Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book III: On the Truth of the Body of the Lord, from Reason
Chapter 6: That a Body Can Be Somewhere and Not Occupy a Place
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 first argument, then, is taken from those Scriptures which say that with God all things are possible, Matthew 19, Mark 14, Luke 1. Now that among all those things is also that of which we now treat can be proved from the principles of the adversaries, as we did above in proving the other proposition of the Catholics. See chapter 3.
But besides these it is proved from the very nature of the thing. For it is agreed between us that nothing ought to be excepted from the number of things which God can do, save those which imply a contradiction. But for a body to be somewhere and not occupy a place, or to occupy it and not expel another, implies no contradiction. For to imply this is to repugn the essence; but it does not repugn the essence of magnitude not to occupy a place, or not to expel another body. Which is proved, first, because to occupy a place is something posterior to magnitude itself; for first the thing is great in itself and apt to fill a place, then it fills a place. But nothing posterior is of the essence of the prior; for essences consist in the indivisible. Secondly, magnitude can be understood, and even defined, without place, or the filling of place; nay, no one has hitherto placed place in the definition of magnitude. And what is more, it can be without place, as is clear of the last sphere, and of bodies which without doubt could be placed by God above the convex surface of the last sphere; therefore it is not of the essence of magnitude to occupy a place. Thirdly, office or function is not of the essence of any created thing; for only in God, who is infinite and most simple, are being and acting the same. But to fill a place, and to expel other bodies, is an office of magnitude and a certain external function; therefore it does not pertain to the essence. Fourthly, mass or extension is related to magnitude as gravity is related to a heavy body. For as magnitude by its mass fills a place and thrusts out another body, so a heavy body by its gravity weighs down and presses down other bodies. But it is not of the essence of the heavy to weigh down, as is clear, because in its own region water and air do not weigh; therefore neither is it of the essence of magnitude to fill.
The other argument is taken from examples of the divine Scripture. The first example is Matthew 19, Mark 10, Luke 18: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. And when the Apostles said: Who then can be saved? the Lord answered: With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. Where the Lord, when He says that that is possible to God which is more difficult, signifies that that too is possible which is easier; and He says that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle; therefore He willed this to be possible to God. But a camel cannot pass through the eye of a needle except by not occupying a place; otherwise the greater would be less than its own lesser.
And besides, in whatever manner this be done, certainly it seems to repugn reason no less that a camel enter through the eye of a needle than that the body of Christ be contained in a little species of bread; nay, the proportion of the eye of a needle to a camel is less than that of the consecrated host to the body of the Lord—unless someone say that by ‘camel’ is understood not that great animal which we call a camel, but a nautical cable, as Theophylact testifies that some held, on chapter 19 of Matthew. But then indeed the proportion of the body of the Lord to the consecrated host will be less than that of a camel to the eye of a needle; yet this too will be impossible to men, as the Lord says, and as experience teaches. For who can understand by what reasoning a thickest cable, such as nautical ones are, can pass through the eye of a needle?
Add that the common exposition of the Fathers understands the humped animal, not a nautical cable. See Origen, Jerome, Hilary, and Chrysostom on Matthew; Ambrose on Luke; and Augustine, Book 2 Questions on the Gospel, question 47. Add too that ‘nautical cable’ is written in Greek with an iota, [kamilos], as it is in Suidas; but in the Gospel it is written with an eta, [kamēlos], by which word the Greeks understand not a cable, but an animal.
Now as to what some say, that by the eye of a needle is understood a certain narrow gate of Jerusalem, through which laden camels could not enter unless they bent their knees with great labor (which opinion Cajetan too approved), it is not only fabulous and asserted without any foundation, and not only repugns all the Fathers, but also is opposed to the words of the Lord, who says, Luke 18: The things that are impossible with men are possible with God. For how are these things impossible with men, if it could be done by human art that camels bend their knees and enter?
From the same is refuted what the Pelagians said, in Augustine, epistle 89, question 4, that the words of the Lord are to be understood in the divided sense, not in the composite; so that it is impossible for a rich man, if he remain rich, to enter into the kingdom of heaven, but not if, his riches cast away, he cease to be rich; and in the same manner it is impossible for a camel, if it remain a camel, to pass through the eye of a needle, but not if it be thinned to the fineness of a thread. These things, I say, are refuted from the same foundation. For it is not impossible with men that a camel pass through the eye of a needle, if it cease to be a camel and be converted into a most fine thread. Wherefore Augustine, epistle 89, question 4, rightly teaches that a rich man, even if he cease not to be rich, can, by the grace and power of God, enter into the kingdom of heaven; although without the grace of God, by the powers of nature alone, it is not only impossible, but very impossible; for to all men it is impossible without the grace of God to be saved, but much more to the rich than to the poor. The same Augustine too, in his book On the Spirit and the Letter, chapter 1, openly says that a camel can, by the power of God, pass through the eye of a needle, although this has never been done, and perhaps never will be. Which same thing Gregory Nazianzen affirms, Book 4 On Theology, and Origen on chapter 19 of Matthew, where he says that how this can be done is known to God alone.
The other example of Scripture is John 20, where the Evangelist writes that Christ came to the disciples when the doors were shut; and again, after eight days, that He entered to them again, the doors being shut. From which it is necessary that the body of Christ either did not occupy a place when it passed through the closed doors, or penetrated itself with another body; both of which are impossible to created powers and surpass our understanding.
