Annotatio secunda Gregorii de Valentia societatis Iesu de controversia ubiquetaria

If Schmidelin argues correctly, Ubiquity must also be visible.

1 Cor. 15.

present, outside the Sacrament, to Blessed Paul: therefore, he is also always and everywhere present outside the Sacrament in the Church, and indeed in all things, just as they contend. If this method of concluding were sound, they could proceed further and conclude that Christ is present with us everywhere, not only invisibly in that Ubiquitarian way they imagine, but also visibly. For Christ appeared visibly to Blessed Paul, which he himself attested when he said: "And last of all, as by one born out of due time, he was seen also by me." But so much for those arguments which Schmidelin has here incidentally inculcated for Ubiquity.

Crimes of falsehood committed by Schmidelin against the Society, which he could not clear away.

I. In Admonitione Germ. pag. 23. & 24.

In the previous Latin Annotation, pages 3 & 4.

Now it follows that we must see how he clears himself of those charges of falsehood which I have demonstrated he committed against the Society of JESUS, when he imputed to us the Sacramentarian error, which he himself pronounced to be a crime of swindling Stellionatus fraudulent/crafty conduct and falsehood among the Calvinists. The first crime was that, having cited the margin of Thesis 41 of our Ingolstadt Disputation, he affirmed that the Jesuits teach that the body of Christ is circumscribed wherever it is, and at one time—which is the Calvinist heresy—and that it neither is nor can be in more than one place. I proved this to be a crime of falsehood: 1. Because Schmidelin himself judged such a crime to be committed by the Calvinists, specifically because they wished to ascribe that Sacramentarian opinion to us. 11. Because when two Theses, in one part and another of that Ingolstadt Disputation of ours, are marked with the number 41, such a sentiment as he attributes to us is contained in neither, nor in any of the others in that entire Disputation, as I have openly demonstrated.

Page 10.

Page 15 & 16.

Here he first signifies quite openly that nothing similar is read in the Theses marked number 41, but (as I also said could have happened) there was an error in the number: that the sentiment is contained in Thesis 93 of that Disputation. We will teach shortly what kind of crime he committed in corrupting that Thesis. Next, however, he returns to those Theses marked with the number 41 and from them attempts, quite ignorantly, to prove that the opinion he attacked is indeed our own—namely, that Christ's body is circumscribed wherever it is, and cannot be present in more than one place at one time. To prove this, he first recites those Theses, which have it in this manner: "Thesis 41 of the first part: The dignity and incomparable eminence of Christ, although it is most distant from the immense height of God, nevertheless has no place in any other creature, whoever that may be. For in others, although the gifts of grace and the Holy Spirit are found, they are not there accumulated and heaped up as in Christ, but divided and according to the measure of the gift of Christ, from whose fullness we all have received." Furthermore, Thesis 41 of the other part of the same Disputation is this: "The adversary (Schmidelin) cannot be excused here from the condemned heresy of the Eutychians, who impiously and ignorantly confused the two natures of Christ. For, as we have shown, he manifestly confuses and mixes the divine properties in Christ, which he nevertheless confesses to be entirely identical with the divine essence itself, with the human nature."