Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book III: On the Truth of the Body of the Lord, from Reason
Chapter 4: The Objections Are Solved by Which the Adversaries Try to Prove It Implies a Contradiction That One Body Be 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).
The adversaries propose many arguments; and first from Scripture and the Fathers they bring forward two arguments. First, Calvin, in his last admonition to Westphal, urges that consequence of the Angel, Matthew 28: He is not here, for he is risen; which consequence would be weak if the same body could be in several places; for it could depart and remain.
Secondly, they bring forward those passages where it is attributed to God as proper that He is not circumscribed by place, but is everywhere: I fill heaven and earth, Jeremiah 23. And they confirm it from the Fathers, who prove that the Holy Spirit is God because He is everywhere, according to that of Psalm 138: Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? See Ambrose, Book 1 On the Holy Spirit, chapter 7; Jerome and Cassiodorus on the psalm cited; Augustine, Book 3 against Maximinus, chapter 21; Basil, book On the Holy Spirit, chapter 22; Didymus, Book 1 On the Holy Spirit; Cyril, Book 7 Dialogue on the Trinity. But if the body of Christ could be in many places, by the same reasoning it could be in all, and yet would not be God; therefore the reasoning of the Fathers would conclude nothing. Besides, the Fathers who wrote against Eutyches prove that the human nature of Christ is not confused with the divine, because the divine is everywhere, but the human, even after the resurrection, is circumscribed by a certain place. See Theodoret, Dialogues 2 and 3; Vigilius, Books 1 and 4 against Eutyches; and Fulgentius, Book 2 to Trasimund, chapter 17.
Wyclif, in Waldensis, volume 2, chapter 72, adds another passage from Augustine, in epistle 3 to Volusianus, where Augustine says that no body can be everywhere whole. And finally another passage could be added from Book 20 against Faustus, chapter 11, where Augustine speaks thus of Christ according to His bodily presence: “It could not be at once in the sun, and in the moon, and on the cross.”
I answer to the passage of Scripture, He is not here, for he is risen, in two ways. First, that consequence of the Angel is excellent, but if it be applied (as it must be) to the mind of those holy women with whom the Angel spoke; for they sought the dead body of the Lord in the sepulchre, to anoint it. Wherefore when the Angel says, He is not here, the sense is: He does not lie dead in the sepulchre, as you believe. And this he proves when he adds, For he is risen; for he could not lie dead if he had risen.
Secondly, that consequence is excellent also absolutely, but speaking morally, as the Angel spoke, not metaphysically. For, speaking morally, he who rises from death does not remain in the sepulchre, but goes forth; for a sepulchre is a place of the dead, not of the living; yet it can also be that some living person lie in a sepulchre, if he will. And so morally the Angel said most truly, He is not here, for he is risen; although absolutely Christ could have been there, though He had risen. It is like as if someone should say: Such a man does not sit at table, for he has dined.
To the other Scriptures and testimonies of the Fathers I say that there are two differences between God and the body of Christ as regards existence in place. The first is that God really and in fact is everywhere; the body of Christ really and in fact is not everywhere, nor ever will be, but is in one place locally, namely in heaven; in many, sacramentally; in many others, in no way. And this suffices to save the arguments of the Fathers concerning the divinity of the Holy Spirit and the difference of the natures in Christ. For if God alone is in fact everywhere, certainly the Holy Spirit is convinced to be God, because He is everywhere; and the humanity of Christ is convinced not to be confused with the divinity, because it is not everywhere. The second difference is that the divinity not only is everywhere, but also cannot be constrained to one place; nay, cannot not be everywhere, since it is intrinsically and essentially immense. But the body of Christ, although it can be and is, by the power of God, in many places, yet can also be reduced to one only place, just as before the institution of the Sacrament it was in one only place, and after the consummation of the world will be in one only place. And hence we have it that the argument proposed concludes excellently against the Ubiquitarians, but nothing against the Catholics. For the Ubiquitarians teach that the body of Christ, through its union to the Word, is always really and in fact everywhere, and cannot be reduced to one place. And this is what Theodoret, Vigilius, and others who write against Eutyches assail of set purpose.