Yet the heretics have always attempted to deprave this passage. For the Berengarians, Guitmund being witness in Book 3, denied that Christ entered with the doors shut; and in our time John Oecolampadius would have Christ enter through a window or some other approach, since the doors were shut and He could not penetrate them; which he seems to have taken from Durandus, on Book 4, distinction 44, question 6, who rather rashly brings forward his singular opinions. John Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, section 29, says that Christ by divine power opened Himself an approach; and explaining this more clearly in his last admonition to Westphal, he says that Christ entered the doors being shut according to the Gospel, because He did not wait until the Apostles opened, but Himself by His power opened the door, or even reduced it to nothing and immediately restored it. But Peter Martyr, book against Gardiner, objections 11 and 12, says that Christ entered through an opened approach, whether the Lord rarefied those doors, or even commanded them to yield.
But these are mere corruptions and depravations of the Gospel. For, in the first place, the Evangelist John, most diligent narrator of the miracles of the Lord, and who otherwise is not wont to multiply words without cause, took care with great study to add: the doors being shut, and that not once, but twice. But if the Lord entered through a window, or by any approach opened in any manner, there will be no miracle in entering the doors being shut.
Then Luke, chapter 24, narrating the same apparition, says that the Lord suddenly stood in the midst of the Apostles, and therefore was thought to be a spirit; which certainly indicate that the Lord appeared with no noise made, but the whole house remaining unmoved.
Besides, the Fathers by common consent acknowledge a miracle in this, that the Lord introduced His solid body through another solid. See Chrysostom, Cyril, Augustine, Euthymius, Theophylact on this passage of John. And besides Justin, question 117 to the Orthodox; Ambrose on the last chapter of Luke; Amphilochius in Theodoret in the second dialogue; Epiphanius, heresy 64; Jerome in his epistle to Pammachius on the errors of John of Jerusalem; Leo, epistle 10 to Flavian; Gregory, homily 26 on the Gospels; Bernard, sermon 1 On the Resurrection; and beyond the rest Hilary, Book 3 On the Trinity, where he seems to have foreseen the impudence of the heretics of our time: “All things,” he says, “are whole and barred, but behold, He stands in the midst, to whom by His power all things are passable. Nothing yields from the solid, nor by their nature do the wood and stones lose anything as by an insensible slipping. The body of the Lord does not fail from itself, that it may resume itself out of nothing; and whence is He who stands in the midst? To these things both sense and speech yield, and the truth of the deed is beyond human reason. Therefore, as we are deceived about the nativity of the Lord, so let us lie also about the entrance of the Lord: let us say it was not done, because we do not apprehend the understanding of the deed; and, our sense ceasing, let the effect of the deed itself cease. But the faith of the deed itself conquers our lie. The Lord stands, the house being shut, in the midst of the disciples; and the Son is born of the Father.”
Add that the Fathers had the greatest occasion of denying that Christ entered through the closed doors. For the Marcionists, Valentinians, Origenists, and others, who denied the true resurrection of the body, argued from this passage, as is clear from Cyril, Epiphanius, Jerome in the places cited; for it seems that that cannot be a true body which can enter the doors being shut. But to this objection the Fathers could most easily have met, if they had said that Christ entered through the windows, or through a door before opened or annihilated by Himself; and yet to none ever, before the times of Berengarius, did this solution come into mind; nay rather, on the contrary, from this principle as most certain and explored they proved other dogmas. For Hilary in the place noted proves that it is not impossible that God the Son be generated from the Father without any diminution of the paternal substance, since the body of Christ could enter through the closed doors without any injury either to itself or to the door.
The third example is of the nativity of the Lord; for that the Lord went forth from the closed womb of His Mother, the integrity of the flesh remaining inviolate, is gathered from the word of God, and is asserted by the Fathers in express words. For the virginity of blessed Mary in childbirth is had in the Apostolic Creed: Born of the Virgin Mary. But that the Creed of the Apostles is the unwritten word of God all Catholics confess, and the heretics of our time are not wont openly to reject that Creed. And this truth of the Creed is gathered from Scripture, Isaiah 7: Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son; where it is said not only that a Virgin shall conceive, but also that a Virgin shall bear. In Ezekiel 44 there is described a certain closed gate, through which the Lord alone enters; which gate Ambrose, in his book On the Institution of a Virgin, chapter 7, and Jerome in his commentary on this passage, teach to be the ever-closed womb of the Virgin Mother of God. Besides, Jovinian is on this account placed among the heretics by Siricius and Ambrose in the epistles which are among Ambrose’s, 80 and 81, and by Augustine in his book On Heresies, chapter 82, because he asserted that blessed Mary was corrupted in giving birth.
