Annotatio secunda Gregorii de Valentia societatis Iesu de controversia ubiquetaria

(...and) since it is otherwise visible in heaven, as he confesses, he is forced, whether he wants to or not, to confess that it is there simultaneously visible and invisible. Do you see, therefore, Schmidelin, how this consequence of the Spanish Doctor squares with that Thesis, and is rightly deduced from your doctrine? "It will never be proved," he says, "that I either wrote or taught that the body of Christ is simultaneously visible and invisible in heaven." But the Jesuits do not conclude in that Thesis that he taught this freely: but that he is forced consequentially to confess it, if he wishes to retain his Ubiquitarian doctrine, as has now been demonstrated.

Wherefore, it is most empty what he boasts here, that I am imputing an alien sense to that Thesis of ours when I say that in its first part it is only asserted that the same body of Christ cannot be simultaneously visible and invisible, circumscribed and uncircumscribed, in one and the same place. For what other sense could those words of the Thesis have: "But neither can it be in any way possible that the same body of Christ be visible and invisible, circumscribed and uncircumscribed, in ONE AND THE SAME place, etc."? This, therefore, is the only thing which we posit as impossible and absurd in the first part of that Thesis, and in the latter part (unwillingly for you) we show that it follows from your Ubiquitarian doctrine; which is, therefore, itself false and absurd, as has already been explained. Where, then, is that in this Thesis of ours which he said, by a crime of falsehood, was contained in it, namely that we say that the body of Christ cannot be visible in heaven and invisible in other places AT ONE TIME?

Page 13.

It happens that this illustrious pugilist here fights more with himself than with the Spaniard; indeed, he destroys himself. For a little before, we heard him saying: "It will never be possible to prove from my writings that I taught or wrote that the body of Christ is simultaneously visible and invisible, circumscribed and uncircumscribed in heaven." By which words he has sufficiently declared that he holds this to be absurd. A little later, however, he writes in this manner: "I have, on the contrary, this Thesis 93 of the Ingolstadt Disputation as a false and blasphemous doctrine, where it is written that it can in no way be possible..."

Schmidelin fights with himself. Page 13.

Page 14.