Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book III: On the Truth of the Body of the Lord, from Reason
Chapter 3: That One Body Can Be at Once in Several Places
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book III: On the Truth of the Body of the Lord in the Eucharist (from Reason). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Let us now come to the individual points of the mystery of the Eucharist which the adversaries contend imply a contradiction, and therefore are impossible. And that we may begin from that which is most difficult of all, we shall prove that it implies no contradiction, and consequently is possible, that one body be in several places.
The first argument is taken from Scripture, which testifies that nothing is impossible to God, Matthew 19: With God all things are possible. The adversaries will explain: all things except those which imply a contradiction, such as it is that one body be in two places. But this explanation can be refuted in many ways, even from their own principles.
First, their principle is that nothing is to be believed without the word of God. But the word of God nowhere excepts from the omnipotence of God that one body be in two places. It does indeed somewhere except that God lie, Hebrews 6: It is impossible for God to lie. And elsewhere: He cannot deny Himself, 2 Timothy 2. From which it is rightly gathered that God cannot do only those things which to do is not to do, but to fail. But that one body be in two places cannot clearly be reduced to these; consequently it ought not to have been excepted.
Secondly, their principle is that that is true doctrine which exalts God and abases man; and, on the contrary, that is false which exalts man and abases God. But he who says that among the things which God can do is also this, to place one body in several places, exalts God and abases man, since he confesses that God can do more things than we understand; but he who denies this abases God and exalts man, since he says that God cannot do what man cannot grasp.
Thirdly, those things imply a contradiction which fight with the essence of a thing, so that the thing is said to be and not to be. But to be in a place is not of the essence of a body, but something extrinsic and accidental; for the outermost heaven is a true body, and is not in a place; therefore it does not repugn the essence of a body to be in one or several places, since these are all extrinsic and posterior to the essence itself of the body.
The second argument is drawn from an example of the divine Scripture. Christ, when He appeared to the Apostle Paul, Acts 9 and 22, was at once in the highest heaven and on earth, or in the air near the earth; therefore one body can be at once in several places. That Christ was then in heaven the adversaries do not deny, and it can be proved from that of Acts 3: Whom heaven must receive until the time of the restitution of all things.
To this argument a twofold solution can be given. One, that Paul did not really see Christ in His own person, but in some species appearing to him, and heard a voice not from the mouth of Christ Himself, but a certain voice divinely made, such as was the voice of God the Father over Christ Himself at His Baptism and on Mount Thabor. So Calvin seems to have understood this whole passage, on chapter 9 of Acts.
The other, that Paul indeed saw and heard Christ, but existing in heaven, so that by divine power it was brought about that the eyes and ears of Paul penetrated the heavens. And in this manner Calvin answered the argument proposed, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, section 29. Against whom it would indeed be convenient to object what he himself writes, Book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 20, section 24, where he mocks the invocation of the Saints: “Who,” he says, “has revealed that their ears are so long as to be stretched to our voices? Their eyes too so keen as to watch over our necessities?” So he.
What, then, if we object to him that Paul had not ears so long, nor eyes so keen, as to penetrate even to heaven, and there see and hear Christ? What, I ask, will he answer, save that it could be done by divine power? But if it can be done by divine power that fleshly eyes and fleshly ears penetrate into heaven, could it not be done by the same power that the spiritual eyes and ears of glorified souls penetrate even to earth?
But omitting these, we must prove that Christ Himself was truly and properly seen by Paul with bodily eyes; and that on earth, not in heaven. And the first indeed is not only most certain, but even most evident. For in Acts 9, when Luke says of Paul’s companions: Now the men who went in company with him stood amazed, hearing indeed a voice, but seeing no man, he sets an antithesis between Paul and his companions, as if to say: His companions heard the voice of the speaker, but did not see who spoke; but Paul both heard the voice and saw Him who spoke. In the same place Barnabas related to the Apostles how Paul had seen the Lord. And in chapter 22 Ananias says to Paul of that vision which he had had on the way: The God of our fathers hath preordained thee that thou shouldst know his will, and see the Just One, and shouldst hear the voice from his mouth. Paul, then, saw Christ then, and heard a voice not formed in the air from some cloud or by the ministry of Angels, but from the mouth of Christ. And in chapter 26 Christ Himself says to Paul: For this have I appeared to thee, that I may make thee a minister and a witness of the things which thou hast seen. Where He makes him an Apostle and an eyewitness of the resurrection; but he would not have been a true witness unless he had seen the very body which had risen, and that with bodily eyes. Besides, in 1 Corinthians 9, the same Paul, about to prove his apostolate: Have I not, he says, seen our Lord? And in 1 Corinthians 15, enumerating the eyewitnesses of Christ’s resurrection, after he had placed Peter, James, and others, he at length says: And last of all, he was seen also by me, as by one born out of due time; which proof would be worth nothing unless he himself had seen, as the others had seen. And so it cannot be doubted that he truly saw the very body of Christ with bodily eyes.