To the passage from the epistle to Volusianus I answer that Augustine speaks of a body existing in place naturally, that is, according to the manner befitting its nature. For every body is quantified, and because it is quantified, is also extended, so that the greater part occupies the greater place, and the lesser the lesser; and it plainly implies a contradiction that an extended body remain extended, and yet be whole in any part. In the same manner, in Book 20 against Faustus, Augustine speaks of the body of Christ; for the Manichees did not think that Christ was one man, but a certain light spread through the sun, moon, and all other places, as Augustine there testifies; and Him who in human form was crucified by Pilate they said to be a phantasm, not a true man. Wherefore Augustine uses this dilemma: If Christ is a spirit or phantasm, He could not be crucified; but if He is a body spread through the sun, moon, and other places, He could not be at once whole in the sun, and in the moon, and on the cross, because a body spread through so many places cannot be whole in the individual places. But if Augustine spoke of the body of Christ as it really is, and not according to the opinion of the Manichees, we could answer that he speaks of the body according to the ordinary course of nature, and not according to that which the omnipotence of the Creator can do in it. For in the same place he says that a spirit can in no way suffer on the cross; which must necessarily be understood according to the ordinary course of nature; otherwise Augustine would fight with himself, since in Book 21 On the City of God, chapter 10, he writes that a spirit can suffer from bodily fire by the divine power. And certainly, if a spirit can be bound to bodily fire, so as to receive punishment from it in marvelous but true ways, as Augustine speaks, why could it not be bound to a cross, and receive punishment from it in marvelous but true ways? But enough of this argument.
Secondly, they bring also philosophical reasons. And first John Wyclif used this argument: Nothing can be at once in two times; therefore neither in two places.
Secondly, Calvin and Peter Martyr argue from the unity of the thing: If one body be in diverse places at once, it will be one and many. For the body, as it is on the altar, is not continuous with the same as it is in heaven; therefore it is divided; therefore not one; and yet it is posited to be one; therefore one and not one.
It is confirmed, first, because if one body be posited in several places, it will be in place and not in place; for it will be in place—nay, in places, as we posit—and yet will not be in place; because everything which is in place is either circumscribed by place, or at least so contained that it be not elsewhere, which the Theologians call to be in place definitively. But the body of Christ is not so in heaven, or on some altar, as not to be also elsewhere; therefore it is not in place.
Secondly, that which begins to be somewhere, where before it was not, either comes there by local motion, or is generated there. But the body of Christ does not come from heaven to the altar by local motion, because that which is moved locally deserts one place to acquire another; but Christ never deserts heaven, nor is generated on the altar; for that which is cannot be made; therefore it cannot be that Christ be at once in heaven and on the altar.
Thirdly, many contradictions follow if the same body be in several places. For it will be able to be above and below, and consequently removed and not removed from the same place; likewise to be moved and to rest, to approach one place and at the same time to recede from it; likewise it will be able in one place to be highly heated, in another cooled; or even in one place to be wounded and slain, in another to be well; which are most openly repugnant.
I answer that of these arguments it can most rightly be said what Augustine says, Book 22 On the City of God, chapter 11: “Behold with what arguments human infirmity, which vanity possesses, contradicts the omnipotence of God.” For that one thing cannot be in two times arises not from the thing itself, but from the times, which cannot be at once, since they always flow; whence it is not similar in places, which remain. But to that about unity it has already been answered that the essential unity of a thing does not depend on the unity of place, since it is prior for a thing to be one than to be in one place, but depends on its internal principles. And so imagination indeed cannot conceive one body in diverse places, but reason can judge, if it be sound, that the imagination is deceived, as it is deceived when it cannot think of God or the soul in diverse places, or of two bodies in one place.
To that about continuity I say that the body of Christ, as it is on the altar, is not continuous with the body as it is in heaven, nor yet is it discontinuous or divided from it. For to be continuous and to be divided belongs to things which are many, whether they be certain wholes or parts of the same. But the body, as it is in heaven and on the altar, is not two wholes, nor parts of the same, but altogether the same whole.
But, you will say, many bodies intervene between the body of Christ as it is in heaven and as it is on the altar; therefore it is discontinuous and divided from itself. I answer that by this argument it is rightly proved that the places themselves are discontinuous, namely heaven and earth, and by this the body of Christ too is divided from itself with respect to place, but not with respect to its own substance or quantity, as was said above.