The same Augustine, Book 22 On the City of God, chapter 8, proves this very thing by another like miracle which happened in his own time; for he writes that a certain most noble woman named Petronia received from a certain Jew a ring in which was a certain stone useful for healing some disease with which she was afflicted; and that ring was wrapped in a hair-cord and most diligently tied; but when she went to the memorial of Saint Stephen the first Martyr, by whom she was truly to be healed, lest the power of the miracle be attributed to the Jewish binding, suddenly that ring stood before the feet of the woman unharmed, the cord too being unharmed and on every side most diligently closed. Of this miracle Augustine speaks thus: “They do not believe this who do not believe that the Lord Jesus was brought forth through the intact virginal parts of His Mother, and entered to His disciples the doors being shut. But let them at least inquire into this, and, if they find it true, let them believe those things. She is a most illustrious woman, nobly born, nobly married, dwells at Carthage; a great city, a great person—those who seek do not suffer the matter to lie hidden. The Martyr certainly, by whose obtaining she was healed, believed in the Son of the ever-Virgin, believed in Him who entered to His disciples the doors being shut.” The same blessed Augustine, in epistle 3 to Volusianus, disputing of both these miracles—that is, of the entrance to the disciples the doors being shut—says that in works of this kind the whole reason of the deed is the power of the doer. The same by common consent teach the other Fathers, who also join these two miracles, as Gregory Nazianzen in the Tragedy Christ Suffering; Theodoret, Dialogue 2; Jerome in his Apology for his books against Jovinian; Maximus, homily 2 On the Birth of the Lord; Gregory, homily 26 on the Gospels; Fulgentius in his sermon On the Praises of Blessed Mary; and Bernard, sermon 1 On the Resurrection of the Lord.
It is now shameful to relate what Durandus or Beza answer to these things. For the former, on Book 4, distinction 44, question 6, says that the enclosures of chastity were indeed whole, but that the natural passages were dilated by God, and through them Christ went forth freely. But the latter, in his book On the Omnipresence of the Flesh of Christ against Brentius, past the middle, dares to say that the womb of the Virgin was rent and opened at Christ’s going forth, but that immediately by divine power the parts of the womb grew together, so that even after childbirth she could be called a Virgin.
But I ask, first, whence they learned these things? For they will bring forward neither Scripture nor any Father. Then, if the passages were dilated, the Virgin did not bring forth without pain; for the pain of those in childbirth consists in that very dilation. Nay (if Beza said the truth) the blessed Virgin would have experienced pain above all women; for the rending of the flesh is more grievously felt than the dilation. But not even the Mahometans would admit that the blessed Virgin brought forth with pain. Besides, if it were as they say, blessed Mary would not have been a Virgin in childbirth; for to be a Virgin in childbirth can signify nothing else than that in the very action of giving birth the womb remains inviolate and unharmed. But this they deny, as of old Jovinian denied. For what Durandus says, that the integrity of the flesh remained inviolate and only the passages were dilated, according to the doctrine of the most skilled physicians, implies a contradiction. For, as John Fernel teaches, Book 1 On the Description of the Parts of the Human Body, chapter 7, the loss of virginal integrity consists not in the breaking of any membrane, but in the mere dilation of the joined or contiguous parts. But neither would she have remained a Virgin after childbirth. For the virginity of the flesh once lost cannot be repaired, as Jerome rightly says in his epistle to Eustochium On the Keeping of Virginity. For even though the rent parts can be joined again, yet it cannot be but that they were rent, if they were rent. But to be a Virgin is never to have been corrupted.
But Beza objects Ambrose, and certain other Fathers, who say that Christ opened the womb of His Mother when He was born. For so wrote Ambrose, Book 2 on Luke, chapter 7: “He who sanctified another’s womb, that a Prophet might be born, is He who opened the womb of His own Mother, that He might go forth immaculate.” Similar things Origen has, homily 14 on Luke, and Tertullian in his book On the Flesh of Christ.
And of Tertullian indeed it is ambiguous what he meant, nor is his authority to be greatly esteemed when he contradicts the other Fathers, since it is established that he (as Jerome speaks) was not a man of the Church. Of Origen and Ambrose the solution is easy; for they teach only this, that Christ went forth from the womb by His own power, not by the aid of midwives or other human work, but Himself opened Himself an approach. Now that He opened Himself an approach through the closed womb, not by dividing it, but by marvelously penetrating it, the same Ambrose teaches in the places cited above. For he says thus in his book On the Institution of a Virgin, chapter 7: “What is this gate but Mary, therefore closed because a virgin? The gate, then, is Mary, through whom Christ entered into this world, when He was poured forth by a virginal birth, and did not loose the genital enclosures of virginity. The barrier of chastity remained undefiled, and the seals of inviolate integrity endured, when He went forth from the Virgin, whose height the world cannot sustain.” And chapter 8: “This gate shall be shut, and shall not be opened: a good gate is Mary, which was shut and was not opened; Christ passed through it, but did not open it.” Origen too, tract 26 on Matthew, asserts that blessed Mary was a virgin even after childbirth.
The fourth example is of the going forth of the Lord from the closed tomb. For, as is gathered from Matthew, chapter 28, and Mark, chapter 16, Christ did not roll back the stone from the door of the tomb when He rose; but after the resurrection an Angel descended from heaven and rolled back the stone, to show the holy women, who wished to anoint Christ, that the tomb was empty. Whence Saint Jerome, in his epistle to Hedibia, question 6, teaches that the hour at which the Lord rose is known to no man, whereas from the Gospel it is sufficiently established at what hour the stone was rolled from the tomb.
To this argument Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, section 29, Peter Martyr in his book against Gardiner, objection 11, and Theodore Beza in his book On the Omnipresence of the Flesh of Christ cited above, do not deny that Christ rose and went forth from the tomb before the stone was moved by the Angel; although they think it more probable that the stone was moved first; but after their manner they answer in the same way as to the foregoing, namely that by divine power the stone yielded, or was annihilated and immediately restored.
