Annotatio secunda Gregorii de Valentia societatis Iesu de controversia ubiquetaria

For even if I think that prudent and learned men have already been satisfied regarding what pertains to the matter, and even if I fear that the foolish and crude cunning of Schmidelin will not harm them at all, one must nevertheless take care lest perhaps some Eve—that is, some simple person—be deceived by the serpent through his deceitful lips and Germanic hissing. Although Schmidelin neither ought to nor can deny that he acted very unjustly (unless perhaps he might seem, rather, timid) by writing only in German against an annotation composed in Latin by a Spaniard, which some other person then translated into German. Unless, perhaps, this provost of Tübingen is delighted by the Spanish language, and in turn expected a response in Spanish by the same right from the Spaniard, whom he himself nonetheless claims can neither read nor write German.

In his German writing, p. 3.

Ibid., p. 2.

For the fact that he mentions in his German booklet that he responded in Latin to the Spaniard’s Latin treatise, that must be attributed to a certain cleverness and fraud by which he deceives the reader. For I did not publish one treatise in Latin and another in German (as he narrates, entangling the matter), but I published two separate writings in Latin. The first was against the foundations of two sects: the Ubiquitarian and the Sacramentarian. And that one he cavilled against only in Latin. But the second, very brief one, which contained my annotation on a certain calumnious admonition published by Schmidelin in Latin and German, this final writing he attacked not in Latin, as it had been published by me and (as I certainly know) even sent to Tübingen, but only in German. To prevent the reader from easily noticing this and requiring fairness from him—that he should have responded in Latin to what I wrote in Latin—he used this cunning. He said that he had also responded in Latin to my Latin treatise; but he wished for something to be understood here by the reader that was far different from what he himself understood. For he seemed to indicate to the reader that he had likewise responded in Latin to that very Latin treatise—that is, to my annotation, which he was refuting in German. Yet he himself...