Now that he saw Christ not in heaven, but on earth, or in the air near the earth, is proved because so great a light of Him who had appeared to him shone round Paul that it plainly blinded him, as is clear from Acts 9; but that light of the body of the Lord could not have harmed his eyes unless it had been near. Then his companions too saw a certain light, and also heard the sound of the voice, Acts 9 and 22; which is a most certain argument that Christ appeared on earth, or in the near air; for the companions of Paul could not have penetrated the highest heaven with eyes and ears. Besides, although the companions of Paul heard the voice, Acts 9, yet they did not distinctly understand what the Lord said, Acts 22. Wherefore the Lord was nearer to Paul than to the others, and as it were spoke into his ear. But if the voice had been made from heaven, all would have heard equally. Besides, that question, Who art thou, Lord? and that answer, I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest, openly indicate the presence of the Lord. For if Paul had seen Christ in the highest heaven, as Stephen saw Him, he would not have doubted who He was; but because he suddenly saw before him a certain man shining above the light of the sun, therefore he said: Who art thou, Lord? Finally, if Paul had seen Christ only in heaven, he would not have been a fit witness of the resurrection; for men could easily have calumniated his testimony, and said that he had been deceived, or had seen by imagination alone.
The argument is confirmed from other apparitions of Christ. For, first, that Christ appeared on earth to the Apostle Peter, and spoke with him, most weighty authors testify, as Ambrose in his oration against Auxentius; Hegesippus, Book 3 On the Destruction of Jerusalem, chapter 2; and Athanasius, though a little more obscurely, in his Apology for his flight. Then, that Christ appeared to Saint Anthony, after he had been most grievously beaten by demons, and that at the presence of Christ the demons fled, and the wounds of Anthony were suddenly healed, Athanasius testifies in his life. Saint Gregory, Book 4 of the Dialogues, chapter 16, affirms that Christ Himself truly appeared to Saint Tharsilla his aunt a little before her death; and he proves the vision was real, not imaginary, from the immense fragrance of odor which was left in the chamber. And that the Lord truly appeared to Gregory himself in human form, John the Deacon testifies, Book 2 of his life, chapter 22; and many other things of the kind could be adduced from approved authors, which if anyone should wish to deny all, he could deservedly be accused of impudence and rashness. But besides the other apparitions, let that be read which Saint Paulinus relates at length in his epistle to Macarius, which alone abundantly suffices to make most attested that which we wish. This argument, against the heretics of this time, who contend that Christ will not descend from heaven, either privately or publicly, until the day of judgment, is most efficacious; but absolutely it does not convince, because it is not improbable that Christ privately and for a short time descended from heaven after the Ascension.
The third argument is taken from the testimonies of the Fathers, who teach that one thing can be at once in several places. And first Chrysostom, Book 3 On the Priesthood (as we cited above), affirms in express words that the same Christ, at the same moment of time, both sits above in heaven with the Father, and on earth is handled by the hands of all who communicate; and that he does not speak of a handling in a symbol only is clear, because he attributes this to a miracle. The same Chrysostom too, and with him Primasius and Anselm, and the commentary ascribed to Ambrose on chapter 10 to the Hebrews, say that the same body of the Lord is offered at once on many altars, and they speak not of a sign of the body, but of the true body (as I showed above, Book 2, chapter 31). Likewise Cyril, Book 12 on John, chapter 32, and Theophylact on chapter 19 of John, teach in express words that Christ, by His flesh received in the Eucharist, sanctifies the souls and bodies of all who communicate in the whole world, and is in all whole and impartible. Augustine, in his book On Care for the Dead, chapter 16, proposes the question whether, when at the same time in diverse places miracles are done at the memorials of some Martyr, that Martyr himself is present at one time in so many places, or whether these things are done by the ministry of Angels; and he answers that the question is above the powers of his understanding.
From which we understand that Augustine did not think it impossible that one thing be in diverse places; otherwise he would not have doubted, but would openly have said (as the Calvinists say) that it implies a contradiction that one thing be in diverse places at once. Besides, in chapter 17 he relates a certain history of Saint John the monk, who, though he had not departed from his monastery, yet, while still living, appeared in a dream to a certain other man placed far off; and then he says it is doubtful whether his spirit was really in both places, or whether this was done in another manner: “If he himself,” he says, “was present to the dreamer, by a marvelous grace indeed he could do this, not by nature; and by the gift of God, not by his own faculty,” and so forth. And finally he says that, if he could have spoken with that holy monk, he would have asked of him the solution of both questions, and would have believed his words.
If anyone should object that the case of bodies is one, of spirits another; and that Augustine grants to spirits that they can be in several places at once, not to bodies—he can easily be refuted. For the reason why bodies seem not to be able to be in several places is not so much their mass as their unity. For the question is not whether a body can occupy two places; for the body of Christ does not occupy more than one place ordinarily; for in the Sacrament it is not locally, except by reason of the dimensions of the bread. And although we judge that one body can be locally in several places, and the examples adduced in the second argument prove it, yet for defending the mystery of the Eucharist it is not required that one body be able to occupy or fill several places, but it is enough if it can in any manner be in several places.