But these they cannot prove save by their own authority; against which we object the testimonies of the Fathers, who place a miracle in this, that the true body went forth through the closed sepulchre. Justin, question 117; Nazianzen in the Tragedy Christ Suffering; Chrysostom, homily On Saint John the Baptist, volume 3; Jerome in his epistle to Hedibia, question 6; Augustine, sermon 138 On the Season, which is the third On the Resurrection; Bede, homily On the Vigil of the Pasch; Euthymius on chapter 28 of Matthew; Bernard, sermon 1 On the Resurrection.
The fifth example is of the ascension of Christ and of the blessed into heaven. For by most certain faith we hold that Christ ascended above all the heavens, Ephesians 4, and likewise that the bodies of the blessed will ascend after the resurrection. But there is in heaven no door, no window, no chink through which one can ascend above heaven; and, as it is said in Job 37: The heavens are most solid, as if they were of molten brass. It is necessary, therefore, that several bodies be able to be in the same place.
To this argument the only answer that seems possible is what Durandus answers, on Book 4, distinction 44, question 6, that by divine power heaven is divided when the bodies of the blessed ascend thither.
But if heaven is by its nature solid and incorruptible, as nearly all Theologians and Philosophers at this time teach, certainly it is not probable that as many holes are to be made in heaven as there are bodies of the blessed that shall ascend, especially since these will be very many. But whatever be the case of this, of the body of Christ it can only rashly be said that all the heavens were disrupted when He ascended to the Father. For, first, Scripture nowhere has this; nay, it insinuates the contrary, Hebrews 4, when it says that Christ penetrated the heavens. And truly to affirm so new and unheard-of a miracle without the testimony of Scripture is wonderful, if it be not judged a signal rashness, especially among those who will believe nothing but what is contained in the divine writings. Secondly, if the body of Christ entered the supper-room the doors being shut, as we proved before from Scripture, when yet He could most easily have opened them, how much more credible is it that, heaven not being disrupted (which by its nature cannot be disrupted), that same body was placed above the stars.
Nor does it repugn these things that in Scripture we often read that heaven was opened or divided, as Matthew 3, John 1, Acts 7 and 10, and Apocalypse 19. For Scripture in these places speaks of an opening of heaven according to appearance, and metaphorically; for it signifies that a certain appearance appeared in the heavens as if it were divided. And that there were not real divisions of heaven can be gathered from this: that Scripture speaks in the same manner of an opening of heaven which was made in imagination and understanding alone, such as that which is described in Acts 10 and Apocalypse 19, and of that which was made before bodily eyes, Matthew 3, John 1, and Acts 7; but it is established that the former was not real. Then, there was no cause why heaven should be divided. For in Matthew 3 heaven is said to be divided when from heaven the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove; but neither did the Holy Spirit need an opening of heaven to descend, since He is everywhere; nor was that dove sent from heaven properly so called, but was in the air and produced from the air; yet, that men might understand that thing to be divine, it so appeared as if it had been sent from the highest heaven. John 1 says heaven is opened on account of the descent of the Angels. But the Angels, since they are spirits, by the consent of all can penetrate through any bodies. Acts 7, heaven is opened that Saint Stephen may see Christ at the right hand of the Father. But neither then was there any reason why heaven should be cleft. For Stephen sees Christ either with the eyes of the body or with the eyes of the mind; but heaven, since it is transparent or diaphanous, could hinder neither vision. And so in that place the opening of heaven is called not a cleaving of the heavenly body, but a certain new illumination by which it was brought about that there appeared to the eyes of the Martyr what before did not appear; just as in Luke the last chapter the eyes of the two disciples are said to be opened when they knew the Lord, not that they had before had their eyes closed, but because they then knew Him whom before they could not know.
The sixth example is of the punishments of the damned; for in these punishments there are many miracles more difficult, or equally difficult, with this of which we treat. And first, that the bodies of the damned are burned by bodily fire, and truly and really tormented, and yet are not dissolved; for bodily pain tends to the dissolution of the body. If, then, there is in those punishments true bodily pain, how is the body never dissolved? If there is no dissolution, whence the pain? And so the heathen mocked these things as impossible, and yet the Catholics did not therefore ever wish to interpret those punishments spiritually or metaphorically, being certainly persuaded that God can do above that which we can think or understand.
Then, it seems no less difficult that a spirit be held and hindered by a body, so as not to pass whithersoever it wills, than that a body be not held nor hindered by a body, but freely pass through solid bodies as if they were nothing; for it belongs no less to a spiritual nature not to be able to be hindered than to a bodily nature to be able to be hindered. But the divine power binds the spirits of men, and even of demons, in gehenna, in certain places and bodies as in prisons, so that they can in no way go forth. And what need is there to descend into gehenna to see this miracle? Cannot each one behold it in himself? Since indeed our soul is a spirit existing of itself and independent of the body, and yet by so marvelous a contrivance is enclosed by God in the body of this death, as in a prison, that it cannot go forth thence unless the constitution of the body be first dissolved.
Finally, this is beyond measure marvelous in the punishments of the damned, that not only souls and demons are held by bodily fire, but also afflicted and tormented; which is so difficult that no one has yet been found who could render a reason of this thing in which others might acquiesce. For if the burning of fire does not afflict except (as we said) by dissolving the continuous, how can it be understood that it afflicts an indivisible spirit? See on this whole argument Augustine, Book 21 On the City of God, chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10; see also epistle 49 to Deogratias, question 6, where Augustine reproves certain men who believed some miracles of the Christian religion, but would not believe others. For this most rightly suits the Sacramentarians; for they ought either to believe all things which the Church proposes from the divine writings, or to deny all.