To the first confirmation Saint Thomas answers that the body of Christ is in heaven circumscriptively; but in the Sacrament it is not in place, neither circumscriptively nor definitively of itself; yet by reason of the dimensions of the bread it is circumscriptively in all the places where there are consecrated hosts.
But because we think that the body of Christ can be in several places even locally and visibly, therefore we say that the same body can be circumscriptively, and also definitively, in several places. For that a body be circumscriptively in some place, it is only required that it be commensurate with that place, so that the terms of the place and of the located thing be together; but it is not required that it be not elsewhere, as in another place; and by this the matter is saved in the present case. For the body of Christ in heaven is commensurate with its place which it there has; and when it was at the same time on earth, namely when it appeared to Paul, it was commensurate with its place which it had on earth or in the air. And so in both it was circumscriptively.
You will say: If some body be commensurate with a place of three cubits, and be placed in two or three equal places, will it not occupy a space of six or nine cubits? How, then, is it commensurate and circumscribed by a place of three cubits?
I answer: It can be understood in two ways that a body of three cubits occupy a space of nine cubits. In one way, because the magnitude of such a body is commensurate with such a place; and in this manner it cannot be that a body of three cubits occupy a space of nine cubits. In the other way, that the magnitude of such a body is commensurate only with a place of three cubits, yet the same magnitude is placed in place twice or thrice; and this we contend can be done. The same can be said of the manner of existing definitively. For that something be definitively in place, it is enough if it be defined by a certain space, so that it be in the whole of it and not in a greater; whether it be in another place too definitively, or not; and in this manner the body of the Lord in any host can be said to be definitively, because it is in so great a space as the consecrated host occupies, and not in a greater. But if anyone contend that to be in place, both circumscriptively and definitively, requires that the thing be in no way elsewhere, we can say that there is a third manner of existing in place, namely by presence alone, in the manner in which God is in place; and that in this manner those bodies are in place which by divine power are at once in various places.
To the second confirmation I say that the body of the Lord begins to be on the altar, where before it was not, not by generation, nor by local motion, but by the conversion of the bread into it. Nor are like examples wanting. For when a man is increased by nutrition, the rational soul begins to be in that matter added, where before it was not, and yet no new soul is produced, nor is it moved locally, but only begins to inform the matter joined to it, which it did not inform. And on the contrary, when some member is cut off, the soul ceases to be there, and yet does not perish, nor recede locally. So too God, when something is born in the world, begins to be in that thing, and when it perishes ceases to be there; and yet God is neither generated nor corrupted, nor locally approaches or recedes.
To the third confirmation the Theologians answer variously. For some think that from the placing of one body in diverse places, the relations are multiplied, but not the absolutes; as, for example, they say that the same body existing in heaven and on earth will have various relations, so that it be said to be near the earth as it is here, which relation it will not have as it is in heaven, and the contrary. But if it be heated here, it will be hot there too, and so forth. Others think that the absolutes too are multiplied, and proceed so far as to say that the same man can in one place be drunk, in another thirst; nay, in one die, in another live.
But the middle way seems safest. For the understanding of which it must be noted that one body placed in several places has one substantial being, but many local beings. Whence it comes about that all those things must be multiplied which follow the local being; but those things are not multiplied which come from elsewhere than from the local being.
And first the relations to the places will necessarily be multiplied; because, since the body is truly in several places, and the relation is terminated at the places themselves, which are several, the relation itself cannot but be multiplied. And so the same body will be above and below, removed and near; it will be able to be moved to one place and to rest in another. Nor is it absurd that in the same subject there be contrary relations, since they are in that subject through diverse foundations or diverse grounds of founding. Nor yet is any contradiction here implied.
For although it can be called near and removed, and even removed and not removed, yet under a diverse ground, namely as it is in diverse places; for those are called contradictory which belong to one thing with respect to the same, at the same time, place, manner, and so forth. And lest this seem wonderful, we can bring forward the example of the human soul, which, since it is whole in the whole body and in any member, certainly as it is in the head is removed from the earth, as it is in the feet is not removed; and if one move one hand, the other resting, will not the soul too be at once moved and at rest? These things, then, are so as regards relations.