Now it seems that it cannot be, because it cannot be torn from itself, and seems necessarily to have to be torn and drawn apart from itself if it be placed in various places. Wherefore Peter Martyr, when he denies that the same body can be in two places, renders the reason, because it would be doubled. Now this repugnance, which is taken from the unity of the thing, is found no less in a spirit than in a body; for each is one, and cannot be divided from itself; wherefore it is the same in this question whether it be proved of a body or of a spirit.
The fourth argument is taken from the examples of God and the rational soul. For God, since He is one and most simple and indivisible thing, is yet at once in infinite places; for the whole God is present to all created things; which certainly surpasses the grasp of men; for we cannot conceive one thing in diverse places, unless we conceive either that those places become one place, or that the one thing is divided into several. Whence Augustine, in epistle 3 to Volusianus, of this existence of God in so many places at once, says thus: “The human mind marvels at this, and because it does not grasp it, perhaps does not believe it.” By like reasoning the rational soul is whole in any part of the body; for otherwise, if it were extended to the extension of the body, it would be material and depend on the body, and consequently would not be immortal, which fights with the Catholic faith.
To this argument nothing can be answered save that God and the soul are not in diverse places, but in one; for God fills the whole world as one place, and the soul the whole body; of which thing the sign is that if one member be separated from the human body, the soul ceases to be in it, because that member begins to be another body existing of itself. But this is refuted with no great difficulty. For although the soul cannot naturally be in a cut-off member, yet no reason at all can be feigned why God cannot preserve the soul in a cut-off arm, as it was before the cutting. Finally, God could create another world, which would in no part touch this which now is; and in it too God would be, as in this, and consequently would be in disjoined and distant places. It is established, therefore, that there is no contradiction that a thing be in several places.
The fifth argument is taken from the mysteries of our faith, either more difficult, or equally difficult with this of which we treat. The first is the mystery of the Trinity, which the Lutherans and Calvinists too admit, in which we believe one nature in three persons really and most truly distinct, which is indeed more marvelous than that one body be in several places. For as here there is a real distinction of places, so there of persons; as here there is unity of body, so there unity of nature; but the mystery of the Trinity is more marvelous, because the nature in the Trinity is identified really and formally with the individual persons, but the body is in no way identified with the places. If, then, one nature in number can not be torn from itself, although it be identified with really distinct persons, why cannot one body more easily be joined extrinsically with distinct places, and yet not be torn from itself?
The second is the mystery of the Incarnation, in which we confess one hypostasis in two perfect and most dissimilar natures. And because the union between the hypostasis and the nature is far greater than between the located thing and the place, since the former is intrinsic and substantial, the latter extrinsic and accidental, truly to one rightly considering it will seem more marvelous that one hypostasis be in two natures than that one body be in two places. Add that that hypostasis is identified altogether really and formally with one of the natures, that is, with the divine nature, and yet is intimately united with the human nature, which really and formally differs from the divine nature. From which it follows that it is plainly incomprehensible how in that union either the natures be not confused, or the hypostasis be not divided.
The third is the mystery of the resurrection of the dead, which, as it has always seemed impossible to the philosophers, so has always been believed by the faithful with certain faith, and is now believed even by the Lutherans and Calvinists, if indeed it is believed. Now in this mystery this is most difficult and marvelous, that one and the same individual be made twice. For if it is made twice, how not by a double action? If by a double action, how are they not two? For the effect of itself depends on the action, as its term. And this is most seen in the accidents, which have utterly perished, and yet the same in number are restored by God.
The fourth is creation and annihilation, which are conceded by all the faithful to the divine power, although they are mocked by the philosophers and believed to imply a contradiction. For he who says that something is made from nothing, which is to be created, or that from something nothing is made, which is to be annihilated, seems to say that nothing is something, or that something is nothing. And truly it surpasses human thought that some thing now exists which a little before was nothing at all. For who can conceive whence it came, whence it was drawn, whence it came forth into light, if it lay hidden nowhere, unless that very ‘nowhere’ be something? By like reasoning, who can understand that from something nothing is made, unless that very nothing be something? And yet these things they believe, or say they believe, who will not believe things which are easier, as that one body can be placed by God in several places.
The fifth mystery is eternity. For it seems more difficult that one instant of duration be at once in diverse times, or coexist with diverse times, than that one body be at once in diverse places. For times flow, and it is impossible for the past and the future to remain at once; but places remain at once, though distinct and separated from one another. Now eternity is one instant of duration not flowing, and consequently coexisting with all past and future time; and yet neither is that instant divided, nor are the times confused; which plainly surpasses human grasp.
The sixth argument is taken from a similitude. For one place can hold two bodies adequate to it at once, and yet neither is that place divided into two places, nor are those bodies confused into one body; therefore one body too will be able to fill two places, even though neither the body itself be divided into two bodies, nor those places come together into one place.