The seventh example is taken from many like things. For it belongs no more to a quantified body to occupy a place than to a heavy body to weigh, to a colored to be seen, to a luminous to shine, to a hot to heat. But God can bring it about that the heavy do not weigh, that the colored be not seen, even though it be in the light, and the medium be diaphanous, and the eyes of the bystanders be open and intent; that the luminous do not shine, and the hot do not heat. Why, then, will He not be able to bring it about that a quantified body do not occupy a place?
The assumption is evident in the divine writings. For Matthew 14, Christ and Peter, when they still had mortal bodies, walked upon the waters; and in Joshua 3, the waters of the Jordan not only did not descend, but even ascended and were raised up like a mountain, while the people of God passed over; and a like miracle is written by Saint Jerome in the life of blessed Hilarion. Christ likewise more than once made Himself invisible, so that He was not seen by the men near, when yet He was there, and had neither lost His color nor interposed anything between Himself and them, Luke 4: But He passing through the midst of them went His way. And in John 8 He hid Himself, that He might not be stoned; but He did not hide Himself in some corner, which neither became Him nor could conveniently be done, since He was in the midst of the crowd and all eyes were fixed on Him. And Luke the last chapter, when He vanished out of their sight. From which passages the Marcionists strove to prove that the body of Christ was not true, but phantastic, as blessed Jerome relates in his epistle to Pammachius on the errors of John of Jerusalem, to whom blessed Jerome himself answers: that the body of the Lord was true, but that He could make Himself invisible by divine power, by which also He could penetrate through the closed doors. The same body of the Lord too, after the resurrection, is more luminous than this heavenly sun, as Paul testifies, Acts 26, who was also blinded by the sight of it; and yet He appeared often to the Apostles, and conversed with them most familiarly, without any unusual splendor. He could, then, bring it about that a luminous body not shine; and as He did of His own body, so He could altogether do of this heavenly sun if He willed. Finally, we have fire not heating by divine power, Daniel 3, and we often read the same in the histories of the Saints. He, then, who could do so many things equally difficult, why could He not do this one of which we discourse?
Peter Martyr answers this argument in his book against Gardiner, objection 12, and says that the examples we adduce are not similar; since it was easy for God to suspend the gravity of a body, that it be not merged in the waters, and the action of fire, that it heat not; for the nature of the body or of the fire is not thereby destroyed; but that a body be present and not occupy a place cannot be done without the destruction of the body.
But our argument is not ours, but the Fathers’, who prove that very consequence which Peter Martyr disproves. For Justin, question 117 to the Orthodox; Jerome in his epistle on the errors of John of Jerusalem, and in his epistle on the death of Paula; Augustine in his book On the Christian Combat, chapter 24; and Cyril, Book 12 on John, chapter 53—who, to the heretics objecting that the body of Christ could not enter through the closed doors, objected the example of the walking of Christ and Peter upon the waters; and Augustine, Book 13 On the City of God, chapter 18, and Book 22, chapters 4 and 11, labors much to answer the Gentiles, who thought that it could in no way be that earthly, that is, human, bodies should after the resurrection ascend above the air, since they are heavier than air.
Besides, reason plainly convinces that the examples are similar. For the whole reason why by divine power it can be brought about that the heavy do not weigh, the luminous not shine, the hot not heat, the colored not be seen, is that the cause is prior to the effect, and consequently does not depend on it, and can be without it. But the same reason holds in magnitude, which is a cause, and the occupation of place, which is an effect. Nor does it much matter, as regards the present matter, whether it be a formal or an efficient cause. For although a formal effect cannot be separated from its own proper cause, and therefore cannot be supplied by God, but the effect of efficient causes can, yet the cause itself, whatever it be, even a formal one, can be without its effect, since no cause depends on the effect. Add that gravity, in the same genus of cause, gives a heavy body to weigh, in which mass gives a quantified body to fill; and yet Peter Martyr confesses that God can bring it about that a heavy body, even outside its region, do not weigh.
Now that the nature of the body seems to be destroyed (as Peter Martyr says) if it do not occupy a place, the same seems also in the examples adduced. For if a huge marble stone, God hindering the office of gravity, could be lifted with two fingers, and thrown hither and thither like a feather, who would not say that it seems marble, but is not? And if burning fire, God hindering the heat of its action, could be handled with the hands without any sense of heat, who would not say that it is painted fire, not true? And if we handled snow most white with our hands, and yet could not see it, who would not think himself deluded? Finally, if we beheld the sun in mid-heaven not shining, and yet saw nothing interposed, who would not assert that the nature of the sun was changed? If, then, all these things can be done without the destruction of nature, as Peter Martyr affirms—although to the ignorant of the miracle it seems that nature is altogether destroyed in such a suspension of causalities—why cannot the same be done in a magnitude not occupying a place?
