs his real and true Body vnder the Accidents of bread than those take eat this is my Body vvhich is giuen for you this is truly my flesh if in a serious discourse I promised you a horse would not you vnderstand that I intended to giue you a true horse would I perform my promomiss by giuing the figure of one since then that he might haue giuen vs if he had been pleased his true and real Body and that he spoke as if really he did intend it for he could not speake otherwyse if he did wee must vnderstand that he did intend it and gaue it If he did intend it when he spoke those words what could hinder him if he did not intend it was it sincerity and honesty to speake otherwyse than as he intended no more than if you hauing promised a horse would giue only the picture of one Let vs heare Mr Salls arguments he begins as the Iews with difficulties that reason proposes against so great a Mystery that the Accidents of bread should be without any substance to rest on that a Body would be at one tyme in many places that a well proportioned body should be confined to the smale compass of a wafer that the Accidents conuerted into vermin should produce a substance I would tyre my Readers patience if I did scan each triuial objection of these that has been a hundred tymes answered and our answers neuer replyed vnto You would haue shewen more wit Mr Sall and got more credit by replying to the answers that our writers giue to these obiections and especially Bellarmin from whom you borrow them than by repeating again a parcel of thrid bare tryfles against so great a Mystery in homage of which wee must captiuat our sence and reason as wee do to the Mystery of the Trinity which surpasseth all created intellects far more than this Mystery and yet not so cleerly expressed in Scripture as this is And if you must haue natural reason for to belieue this Mystery tell me what reason haue you for to belieue that the Bread and wyne giueth lyfe and grace to the worthy eater what proportion can reason find betwixt bread and Diuin grace what proportion betwixt the water of Baptism and spiritual Regeneration none if you do not appeale to the omnipotency of God by he same wee answer you also to shun tedious Tatalogyes that those difficulties you represent be impossible to Nature but they are possible to the omnipotent word of God But for the satisfaction of the Reader I will deliuer this argument in the terms of an ingenious man which once I discoursed with This Mystery said he is repugnant to sense and reason consequently it is not to be imposed on man if God will not haue him to renounce both It s repugnant to sense for what wee see tast and feel is but bread repugnant to reason for this ought prudently to conclude that the substance of bread is there vpon the testimony of the senses which perceiue the Accidents that by natural course are inseparable from the substance of bread I answer Reason prudently ought to conclude the substance of bread is there
interpret my silence his ovvn Victory and flattering himself vvith a fond persvvasion of the euidence of his arguments vvould think vnansvverable vvhateuer vvere not ansvvered And though he touches but lightly the Controuersy of the Necessity of an infallible liuing iudge of Controuersies yet for the respect I ovvn to Your Excellencie I endeauour to fathom this question I say for the respect I ovv to your Excellency for vvanting nothing to an accomplisht happiness vnder your Ex cy ' s Gouernment but Vnity of subiects in Faith and Communion the greatest obligation I can cast on them and testimony of my Duty I can exhibit vnto your Excellency is to shevv by vvhat means vvee may attain to that Vnity vvhich is no other than a liuing infailible Iudge from vvhom vvee are to receiue the true fence of Scripture I vvish my endeauors may be as successfull as my inclinations are reall to shevv my self in all occasions MY LORD Your Excellencies most Humble and faithfull seruant I. S. THE PREFACE IF Mens vvills were inclined to embrace the Truth as their vnderstandings are instructed to perceiue it wee might spare our labor in writing and cut short the number of Controuersy Books that the world is glutted with It 's inclination is wanting to the vvill not instruction to the vnderstanding Nature prouided the vnderstanding should direct the vvill That This should neither loue nor hate but as That should represent the obiect worthy of hatred or loue but the malice of Man has preposterously inuerted this order now it s not the practice that the vvill loue what the vnderstanding knows to be good but the vvill byass'd by Interest or other wordly considerations doth incline and in a manner force the vnderstanding by the violence of our Passions to adiudge for Good let it be what it will watheuer suits best with her depraued inclinations Hence there are as many