The consequence seems excellent, because the located thing is related to the place as the place to the located thing. And the antecedent is certain from examples of the divine Scripture concerning the going forth of the body of Christ from the closed sepulchre, and others, which will be treated in the following difficulty.
Yet certain Catholics, and among them Saint Thomas, on Book 4, distinction 44, question 2, article 2, question 3, think that one body cannot be in two places locally, but only sacramentally; and therefore they deny the consequence of the argument adduced. And they render this reason: that that is one which is undivided in itself and divided from every other; of which conditions the former, namely to be undivided in itself, is essential and inseparable; but the latter, namely to be divided from every other, is accidental and separable. But when two bodies are in one place, only the latter condition of unity is taken away, and consequently the essence of unity is not destroyed; but when one body is placed in diverse places, the former condition is taken away, and the whole essence of unity is destroyed.
But this reasoning, with the peace of so great a doctor, does not seem solid. For there is a twofold indivision in itself and division from others. One with respect to place, which is extrinsic and plainly accidental. The other with respect to the thing itself, which is intrinsic, and is either of the essence, or certainly a certain property of unity. Now, then, when two bodies are in one place, the indivision from itself is not taken away, nor the intrinsic division from others, but only the extrinsic, which is with respect to place. For although two bodies penetrate each other, they are yet two diverse and distinct, as to all essential principles, nay even as to accidental ones, except position. So too, when one body is in diverse places, the intrinsic indivision is not taken away, but only the extrinsic with respect to place; for the intrinsic principles which constitute the body are not divided, but only the positions, or ‘wheres’, of that body are divided.
Add that if one body could not be locally in two places, because it would be divided from itself, then certainly neither could it be sacramentally, for the same reason. For although to be somewhere sacramentally does not mean to be by occupation of place, yet it means to be by a real and true presence in several hosts or altars; which real presence, on so many altars and not in the intermediate places, would seem no less to take away the indivision of the thing than the filling of several places. But let us now come to the solution of the objections.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT III. Posse unum corpus simul esse in pluribus locis. Accedamus nunc ad singula capita mysterii Eucharistiae, quae adversarii contendunt im¬ plicare contradictionem, atque ideo esse im¬ possibilia. Ac ut incipiamus ab eo, quod est omnium difficillimum, probabimus non im¬ plicare contradictionem, et proinde possibile esse, ut unum corpus sit in pluribus locis. Primum argumentum sumitur a Scriptura, quae testatur Deo nihil esse impossibile , Matth. xix. Apud Deum omnia possibilia sunt (2). Explicabunt adversarii, omnia prae¬ ter ea, quae implicant contradictionem, quale est unum corpus esse in duobus locis. At re¬ felli potest haec explicatio multis modis, etiam ex earum principiis. Primo principium eorum est, nihil esse credendum sine verbo Dei. At verbum Dei nusquam excipit a Dei omnipotentia, unum corpus esse in duobus locis. Excipit quidem abicubi, mentiri Deum, Haebraeor. vi. Impos¬ sibile est mentiri Deum. Et alibi : Negare seipsum non potest, ii. Timoth. n. (3). Ex quibus recte colligitur, Deum illa tantum non posse, quae facere, non est facere, sed defi¬ cere. Sed unum corpus in duobus locis esse, non potest clare ad ista reduci ; proinde excipi non debuit. Secundo principium eorum est, eam esse veram doctrinam, quae Deum exaltat , et hominem deprimit ; et contra falsam esse, quae hominem exaltat, et deprimit Deum. At qui dicit, inter ea, quee potest Deus , esse etiam, ponere unum coipus in pluribus locis, hic Deum exaltat, et hominem deprimit, cum fateatur plura posse facere, quam nos intel- ligamus : qui autem id negat , Deum de- (1) Luc. I, 37 ; Mare. XIV, 36. — (2) Matth. XIX. 26 — (3) Heb. VI, 18 ; II Timoth., 12. CAPUT III. primit, ct hominem exaltat, cum dicat, Deum non posse facere, quod homo non potest capere. Tertio, illa implicant contradictionem, quae pugnant cum essentia rei ita ut dicatur res esse, et non esse. At