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VI. Posse corpus alicubi esse , et locum non occupare . Primum igitur argumentum sumitur ab illis Scripturis, quae dicunt esse apud Deum omnia possibilia, Matth. xix, Mare, xiv, Lue. i. Porro inter illa omnia esse etiam id, de quo nunc agimus, probari potest ex princi¬ piis adversariornm, ut supra fecimus in pro¬ bando alio Catholicorum pronunciato. Yide caput tertium. Sed pimter ea probatur ex ipsa rei natura. Convenit enim inter nos, non debere excipi ab eorum numero, quae Deus potest facere, nisi ea, quae implicant contradictionem. Corpus autem esse alicubi, et non occupare locum, vel occupare, et non expellere alte¬ rum, nullam implicat contradictionem. Nam, id est implicare, repugnare essentiae : non autem repugnat essentiae magnitudinis, non occupare locum, aut non expellere alterum corpus. Id quod probatur primo, quia occu¬ pare locum, est quid posterius ipsa magni¬ tudine ; prius enim res in se magna est, et apta replere locum, deinde replet locum. Nihil autem posterius est de essentia prio¬ ris : essentiae enim in indivisibili consistunt. Secundo, potest magnitudo intelligi, atque etiam definiri sine loco, sive repletione loci : imo nemo hactenus in definitione magnitu¬ dinis posuit locum. Et quod majus est, po¬ test esse sine loco, ut patet de ultima sphae¬ ra, et de corporibus, quae sine dubio a Deo collocari possent supra convexum ultimae sphaerae : non igitur de essentia magnitudi¬ nis est occupare locum. Tertio, officium, seu functio non est de essentia ullius rei cre ita) : solum enim in Deo, qui infinitus, et simplicis¬ simus est, idem est esse, et agere. At replere locum, et expellere alia corpora, et officium magnitudinis, et functio quaedam externa : non igitur ad essentiam pertinet. Quarto, ita se habet moles, seu extensio ad magnitudi¬ nem, ut se habet gravitas ad corpus grave. Nam ut magnitudo sua mole replet locum, et aliud corpus extrudit : ita corpus grave, sua gravitate ponderat, et alia corpora de¬ primit. At non est de essentia gravis ponde¬ rare, ut patet, quia in priori regione aqua, et aer non ponderat : igitur neque est de essentia magnitudinis replere. Alterum argumentum sumitur ab exem¬ plis divina) Scriptura). Primum exemplum est Matth. xix, Marci x, Luca) xvm : Faci¬ lius est camelum per foramen acus transire, quam divitem intrare in regnum caelorum. Et cum Apostoli dicerent : Quis ergo poterit sal¬ vus fieri ? Respondit Dominus / Hoc apud homines impossibile est, apud Deum omnia possibilia sunt (1). Ubi Dominus, cum dicit, possibile esse Deo, id quod difficilius est, significat esse etiam possibile id, quod faci¬ lius est: facilius autem esse dicit, ut transeat camelus per foramen acus : igitur hoe Deo possibile esse voluit. At non potest camelus transire per foramen acus, nisi locum non occupando : alioqui majus esset minus suo minore. Et praeterea quomodocumque hoc fiat, certe non minus repugnare videtur rationi, ut camelus intret per foramen acus, quam ut corpus Christi contineatur in parva specie panis : imo minor est proportio foraminis acus ad camelum, quam hostiae consecratae ad corpus Domini, nisi quis dicat per camelum non intelligi illud magnum animal quod came¬ lum vocamus, sed funem nauticum; ut quos¬ dam sensisse testatur Theophyl. in cap. xix Matttb. Sed tum erit quidem minor proportio corporis Domini ad hostiam consecratam, quam cameli ad foramen acus : tamen etiam hoc erit hominibus impossibile, ut Dominus dicit, et ut experientia docet. Quis enim intcl- ligat, qua ratione possit crassissimus funis, quales nautici sunt, per foramen acus transire. Adde, quod expositio communis Patrum animal gibbosum, non funem nauticum in- telligit. Yide Origenem, Hieronymum, Hila¬ rium, et Chrysostomum in Matthaeum : Am¬ brosium in Lucam, et Augustinum lib. Ii. qusest. Evangelic. qurest. 47. Adde etiam, quod funis nauticus grsece scribitur per iota xagtAo?, ut est apud Suidam, in Evangelio autem scribitur percta xdpv]7o?, qua voce non funem, sed animal Graeci intelligunt. Quod autem quidam dicunt, per foramen acus intelligi portam quamdam angustam (I) Matth. XIX, 21 ; Mare. X,25; Luc. XVIil, 25 ct scrp — (2) Lue. XVIII, 27. CAPUT VI. 143 Ilierosolymavper quam cameli intrare non poterant onusti, nisi magno labore genua flecterent, (quam sententiam Gajetanus etiam approbavit) non solum fabulosum est, et sineullo fundamento assertum ; nec solum Patribus omnibus repugnat, sed etiam verbis Domini adversatur, dicentis Luc. x vm : Qux impossibilia sunt apud homines, possibilia sunt apud Deum. Quo modo enim ista impos¬ sibilia sunt apud homines, si poterat arte humana fieri, ut cameli genua flecterent, et intrarent ? Ex eodem refellitur, quod Pelagiani dice¬ bant apud Augustinum epistol. 89, quaest. 