Annotatio secunda Gregorii de Valentia societatis Iesu de controversia ubiquetaria

through the Arians, namely, that Christ transformed the form of a servant into the divine form. Therefore, he either felt the same in Brentius, or, what is worth just as much for the purpose of deception, he told the same lie. Nor should he be trusted because, as if correcting an error, he added that Christ had proceeded in that ascent to enjoy his Majesty which he had. For the Dragon only twists himself so that, by inserting such figments of opinion, sometimes with a semblance of truth, he may lie hidden more easily and, creeping up as if from an ambush, infect the unwary and unobservant with the poison of a pestilent error, causing them to fall away from the simplicity that is in Christ.

The main reason by which Schmidelin and other Ubiquitarians teach the denial of Christ.

But in truth, the Ubiquitarians teach the denial of Christ by no reasoning more than when, with serpentine fraud, they invent that the excellence of his humanity, united to the Divine Word, is so great that, according to that very humanity—by which he himself openly testified that he was less than the Father—he should also be affirmed as coequal to God the Father and omnipotent. By this name (omnipotence), they declare that they encompass all things that pertain to the fullness of divinity. What else is this than to teach such a Christ as does not exist, and thus to teach the denial of Jesus Christ?

Thus expressly Schmidelin in the Refutation of our disputation, page 9.

For the man Christ JESUS is so truly God, omnipotent, and equal to the Father, according to his natural and proper person—or what is the same, according to the hypostasis of his humanity—as well as according to his divine nature, that according to his humanity, however much it is thought of as united with divinity (for it retains the truth of a created nature), he is nonetheless less than his Father and subject to God, even when he has all other things made subject to himself. For what greater madness can there be than to imagine that Christ—when he himself testified concerning himself according to his humanity, "The Father is greater than I," and the Apostle when he said of him, "He was crucified out of weakness," that is, according to the human nature he possessed, which, like ours, was weak; and again, "When all things have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will be subject to him who subjected all things to himself"—I ask, what greater madness can there be than to opine that in these statements the humanity of Christ was thought of by Christ himself, and by the Apostle, not insofar as it was united to the incarnate Word—that is, insofar as it was of Christ himself, true God and man—but nakedly and by itself alone, such as it is considered in mere men and defined by philosophers?

John 14.

2 Corinthians 13.

1 Corinthians 15.