esse in loco, non est de essentia corporis, sed quid extrinsecum et accidentalium : nam ultimum coelum est verum corpus, et non est in loco; ergo non repugnat essentiae corporis esse in uno, vel pluribus locis, cum sint omnia extrinseca, et posteriora ipsa corporis essentia. Secundum argumentum ducitur ab exem¬ plo Scripturae divinae. Christus cum Apostolo Paulo apparuit, Actor, ix. et xxn. fuit simul in summo coelo, ct in terra, sive in aere terrae vicino : igitur unum corpus in pluribus simul locis esse potest. Christum fuisse tunc in coelo adversarii non negant, et probari potest ex illo Actor, m. Quem oportet coelum suscipere usque ad tempus restitutionis omnium (1). Ad hoc argumentum duplex solutio dari potest. Una, quod Paulus non viderit reipsa Christum in propria persona, sed in specie aliqua sibi apparente, et audierit vocem non ex ipso Christi ore, sed vocem quamdam divinitus factam, qualis fuit vox Dei Patris super ipsum Christum in Baptismo, et in monte Thabor. Ita videtur totum hunc locum intellexisse Calvinus in cap. ix. Ac¬ torum. Altera quod Paulus viderit quidem, et au¬ dierit Christum, sed in coelo existentem, ita ut divina virtute factum fuerit, ut oculi et aures Pauli penetrarent coelos. Et hoc modo respondit ad argumentum propositum Calvi¬ nus lib. iv. Institutionum, c. 17. § 29. Cui sane commodum esset objicere, quod ipse idem scribit lib. m. Institut. cap. 20. §. 24. ubi ridet Sanctorum invocationem : « Quis, inquit, eousque longas esse illis aures reve¬ lavit, quae ad voces nostras porrigantur ? oculos etiam tam perspicaces, qui necessita¬ tibus nostris advigilent ? » Haec ille. Quid igitur, si illi objiciamus non habuisse Paulum tam longas aures, nec oculos tam perspicaces , ut in coelum usque penetra¬ rent, et ubi Christum viderent, et audirent ? quid, quaeso, respondebit, nisi divina virtute id fieri potuisse ? At si divina virtute fieri po¬ test, ut oculi carnei, et aures carneae in coelum penetrent : non poterit eadem virtute fieri, ut (1) Act. III, 21. — XV, 8. 135 oculi, et aures spirituales animarum glorifl- catarum in terram usque penetrent ? Sed his omissis probandum nobis est, a Paulo ipsum Christum vere, et proprie visum fuisse oculis corporalibus ; idque in terra, non in coelo. Ac primum quidem non modo certissimum, sed etiam evidentissimum est. Nam Actor, ix. cum dicit Lucas de comitibus Pauli : Viri autem illi , qui comitabantur , cum eo stabant stupefacti , vocem quidem audientes, neminem autem videntes (2). Ponit antithesim inter Paulum, et comites ejus, quasi dicat : Comites ejus audiebant vocem loquentis, sed non videbant quis loqueretur; Paulus autem, et vocem audiebat, et videbat- eum, qui lo¬ quebatur. Ibidem narrabat Barnabas Apo¬ stolis , quemadmodum Paulus vidisset Do¬ minum. Et cap. xxn.Ananias dicit ad Paulum de visione illa, quam habuerat in via : Deus Patrum nostrorum praeordinavit te, ut cogno¬ sceres voluntatem ejus , et videres justum, et vocem audires ex ore ejus (3). Haec ibi. Vidit igitur tunc Paulus Christum, et vocem audi¬ vit, non ex aliqua nube, aut Angelorum ministerio formatam in aere , sed ex ore Christi. Et cap xxvi. ipse Christus Paulo dicit : Ad hoc apparui tibi , ut constituam te ministrum , et testem eorum , quae vidisti (4). Ubi facit illum Apostolum, et testem oculatum resurrectionis : non autem fuisset verus testis, nisi ipsum corpus vidisset, quod resurrexerat, idque oculis corporalibus. Praeterea, i. Co- rinth. ix. idem Paulus probaturus Apostola- tum suum: Nonne , inquid, Dominum nostrum vidi? Vt i. Corinth. xv. enumerans testes oculatos resurrectionis Christi, posteaquam posuerat Petrum, Jacobum, et alios, tandem ait : Novissime tanquam abortivo visus est et mihi (5) : quae probatio nihil valeret, nisi vidisset ipse, ut alii viderant. Itaque dubitari non potest, quin vere oculis corporalibus corpus ipsum Christi viderit. Jam vero quod Christum viderit, non in ccelo, sed in terra, vel in aere propinquo terrae, probatur ; quia tanta lux ejus, qui illi apparuerat, Paulum circumfulsit , ut cum plane excaecaverit, ut patet Actor, ix. ; non autem laedere potuisset ejus oculos lux illa corporis Domini, nisi propinqua fuisset. De- lindc lumen quoddam etiam comites ejus viderunt, et sonum quoque vocis audierunt, Actor, ix. et xxn. quod est argumentum (2) Act. IX, 7. — (3) Act. XXII, 14. — (4) Act. XVI, 10. - (5) I Cor. IX, 1 ; LIBER III. 130 certissimum, in terra, vel in aere proximo Christum apparuisse ; nec enim comites Pauli summum coelum oculis et auribus pe¬ netrare potuissent. Ad ha)C licet comites Pauli audierint vocem, Actor, ix. tamen