The same judgment, moreover, seems to hold of actions which are terminated at places; as if, for example, one torch be placed in many places, it will illumine all those at once; and if combustibles be applied in all the places, it will burn all. And so it could be done by divine power that one torch illumine the whole world, if it were placed in several places. For the reason why one torch placed in one place does not illumine those things which are far off is that they are not within the sphere of activity of that torch. But if the torch be placed in several places, then all those will be within the sphere of its activity; nor yet will it therefore follow that that torch is equal to the sun, or acts beyond its power; for by its own power it does not illumine except a little proportioned to itself, but the sun by its power illumines the whole world; but from the placing in many places it accrues to that torch that it has many spheres of activity, all however small and proportioned to itself. And it is altogether similar with a body of three cubits, which (as we said above) can occupy a space of six and nine cubits, not by its single extension, but because that extension is often placed in place. And these things are said of the actions of a located body which are received in the places themselves, or in other extrinsic bodies.
But the contrary judgment must hold of those things which are received in the located body; for those which are received in the body, whether they be actions, or qualities, or whatever else, are not multiplied, because the body is one, not many. And so if the body be heated in one place, it will be hot in the other too; and if in one place it be near fire, in another near ice, it will neither be highly heated nor highly cooled, but will be altered in the same manner as it would be altered if those contrary agents were applied to it in the same place; and if in one place it be wounded or slain, in the other too it will appear wounded and will die; and if in one place it eat, in the other it will not hunger, even though it does not eat, because it is the same body. But of these things enough has been said.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IV. Solvuntur objectiones , quibus adversarii pro¬ bare conantur implicare contradictionem , ut unum corpus sit in pluribus locis. Adversarii multa argumenta proponunt ac primum ex Scriptura, et Patribus duo ar¬ gumenta proferunt. Primo, Calvinus in ult. admonit. ad Westphalum, urget illam con¬ sequentiam Angeli, Matth. ult. Non est hic, surrexit enim (1) : quse consequentia infirma esset, si posset idem corpus esse in pluribus locis : posset enim discedere, et remanere. Secundo, proferunt ea loca, ubi Deo tan- quam proprium tribuitur, ut non circum¬ scribatur loco, sed ubique sit : Coelum, et ter¬ ram ego impleo , Hierem. xxm. (2) Et confir¬ mant ex Patribus, qui probant Spiritum san¬ ctum esse Deum, quia ubique est, juxta il¬ lud Psal. cxxxvm. Quo ibo a Spiritu tuo (3) ? Vide Ambrosium primo libro de Spiritu sancto, cap. 7. Hieronymum et Cassiodorum in Psalmum citatum; Augustinum tertio li¬ bro contra Maximinum cap. 21 . Basilium lib. de Spiritu sancto, cap. 22. Didymumlib. i. de Spiritu sancto ;Cyrillum lib. vii. Dialog. de Trinit. At si corpus Christi posset esse in multis locis, eadem ratione posset esse in omnibus, et tamen non esset Deus : ergo ra¬ tio Patrum nihil concluderet. Praeterea Pa¬ tres, qui scripserunt contra Eutychetem , probant humanam Christi naturam non esse confusam cum divina, quia divina est ubique, humana autem etiam post resurrectionem certo loco circumscribitur. Vide Theodore - tum Dialogo 2. et 3. Vigilium lib. i. et iv. contra Eutychetem, et Fulgentium lib. n. ad Trasymundum, cap. 17. Addit Wiclef apud Waldensem tom. n. c. 72. alium locum ex Augustino in epist. 