Religions in the State as there are Interest 's that byass the Subiects wee should therefore lay our pens asyde and by a constant address of our prayers to God begg his Grace for to reform the vvill which with the cloud of her desordered Passions darkens our Reason and lessen our Transgressions which stupify our minds for certainly it 's not light that is wanting in so learned an age but sinsabound which indispose our eyes to see it But whylst our Aduersaries decry our Religion with such a stream of Pamphers as floweth dayly from the Press shall wee by our silence starue our Cause and make it suspected of weakness in giuing some ground by our muteness to think it cannot be defended or shall wee spare a little Ink to defend what wee are obliged to assert with our blood This hath moued me to write this Treatise and that as some receiue better nourishment from grosser meats than from delicat fare it may happen that some one may meet with these lynes and receiue more spiritual nourishment from them though rudely worded and in a plain style than from the learned Treatises eloquently penned by others Being a Debtor with S. Paul to the vvyse and vnvvise I endeauor to satisfy Them with the strength of my Reasons and These by stooping to vulgar expressions and sometymes to Periods which might be well omitted if only Men of quick Apprehensions were to reade what I write to open my fence to those of common vnderstanding What chiefly hath moued me to publish these lynes was the dismal fall of Mr Andrew Sall a Iesuit and a Professor of Diuinity and Controuersies as he tells vs all which qualifications if true makes his Reuolt from the Church more criminal He desires he may be answered seriously and soberly setting a syde all bitterness calumnies and railleries all which he shall easily obtain of me far from insulting ouer any Christian for his weakness but rather drawing from it a caution for my own safety I am not of the seuere opinion of those seruants who would pluck out presently the Tares which budded in the field of Corn Mat. 13. but aduised by the Master of the field to forbeare with patience zizania dimitti iussit sayes S. Chrysoft hom 30. in 9 Mat. vt poenitentiaelocus daretur He commanded the Tares should not be touched that there might be tyme for repentance Because as S. Augus saies serm 46. etiam ipsa zizania saepe in triticum mutantur Perhaps that which now is Tare may by the kindness of the soyle and celestial influence become vvheate which Experience hath often shewen to be a holsom aduice wheras many that haue fallen haue by Gods Mercy recouered and by repentance been raysed to a higher degree of Sanctity than the Innocent attained vnto who neuer did fall And if it be true what he sayes that some haue aspersed him with base calumnies and laid ambush for his lyfe I am so far from approuing that practice that I think it an effect of insolency and pride which blinds them not to consider their own fraylty and what they may be wee ought rather to pitty his misfortune and prayse God that has not suffered vs to split on the same Rock and since wee do not know but that by Gods mercy he may be reclaimed why should wee vpbraid him Pharisee-lyke whom for ought wee know God has designed to make by a generous conuersion and acknowledgment of his errour superior to vs in his Glory This iust moderation shall guide my pen neither can Mr Sall iustly complain that I exceed it in letting the world know that he spreads too much his Talents and imployments in empty Titles nay and fictitious ones Professor of Moral Theology in the Royal Colledge of Salamanca no more than in withe Hall at London Professor of Controuersies in the Irish Colledge of Salamanca and his Auditory composed of Spaniards french and Irish. No controuerfies taught in that Colledge nor has not been these forty years and how vnlikly it is to be true what he sayes may appeare in that he sayes his Auditory was composed of Spaniards a People that cannot endure any dispute of the Principles of Religion altogether strangers to matters of Controuersy and of frenchmen and it is as hard to find a french Studiant in the vniuersity of Salamanca or any other of Spain as a Swallow in winter especially that when Mr Sall was in Salamanca the war betwixt France and Spain was very hot and lykly they must haue got a Safe-conduct to go to be Mr Salls Schollers Professor of Diuinity in Pamplona Tudela and Palencia in Spain In the Colledges of Tudela and Palencia there is not nor was there at any tyme Diuinity taught in Pamplona indeed he was Professor of Diuinity for one or two years and had they been as content of him as he was of himself he would haue continued many more Rector of the Irish Colledge he was an imployment that requires no more than a mediocrity of discretion to gouern half a dozen Lads peaceably and I know not was it