non distincte intellexerunt, quid Dominus dixerit, Actor, xxn. Quare propinquior Paulo Dominus fuit, quam aliis, et quasi in aurem ei locutus est. Si autem de crnlo vox facta fuisset, omnes reque audivissent. Preeterca illa interrogatio : Quis es, Domine ? et illa responsio : Ego sum Jesus , quem tu persequens (1), aperte indicant prsesentiam Domini. Si enim vidisset Paulus Christum in summo coelo, ut eum vidit Ste¬ phaniis, non dubitasset quisnam esset : sed quia repente vidit coram se hominem quem¬ dam supra lucem solis rutilantem, ideo dixit : Quis es, Domine? Denique si solum in coelo Paulus Christum vidisset, non fuisset idoneus testis resurrectionis : potuissent enim facile homines calumniari ejus testimonium, ac di¬ cere eum deceptum fuisse, aut sola imagina¬ tione vidisse. Confirmatur argumentum ex aliis Christi apparitionibus. Nam in primis Petro Apostolo Christum apparuisse in terra, et cum eo collocutum testantur gravissimi auctores, ut Ambrosius in oratione contra Auxentium. Hegesippus lib. m. de excidio urbis Hiero- solym. cap. 2. Et Athanasius, licet paulo obscurius, in Apologia pro tuga sua. Deinde Christum apparuisse S. Antonio, posteaquam a dsemonibus gravissime cecsus fuerat ; et ad Christi praesentiam daemones fugisse , et plagas Antonii repente curatas , testatur Athanasius in vita ejus. S. Gregorius lib. iv. Dialogorum, cap. 16. affirmat ipsum Chri¬ stum vere apparuisse S. Tharsillae amitae suae paulo ante obitum; et realem, non imagina¬ riam fuisse visionem probat ex immensa odoris fragrantia, quae in cubiculo relicta est. Et ipsi Gregorio Dominum humana spe¬ cio vere apparuisse, testatur Joannes Diaco¬ nus, lib. ii. vitae ipsius, cap. 22. aliaque id genus multa ex probatis auctoribus adduci possent : quae si quis velit omnia negare, merito impudentiae , ac temeritatis argui posset. Sed praeter coeteras apparitiones le¬ gatur ea, quam fuse narrat S. Paulinus in epist. ad Macharium, quae sola abunde suf¬ ficit testatissimum efficere id quod volumus. Hoc argumentum adversus haereticos hujus temporis, qui contendunt , Christum non descensurum c ccelo nec privatim, nec pu¬ blice usque ad diem judicii, efficacissimum est : absolute autem non convincit, quia non est improbabile Christum privatim et ad breve tempus descendisse de coelo post As¬ censionem. Tertium argumentum sumitur a testimo¬ niis Patrum, qui rem unam in pluribus simul locis, esse posse docent. Ac primum Chrysos- tomus lib. m. de sacerd. (ut supra citavimus) disertis verbis affirmat, eumdem Christum eodem temporis articulo, et sursum in coelo, cum Patre sedere, et in terra omnium com¬ municantium manibus pertractari : et non loqui eum, de pertractatione solum in sym¬ bolo, patet, quia id tribuit miraculo. Idem etiam Chrysostomus, et cum eo Primasius, et Anselmus , et commentarius Ambrosio adseriptus in cap. x. ad Hebr. idem corpus Domini in multis altaribus simul offerri di¬ cunt, nec loquuntur de signo corporis, sed de vero corpore (ut supra ostendi lib. n. cap. 31.) Item Cyrillus lib. xn. inJoannem, cap. 32. et Theophylactus in cap. xix. Joannis , disertis verbis docent, Christum per carnem suam in Eucharistia perceptam sanctificare animas , et corpora omnium communicantium in toto mundo, et esse in omnibus totum, et impartibilem. Augustinus lib. de cura pro mortuis, cap. 16. proponit quaestionem, utrum cum in diversis locis simul, fiant miracula ad memorias alicujus Martyris, sit ipse Martyr praesens uno tem¬ pore tam multis locis, an ista fiant ministerio Angelorum : ac respondet, quaestionem esse supra ingenii vires. Ex quo intelligimus, non existimasse Au¬ gustinum impossibile esse, ut una res sit in diversis locis ; alioqui non dubitasset, sed aperte dixisset (ut Calvinistae dicunt) impli¬ care contradictionem, ut sit unum aliquid in diversis locis simul. Prteterea cap. 17. re¬ fert historiam quamdam S. Joannis monachi, qui cum ex monasterio suo non discessisset, apparuit tamen adhuc vivens in somnis cui¬ dam alteri longe posito : ac deinde dicit du¬ bium esso, an spiritus ejus revera fuisset in utroque loco, an id esset factum alio modo : « Si ipse, inquit, interfuit somnianti, mira¬ bili gratia utique id potuit, non natura; et Dei munere, non propria facultate etc. » Ac denique dicit se, si cum sancto illo monacho loqui potuisset, ab eo queesiturum fuisse so- (!) Act. XXIT, 8. CAPUT TTI. lationem utriusque quaestionis, et verbis ejus crediturum. Si quis objiciat, aliam esse rationem cor¬ porum, aliam spirituum : Augustinum autem spiritibus concedere, ut possint esse in pluri¬ bus locis simul, non corporibus : is