3. ad Volusianum, ubi Augustinus dicit, nullum corpus posse esso ubique totum. Posset de¬ nique addi alius locus ex lib. 20. contra Faustum cap. ii. ubi sic loquitur Augustinus de Christo secundum praesentiam corpora¬ lem : « Simul et in sole, et luna, et in cruce esse non posset. » Respondeo ad locum Scripturae : Non est hic , surrexit enim ; duobus modis. Primo, consequentia illa Angeli optima est, sed si applicetur (ut applicanda est) ad mentem il¬ larum sanctarum mulierum, cum quibus An¬ gelus loquebatur : illae enim quaerebant cor¬ pus Domini mortuum in sepulchro, ut illud ungerent. Quare cum Angelus ait : Non est hic , sensus est : Non jacet mortuus in sepul¬ chro, ut vos creditis. Et id probat, cum ad¬ dit : Surrexit enim ; nec enim poterat mor¬ tuus jacere si resurrexerat. Secundo , consequentia illa optima est etiam absolute, sed moraliter loquendo, ut Angelus loquebatur, non metaphysice. Nam moraliter loquendo, qui resurgit amortenon remanet in sepulchro, sed egreditur : sepul- chrurn enim est locus mortuorum, non vi¬ ventium : tamen fieri etiam potest, ut aliquis vivens in sepulchro jaceat, si velit. Itaque moraliter verissime dixit Angelus : Non est hic , surrexit enim ; quamquam absolute po¬ tuisset ibi esse Christus, licet surrexisset. Simile est si quis dicat : Talis homo non se¬ det ad mensam, ccenatus enim est. Ad alias Scripturas, et testimonia Patrum dico duas esse differentias inter Deum, et corpus Chrfsti, quod pertinet ad existentiam in loco. Prima est, quod Deas roipsa, ac de facto est ubique ; corpus Christi, reipsa, ac de facto non est ubique, neque unquam erit, sed uno in loco est localiter, nimirum in coelo ; in multis, sacram entaliter; in multis aliis nullo modo. Et hoc sufficit ad salvanda argumenta Patrum de Spiritus sancti divini¬ tate, et de differentia naturarum in Christo. Nam si solus Deus de facto est ubique ; certe Spiritus sanctus convincitur Deus esse, quia est ubique et Christi humanitas convincitur non esse confusa cum divinitate, quia non est ubique. Secunda differentia est ; quod divinitas non solum est ubique, sed etiam non potest constringi ad unum locum, imo non potest non esse ubique cum sit intrin¬ sece, et essentialiter immensa. At Christi corpus licet possit esse, et sit per Dei poten¬ tiam in multis locis, tamen potest etiam re¬ digi ad unum solum locum, quemadmodum ante Sacramenti institutionem in uno solo loco erat; et post mundi consummationem in uno solo loco erit. Et hinc habemus argu¬ mentum propositum optime concludere con¬ tra Ubiquistas, sed nihil contra Catholicos. Nam Ubiquistce docent, Christi corpus per unionem ad Verbum semper reipsa, et de (1) Mare. XXVIII, 6. — (2) Jerem. XXIII, 24. ~ (3) Psal. CXXXVIII, 7. .UBER III. 140 facto esse ubique, nec posse redigi ad unum locum. Et hoc est, quod ex professo oppu¬ gnant, Theodoretus, Vigilius, et alii, qui scribunt contra Eutychetem. Ad locum autem ex epistola ad Yolusia- num, respondeo, loqui Augustinum de cor¬ pore existente in loco naturaliter, id est, se¬ cundum modum natura* sua; convenientem. Omne enim corpus quantum est, et quia quantum etiam extensum est, ita ut major pars majorem locum, et minor minorem oc¬ cupet : et implicat plane contradictionem, ut corpus extensum maneat, et tamen sit to¬ tum in qualibet parte. Eodem modo in lib. xx. contra Faustum, loquitur Augustinus de corpore Christi : Manichan enim, non arbi¬ trabantur Christum esse unum hominem, sed lucem quamdam expansam per solem, lunam, et omnia alia loca, ut ibidem Augustinus tes¬ tatur ; illum autem, qui in forma humana crucifixus fuit a Pilato, dicebant phantasma fuisse, non verum hominem, Quare Augusti¬ nus utitur hoc dilemmate : Si Christus est Spiritus seu phantasma, crucifigi non potuit ; si autem est corpus expansum per solem, lunam, et alia loca, non potuit fotus simul esse in sole, et in luna, et in cruce, quia cor¬ pus expansum per tot loca non potest totum esse in singulis locis. Quod si Augustinus lo¬ queretur de corpore Christi, ut est revera, et non secundum sententiam Manichteorum ; respondere possemus, eum loqui de cor¬ pore, secundum ordinarium cursum naturas ; et non secundum id, quod potest in illo fa¬ cere omnipotentia Creatoris. Nam ibidem dicit, spiritum nullo modo pati posse in cruce ; quod necessario intelligi debet, secundum ordinarium cursum natura) ; alioqui Augustinus pugnaret secum ; quippe qui lib. 21. de civit. Dei, c. 10. scribit, spi¬ ritum pati posse ab igne corporeo per divi¬ nam potentiam. Et certe si potest alligari spiritus igni corporeo, ut ab eo recipiat pce- nam miris, sed veris modis, ut Augustinus loquitur, cur non posset alligari cruci, et ab ea poenam recipere miris, sed veris modis ? sed de hoc argumento satis. Secundo, afferunt etiam philosophicas / rationes. Ac primum Joannes Wiclefus illo argumento utebatur ; non potest aliquid si¬ mul esse in duobus temporibus ; ergo nec in duobus locis. Secundo, Calvinus, et Petrus Martyr ar¬ gumentantur ab unitate rei ; Si unum corpus sit io diversis locis simul, erit unum, et mul¬ ta. Nam non continuatur corpus ut est in al¬ tari, cum eodem, ut est in coelo ; ergo divi¬ sum est ; ergo non unum ; et tamen ponitur esse linum; ergo unum, et non unum. Confirmatur primo, quia si ponatur cor¬ pus unum in pluribus locis, erit in loco, et non in loco ; nam erit in loco, imo in locis, ut ipsi ponimus, et tamen non erit in loco : quia omne, quod est in loco, aut circum¬ scribitur loco, aut saltem ita continetur, ut non sit alibi, quod Theologi vocant esse in loco definitive. At corpus Christi non ita est in coelo, aut in altari aliquo, ut non sit etiam alibi ; non igitur est in loco. Secundo, quod incipit esse alicubi, ubi antea non erat, aut venit eo per motum loca¬ lem, aut ibi generatum est. Sed corpus Christi non venit de ca*lo ad altare per mo¬ tum localem : quia quod movetur localiter, deserit unum locum, ut acquirat alium ; Christus autem nunquam deserit coelum, neque generatur in altari ; non enim potest id, quod est, fieri : non ergo potest fieri, ut sit Christus simul in coelo, et in altari. Tertio, sequuntur multa) contradictiones, si idem corpus sit in pluribus locis. Nam po¬ terit esse sursum et deorsum, proinde remo¬ tum, et non remotum ab eodem loco : item moveri, et quiescere, accedere ad unum lo¬ cum, et simul ab eo recedere : item poterit uno in loco summe calefieri, in altero frige- fieri : vel etiam uno in loco vulnerari, et oc¬ cidi, in altero bene valere : qua) sunt aper¬ tissime repugnantia. Respondeo, [de his argumentis rectissime dici potest, quod ait Augustinus lib. xxit. de civit, cap. ii. « Ecce qualibus argumentis omnipotentiae Dei humana contradicit infir¬ mitas, quam possidet vanitas. » Nam quod una res non possit esse in duobus tempori¬ bus, non nascitur ex ipsa re, sed ex tempo¬ ribus, qua) non possunt esse simul, cum sem- per fluant : unde non est simile in locis, qua) permanent. Ad illud autem de unitate, jam antea responsum est, unitatem essen¬ tialem rei non pendere ab unitate loci, cum prius sit rem esse unam, quam esse in uno loco, sed pendere ab internis suis principiis. Itaque imaginatio quidem non potest conci¬ pere unum corpus in diversis locis, sed ratio tamen judicare potest, si sana sit, falli ima¬ ginationem, sicut fallitur, dum Deum, vel animam non potest cogitare in diversis locis, vel duo corpora in uno loco. Ad illud de continuatione dico, corpus CAPUT IV. Hf Christi, ut est in altari, non continuari cura corpore, ut est in coelo, nec tamen esse clis- continuum, vel divisum ab illo. Nara conti¬ nuari et dividi, est eorum, quae multa sunt, sive sint tota quasdam, sive partes ejusdem. Corpus autem, ut