facile re¬ felli poterit. Nam ratio, cur corpora non vi¬ deantur posse esse in pluribus locis, non tam est moles, quam unitas. Non enim quaestio est, anpossit corpus occupare duo loca; nam corpus Christi, non occupat nisi unum locum ordinarie ; in Sacramento enim non est loca¬ liter, nisi ratione dimensionum panis. Et li¬ cet enim localiter arbitramur posse unum corpus esse in pluribus locis, et id probant exempla allata in secundo argumento ; ta¬ men ad mysterium Eucharistiae defenden¬ dum, non requiritur, ut unum corpus possit occupare, seu replere plura loca, sed satis est, si possit quocumque modo esse in pluri¬ bus locis. Ideo autem non videtur posse esse, quia non potest divelli a seipso, et videtur neces¬ sario debere divelli, ac distrahi a se, si po¬ natur in variis locis. Quocirca Petrus Martyr cum negat idem corpus posse esse in duobus locis, rationem reddit, quia geminaretur. Porro ista repugnantia, quae sumitur ab' uni¬ tate rei, non minus invenitur in spiritu, quam in corpore, utrumque enim est unum, et a se dividi non potest ; quare perinde est ut in hac quaestione sive de corpore, sive de spi¬ ritu probetur. Quartum argumentum sumitur ab exemplis Dei, et animae rationalis. Deus enim cum sit res una, et simplicissima, atque indivisibilis; tamen est simul in infinitis locis : est enim praesens totus Deus omnibus rebus creatis : quod certe superat captum hominum : nec enim possumus cogitare rem unam in diver¬ sis locis, nisi cogitemus ; aut loca illa fieri unum locum, aut rem unam dividi in plures. Unde Augustinus in epist. 3. ad Yolusianum de hac existentia Dei in tot locis simul, sic ait : « Miratur hoc mens humana, et quia non capit, fortasse non credit. » Pairi ratione anima rationalis tota est in qualibet parte corporis ; alioqui enim si extenderetur ad extensionem corporis, esset materialis, et a corpore penderet, proinde non esset immor¬ talis, quod cum fide Catholica pugnat. Ad hoc argumentum nihil responderi po¬ test, nisi, Deum, et animam non esse in di¬ versis locis, sed in uno : replet enim Deus totum mundum, quasi unum locum, et anima 137 totum corpus, cujus rei signum est, quod si separetur unum membrum a corpore huma¬ no, ineo desinit esse anima, quia membrum illud incipit esse corpus aliud perse existens. At non magno negotio id refellitur. Nam etsi non possit naturaliter anima esse in membro abscisso, tamen nulla prorsus ratio fingi po¬ test, cur non possit Deus in brachio abscisso conservare animam, ut ante abscissionem erat. Denique posset Deus alium mundum creare, qui istum, qui nunc est, nulla ex parte contingeret ; et in eo etiam esset Deus, sicut in isto, ac proinde esset in locis dissitis, ac distantibus. Constat igitur nullam esse implicationem, ut res sit in pluribus locis. Quintum argumentum sumitur a mysteriis nostree fidei , vel difficilioribus , vel reque difficilibus, atque hoc est de quo agimus. Primum mysterium Trinitatis est , quod etiam Lutherani, et Calvinistae admittunt, in quo unam naturam in tribus personis reipsa verissime distinctis credimus, quod sane mi¬ rabilius est, quam ut corpus unum sit in plu¬ ribus locis. Nam sicut hic estrealis distinctio locorum, ita ibi personarum : sicut hic est unitas corporis, ita ibi unitas naturae ; sed mirabilius est mysterium Trinitatis, quia na¬ tura in Trinitate identificatur realiter , et formaliter cum singulis personis, corpus au¬ tem non identificatur ullo modo cum locis. Si ergo potest una numero natura non dis¬ trahi a seipsa, licet identificetur cum per¬ sonis realiter distinctis, cur non facilius po¬ terit unum corpus conjungi extrinsecus cum distinctis locis, et tamen non distrahi a seip¬ so ? Secundum est mysterium Incarnationis, in quo unam hypostasim in duabus naturis perfectis, et dissimillimis confitemur. Et quia longe major unio est inter hypostasim, et naturam, quam inter locatum et locum, cum illa intrinseca et substantialis, h»c extrin- seca, et accidentaria sit : profecto recte in¬ spicienti mirabilius videbitur unam esse hy¬ postasim in duabus naturis, quam unum cor¬ pus in duobus locis. Adde, quod illa hypo¬ stasis identificatur prorsus realiter, et forma¬ liter cum altera naturarum, id est, cum na¬ tura divina, et tamen unitur intime cum na¬ tura humana, quee realiter, et formaliter dif¬ fert a natura divina. Ex quo sequitur, ut sit plane incomprehensibile, quomodo in illa u- nione, vel non confundantur naturee, vel non dividatur hypostasis. Tertium est mysterium resurrectionis ruor- d 38 LIBER III. tuorum, quod ut semper philosophis impos¬ sibile visum est, ita semper a fidelibus certa fide creditum est, et nunc etiam a Luthera- nis, et Calvinistis creditur, si tamen creditur. Porro in hoc mysterio id maxime difficile, et mirabile est, ut unum et idem individuum bis fiat. Si enim bis fit, quomodo non du¬ plici actione ? si duplici actione, quomodo non sunt duo ? nam effectus per se ab actio¬ ne dependet, ut ejus terminus. Atque id ma¬ xime cernitur in accidentibus, quae penitus perierunt, et tamen eadem numero restituun¬ tur a Deo. Quartum est creatio, et annihilatio, quse ab omnibus fidelibus divina; potentia; conce¬ duntur, licet a philosophis rideantur, et con¬ tradictionem implicare credantur. Nam qui dicit ex nihilo aliquid fieri, quod est creari, vel ex aliquo nihil fieri, quod est annihilari, videtur dicere, nihil esse aliquid, vel aliquid esse nihil. Et sane superat humanam cogita¬ tionem, quod aliqua res nunc existat, quae paulo ante nihil omnino erat. Quis enim con¬ cipiat, unde venerit ? unde extracta sit ? unde processerit in lucem, si nusquam late¬ bat, nisi ipsum nusquam aliquid sit ? Pari ratione quis intelligat ex aliquo nihil fieri, nisi ipsum nihil sit aliquid ? Et tamen ista credunt, aut credere se dicunt, qui nolunt credere ea, quae sunt faciliora ; ut unum cor¬ pus posse a Deo poni in pluribus locis. Quintum mysterium aeternitas est. Diffici¬ lius enim videtur, ut unum instans durationis simul sit in diversis temporibus, sive coexi- stat diversis temporibus, quam ut unum cor¬ pus simul sit in diversis locis. Tempora enim fluunt, et impossibile est simul manere prae¬ teritum et futurum ; at loca simul permanent, licet distincta, et separata ab invicem. Jam aeternitas est unum instans durationis non fluens, et proinde coexistcns toti tempori praeterito, et futuro : et tamen nec ipsu^i in¬ stans dividitur, nec tempora confunduntur, quod superat plane humanum captum. Sextum argumentum sumitur a simili. Nam potest unus locus capere duo corpora sibi adaequata simul, et tamen, neque locus ille dividitur in duo loca, neque corpora illa confunduntur in unum corpus ; ergo poterit etiam unum corpus replere duo loca, etiamsi nec ipsum corpus dividatur in duo corpora , nec loca illa conveniant in unum locum. Consequentia videtur optima, quia ita se habet locatum ad locum, sicut locus ad loca¬ tum. Antecedens vero certum est exemplis di rinae Scripturae de egressu corporis Christi ex clauso sepulchro, et aliis, quse in sequenti difficultate tractabuntur. Quidam tamen Catholici, atque in eis S. Thomas in iv. dist. 44. quaest. 2. art. 2. quaest. 3. existimant non posse unum corpus esse in duobus locis localiter, sed tantum sacramentaliter ; et ideo negant consequen¬ tiam argumenti adducti. Et rationem hanc reddunt, quia unum est illud, quod est indi¬ visum in se, et divisum a quocumque alio : ex quibus conditionibus, prior, nimirum in¬ divisum esse in se, essentialis est, et insepa¬ rabilis : posterior autem non, nimirum divi¬ sum esse a quocumque alio, accidentaria est, et separabilis. Cum autem duo corpora sunt in uno loco, tollitur tantum posterior condi¬ tio unitatis, ac proinde non destruitur uni¬ tatis essentia : cum vero unum corpus poni¬ tur in diversis locis, tollitur prior conditio, ac destruitur tota essentia unitatis. Sed haec ratio, pace tanti doctoris, non videtur solida. Nam duplex est indivisio in se, et divisio ab aliis. Una respectu loci, quae extrinseca est, et plane accidentaria. Altera respectu rei ipsius, quae intrinseca est, et vel est de essentia, vel certe proprietas quaedam unitatis. Jam igitur, quando duo corpora sunt in uno loco, non tollitur indivisio a se, nec divisio ab aliis intrinseca, sed extrinseca solum, quae est respectu loci. Nam licet se penetrent duo corpora, sunt tamen duo di¬ versa, et distincta, quoad omnia principia essentialia, imo etiam, quoad accidentalia , excepto situ. Sic etiam, cum unum corpus est in diversis locis, non tollitur indivisio intrinseca, sed solum extrinseca respectu loci : nam non dividuntur principia intrin¬ seca, quse corpus constituunt, sed solum di¬ viduntur situs, sive ubi illius corporis. Adde, quod si non posset esse unum cor¬ pus localiter in duobus locis, quia dividere¬ tur a seipso, profecto nec esse posset sacra¬ mentaliter, eadem ratione. Licet enim esse alicubi sacramentaliter, non dicat esse per loci occupationem; tamen dicit esse per rea- lem, et veram praesentiam in pluribus hostiis, sive altaribus, quae realis praesentia in tot al¬ taribus, et non in locis intermediis, non mi¬ nus tollere videretur indivisionem rei, quam repletio plurium locorum. Sed jam ad solu¬ tionem objectionum veniamus. r CAPUT IV. . 139