in cusio, et in altari, non sunt duo tota, nec partes ejusdem, sed idem omnino totum. At, inquies, intercedunt inulta corpora in¬ ter corpus Christi, ut in coelo , et ut in altari est : ergo discontinuum, et divisum, est a seipso. Respondeo, hoc argumento recte probari, loca ipsa esse discontinua, nimirum coelum, ct terram, et per hoc etiam corpus Christi divisum esse a se respectu loci, sed non re¬ spectu proprias substantias, sive quantitatis, ut supra dictum est. Ad primam confirmationem respondere S. Thomas : Corpus Christi esse in cocio cir- cumscriptive, in Sacramento, autem non esse in loco, nec circumscriptive, nec definitive secundum se, tamen ratione dimensionum panis esse circumscriptive in omnibus locis, ubi sunt hostiae consecrata;. At quia nos existimamus, posse corpus Christi esse in pluribus locis etiam loca¬ liter, et visibiliter , ideo dicimus corpus idem posse esse circumscriptive, et etiam definitive in pluribus locis. Nam ut corpus sit circumscriptive in aliquo loco, tantum requiritur, ut commensuretur illi loco ; ita ut termini loci et locati sint simul : non au¬ tem requiritur ut non sit alibi, tanquam in alio loco; ex hoc servatur in prsesenti. Nam corpus Christi in coelo commensuratur loco suo, quem ibi habet ; et quando simul erat in terra, cum videlicet apparuit Paulo, com- mensurabatur in loco suo, quem in terra, vel in aere habebat. Itaque in utroque erat cir¬ cumscripti ve. Dices, si corpus aliquod commensuretur loco trium cubitorum, et ponatur in duobus, vel tribus locis aequalibus, nonne occupabit spatium sex, vel novem cubitorum? Quomo¬ do ergo commensuratur, et circumscribitur loco trium cubitorum? Respondeo : dupliciter potest intelligi, ut corpus trium cubitorum, occupet spatium novem cubitorum. Uno modo, quia magni¬ tudo talis corporis commensuretur tali loco, et hoc modo fieri non potest, ut corpus trium cubitorum, occupet spatium novem cubi¬ torum. Altero modo, ut magnitudo talis corporis non commensuretur, nisi loco trium cubito¬ rum, tamen eadem magnitudo, bis, aut ter ponatur in loco : et hoc fieri posse contendi¬ mus. Idem dici potest de modo existendi definitive. Nam, ut aliquid sit definitive in loco, satis est si definiatur certo quodam spatio, ita ut in toto illo sit, et non in ma¬ jori ; sive sit in alio loco etiam definitive, sive non : et hoc modo corpus Domini in quali¬ bet hostia potest dici esse definitive, quia est in tanto spatio, quantum occupat hostia con¬ secrata, et non in majori. Quod si quis con¬ tendat esse in loco tam circumscriptive, quam definitive, id requirere, ut res nullo modo sit alibi ; dicere possumus dari tertium modum existendi in loco, nimirum per solam praesentiam, quomodo Deus est in loco : et hoc modo esse in loco ea corpora, quae per divinam potentiam simul sunt in variis - locis. Ad Secundam confirmationem dico, Do¬ mini corpus incipere esse in altari, ubi antea non erat : non per generationem, nec per motum localem, sed per conversionem panis in ipsum. Nec desunt exempla similia. Nam cum homo per nutritionem augetur, anima rationalis incipit esse in materia illa allata, ubi antea non erat, et tamen non produci¬ tur anima nova, nec movetur localiter, sed solum incipit informare materiam sibi ad¬ junctam, quam non informabat. Et contra, cum membrum aliquod abscinditur, anima desinit ibi esse, et tamen non perit, nec re¬ cedit localiter : sic etiam Deus cum aliquid in mundo nascitur, incipit in ea re osse, ct cum illud perit desinit ibi esse, et tamen nec generatur, aut corrumpitur Deus, nec loca¬ liter accedit, aut recedit. Ad tertiam confirmationem varie Theologi respondent. Alii enim existimant ex posi¬ tione unius corporis in diversis locis, multi¬ plicari respectus, non autem absoluta ; ut verbi gratia, dicunt idem corpus in ccelo, et in terra existens, habiturum varias relatio¬ nes, ita ut dicatur esse propinquum terra;, ut est hic, quam relationem non habebit, ut est in ccelo, et contra. At si hic calefiat, etiam ibi erit calidum etc. Alii putant etiam absoluta multiplicari, et eousque progre¬ diuntur, ut dicant posse cumdcm hominem uno in loco ebrium esse, in alio sitire ; imo in uno mori, in altero vivere. Sed media via tutissima esse videtur. Pro qua intelligenda, notandum est, unum cor¬ pus in pluribus locis positum, habere unum esse substantiale, sed multa esso localia. Ex 142 LIBER III. quo fit, ut illa omnia multiplicari debeant, quas consequuntur esse locale : illa autem non multiplicentur, quee aliuncfe proveniunt, quam ex esse locali. Ac primum relationes ad loca necessario multiplicabuntur : quia cum sit corpus vere in pluribus locis, et relatio terminetur ad ipsa loca, quas plura sunt, non potest ipsa re¬ latio non multiplicari. Itaque erit idem cor¬ pus sursum et deorsum ; remotum, et pro¬ pinquum ; poterit moveri ad locum, et quies¬ cere in alio loco. Neque absurdum est in eo¬ dem subjecto esse contrarias relationes, cum insint in eo subjecto per diversa fundamen¬ ta, aut diversas fundandi rationes. Nec ta¬ men implicatur hic ulla contradictio. Nam etsi possit dici propinquum, et remo¬ tum : et etiam remotum, et non remotum : sed sub diversa ratione, ut nimirum est in diversis locis ; illa enim dicuntur contra¬ dicentia, quse conveniunt uni respectu ejus¬ dem, eodem tempore, loco, modo etc. Ac ne mirum id esse videatur, exemplum afferre possumus animas humanse, quee cum in toto corpore, et in quolibet membro sit tota, certe ut est in capite, est remota a terra, ut est in pedibus, non est remota : et si quis unam manum moveat, altera quiescente ; nonne etiam anima simul movebitur, et quiescet ? Hasc igitur de relationibus ita se habent. Idem porro judicium esse videtur de ac¬ tionibus, quas terminantur ad loca, ut si ver¬ bi gratia, una facula ponatur in multis locis, omnia illa simul illustrabit, et si applicentur in omnibus locis combustibilia, omnia com¬ buret. Itaque posset fieri per divinam poten¬ tiam, ut una facula totum mundum illustra¬ ret, si poneretur in pluribus locis. Nam cau¬ sa cur una facula posita in uno loco non illu¬ minet ea, quee procul absunt, est, quia illa non sunt intra spheeram activitatis illius faculae. At si facula ponatur in pluribus locis, jam erunt illa omnia intra spheeram activitatis ejus, nec propterea tamen sequetur, faculam illam esse soli ecqualem, aut agere ultra suam virttftem ; nam ipsa sua virtute non illuminat, nisi modicum sibi proportionatum, sol autem sua virtute illuminat totum orbem : sed ex positione in multis locis id illi faculee accedit, ut multas habeat sphseras activitatis, omnes tamen exiguas, et sibi proportionatas. Et simile est omnino de corpore trium cubi¬ torum, quod (ut supra diximus) occupare potest spatium sex, et novem cubitorum, non unica extentione sua, sed quia soepius illa extensio ponitur in loco. Atque haec dic¬ ta sunt de actionibus corporis locati, quse recipiuntur in ipsis locis, vel aliis extrinsecis corporibus. Contrarium porra judicium esse debet de his, quas recipiuntur in corpore locato : quas enim recipiuntur in corpore, sive sint actio¬ nes, sive qualitates, sive qusecumque alia, non multiplicantur, quia corpus unum est, non multa. Itaque si corpus uno in loco ca¬ lefiat, etiam in alio erit calidum, et si uno in loco sit prope ignem, in altero prope gla¬ ciem ; nec summe calefiet, nec summe frige- fiet, sed eodem modo alterabitur, atque al¬ teraretur si in eodem loco applicarentur ei contraria illa agentia : et si uno in loco vulneretur, aut occidatur ; in altero etiam vulneratum apparebit, et morietur : et si uno in loco comedat, in altero non esuriet, etiamsi non comedet, quia idem est corpus. Sed de his satis multa \dicta sunt.