4. verba Domini esse intelligenda in sensu di¬ viso, non in sensu composito ; ita ut impos¬ sibile sit divitem, si maneat dives, ingredi in regnum coelorum, non autem si abjectis divitiis desinat esse dives : et eodem modo impossibile sit camelum, si maneat camelus, transire foramen acus, non autem si exte¬ nuetur ad fili subtilitatem. Haec, inquam, refelluntur ex eodem fundamento. Nam non est impossibile apud homines, ut camelus transeat per foramen acus, si desinat esse camelus, et convertatur in subtilissimum fi¬ lum. Quare Augustinus epistol. 89. quaest. 4. recte docet, posse hominem divitem, etiamsi non desinat esse dives, per Dei gratiam, et potentiam ingredi in regnum coelorum ; licet sine gratia Dei solis viribus naturae non solum impossibile sit, sed etiam valde impossibile : omnibus enim hominibus impossibile est sine gratia Dei salvari, sed multo magis di¬ vitibus, quam pauperibus. Idem etiam Augu¬ stinus lib. de spiritu et littera cap. i. aperte dicit, posse camelum per Dei potentiam transire per foramem acus, licet id nun¬ quam sit factum, et nunquam fortasse futu¬ rum. Quod idem affirmat Gregorius Nazian- zenus lib. 4. de Theologia, et Origenes in cap. xix. Matth. ubi dicit, quomodo id fieri possit, soli Deo esse notum. Alterum exemplum Scripturse est Joan. 20. ubi Evangelista scribit, Christum venisse ad discipulos, cum fores essent clausae ; et rursus post dies octo iterum ad eos intrasse januis clausis. Ex quo necesse est, ut corpus Christi, vel non occupaverit locum, cum transivit per januas clausas, vel se cum alio corpore penetraverit : quorum utrumque est impossibile viribus creatis, et intelligentiam nostram superat. Hunc tamen locum depravare sernper lue-, rctici conati sunt. Nam et Bercngariani, teste' Tom. IV. Guitinundo lib. m, negabant, Christum in¬ trasse januis clausis : et nostro tempore Joan. QEcolampadius Christum intrasse vo¬ luit per fenestram, aut alium aditum, cum fores essent clausae, nec eas penetrare pos¬ set ; quod accepisse videtur a Durando in iv dist. 44. quaest. 6. qui satis temere singu¬ lares suas opiniones in medium adducit. Joan. Calvinus lib. iv Instit. cap. 17. §. 29. dicit, Christum divina virtute sibi aditum patefecisse : atque id ipsum clarius expli¬ cans in ultima admonit. ad Wesphalum di¬ cit, Christum intrasse januis clausis secun¬ dum Evangelium, quia non expectavit, donec Apostoli aperirent, sedipse sua virtute ostium aperuit, vel etiam in nihilum redegit, et continuo restituit. Petrus autem Martyr lib. cont. Gardinerum object. 11. et 12, dicit, Christum intrasse per aditum patefactum, sive rarefecerit Dominus portas illas, sive etiam cedere j usserit. At lue sunt merae corruptela), et depra¬ vationes Evangelii. Nam in primis Evange¬ lista Joannes miraculorum Domini dilige n- tissimus enarrator, et qui alioqui non solet verba sine causa multiplicare, magno studio addere curavit : Januis clausis, idque non semel, sed bis. At si per fenestram intravit Dominus, aut aditu quocumque modo pate¬ facto, nullum erit miraculum intrare januis clausis. Deinde Lucas cap. 24. eamdem appari¬ tionem narrans, dicit, Dominum repente constitisse in medio Apostolorum, et pro- pterea spiritum esse putatum : qua) certe in¬ dicant, Dominum nullo strepitu facto, sed tota domo immota manente comparuisse. Praeterea, Patres communi consensu agno¬ scunt miraculum in eo, quod Dominus cor¬ pus suum solidum per aliud solidum intro¬ duxerit. Vide Chrysostomum, Cyrillum, Augustinum, Euthymium, Theophylactum, in hunc locum Joannis. Et praeterea Justi¬ num quaest. 117. ad orthodoxos. Ambrosium in cap. ult. Lucae. Amphilochium apud Theodoretum in secundo dialogo. Ephipha- nium haeres. 64. Hieronymum in epist. ad Pammachium de erroribus Joan. Hieroso¬ lymitani. Leonem epist. 10. ad Flavianum. Gregorium hom. 26. in Evangelia. Bernar- dum scr. i. de resurrecti et praeter cceteros Hilarium lib. 3. de Trinit. ubi videtur pro¬ vidisse impudentiam nostri temporis haero- ticorum : « Integra, inquit, sunt omnia, et obserata, sed eccc assistit medius, cui per 10 146 LIBER III. virtutem suam universa sunt pervia. Nihil caedit ex solido, neque per naturam suam aliquid tanquam lapsu insensibili, ligna et lapides amittunt. Corpus Domini a sese non deficit, ut sese resumat ex nihilo ; et unde qui assistit, in medio est? Caedit ad haec et sensus, et sermo, et extra rationem huma¬ nam est veritas facti. Idcirco ergo, ut de na¬ tivitate Domini fallimur, ita et de ingressu Domini mentiamur : dicamus factum non fuisse, quia intelligentiam facti non appre¬ hendimus, et cessante sensu nostro, facti ip¬ sius cesset effectus. Sed mendacium nostrum facti ipsius fides vincit. Assistit Dominus clausa domo in medio discipulorum, et Filius est natus ex Patre. » Adde, quod Patres maximam habuerunt occasionem negandi, Christum intrasse per januas clausas. Nam Marcionistee, Valentinia¬ ni, Origenistae, et alii, qui negabant veram corporis resurrectionem, ex hoc loco argu¬ mentabantur; ut patet exCyrillo, Epiphanio, Hieronymo locis citatis : non videtur enim verum corpus esse posse, quod januis clausis intrare potest. Huic autem objectioni facilli¬ me occurrere possent Patres, si dixissent, Christum, intrasse per fenestras, aut per ja¬ nuam a se antea patefactam, vel annihila- tam : et tamen nulli unquam ante Berengarii tempora ista solutio venit in mentem ; imo contra potius, ex hoc principio tanquam cer¬ tissimo et explorato probabant alia dogmata. Nam Hilarius loco notato probat, non esse impossibile Deum Filium ex Patre generari sine ulla substantia} paternae diminutione, quandoquidem corpus Christi potuit ingredi per clausas januas sineulla besione, vel sua, vel januae. Tertium exemplum est de Domini nativi¬ tate : Exivisse enim Dominum de utero Ma¬ tris clauso, inviolata videlicet manente inte¬ gritate carnis, colligitur ex verbo Dei, et a Patribus disertis verbis asseritur. Nam B. Mariae virginitas in partu, habetur in sym¬ bolo Apostolico : Natus ex Maria Virgine. Symbolum autem Apostolorum, verbum Dei esse non scriptum Catholici omnes fatentur, et haeretici nostri temporis non solent aperte symbolumillud rejicere. Et haec veritas sym¬ boli exilia Scriptura colligitur Isai. vn : Ecce virgo concipiet, et pariet Filium (1), ubi dicitur non solum Virgo conceptura, sed etiam Virgo paritura . Ezech. xliv, describitur porta quaedam clausa, per quam solus Dominus intrat, quam portam, uterum semper clau¬ sum Virginis Deiparae esse docent, Ambro¬ sius lib. de Instit. Virg. cap. 7. et Hieronymus in comment. hujus loci. Praeterea Jovinianus hoc nomine inter haereticos ponitur a Siri- cio, et Ambrosio in epistolis, quae sunt apud Ambrosium 80 et 81. et Augustinum lib. de haeres, cap. 82, quod asseruerit, B. Mariam pariendo fuisse corruptam. Idem Augustinus lib. xxii. Civitat. cap. 8. hoc ipsum probat alio simili miraculo, quod tempore ipsius accidit : scribit enim femi¬ nam quamdam nobilissimam nomine Petro¬ niam accepisse a quodam Judaeo annulum in quo esset lapis quidam utilis ad sanandum morbum nescio quem, quo illa vexabatur ; fuisse autem annulum illum capillario vin¬ culo involutum, ac diligentissime alligatum ; sed cum illa iret ad memoriam S. Stephani primi Martyris, apud quem vere curanda erat, ne tribueretur virtus miraculi alliga¬ turae judaicae, repente annulum illum ante pedes mulieris astitisse illaesum, illaeso etiam vinculo, et undique diligentissime clauso. De hoc miraculo sic loquitur Augustinus : oNon credunt hoc, qui etiam Dominum Jesum per integra virginalia Matris enixum, et ad discipulos suos januis clausis ingressum fuisse non credunt. Sed hoc certe quaerant, et si verum invenerint, illa credant. Clarissima femina est, nobiliter nata, nobiliter nupta, Carthagine habitat ; ampla civitas, ampla per¬ sona, rem quaerentes latere non sinunt. Mar¬ tyr certe, quo impetrante illa sanata est, in filium permanentis Virginis credidit, in eum, qui ostiis clausis ad discipulos ingressus est, credidit » Idem B. Augustinus in epist. 3. ad Volusianum de utroque isto miraculo dis¬ serens, id est, de ingressu ad discipulos ostiis clausis, dicit in hujusmodi operibus totam rationem facti, esse potentiam facientis. Idem communi consensu docent alii Patres, qui etiam conjungunt haec duo miracula, ut Gre¬ go rius Nazianzenus in Tragoedia : Christus patiens, Theodoretus Dialogo 2. Hieronymus in Apolog. pro libris contra Jovinianum. Maximus hom. 2. de Natali Domini. Grego - rius hom. 26. in Evan gei. Fulgentius in serm. de laudibus B. Mariae, et Bernardus serm. i. deresurrect. Domini. Pudet jam referre quid ad haec Durandus, vel Beza respondeant. Ille enim in iv. dist. (1) lsai. VII, 14. CAPUT VI. 147 44, quscst. 6. dicit, integra quidem fuisse claustra pudoris, sed tamen dilatatos a Deo fuisse naturales meatus, ac per eos libere Christum exivisse. Iste autem in libro de om- niprcesentia carnis Christi contra Brentium ultra medium, audat dicere, Virginis uterum revulsum, et apertum Christo egredientc, sed continuo divina virtute coaluisse partes uteri, ut etiam post partum Virgo dici pos¬ set. At qusero primum, undenam ista didice¬ rint ? nec enim Scripturam, aut Patrem ul¬ lum proferent. Deinde, si dilatati sunt mea¬ tus, non peperit Virgo sine dolore : dolor enim parturientium in sola illa dilatatione consistit. Imo ( si verum diceret Beza) supra omnes mulieres B. Virgo dolorem experta esset: gravius enim sentitur carnis revulsio, quam dilatatio. At ne Mahumetani quidem admitterent, B. Virginem cum dolore pepe- risse. Braderea, si ita esset, ut isti dicunt, B. Maria non fuisset virgo in partu, quia Virginem esse in partu, nihil aliud signifi¬ care potest, quam in ipsa actione pariendi inviolatum, ilhesumquc uterum permanere. At hoc negant isti, ut olim negabat Jovinia- nus. Nam quod Durandus ait, inviolatam mansisse carnis integritatem, et solum mea¬ tus dilatatos, juxta doctrinam peritissimo- rum medicorum, implicat contradictionem. Nam, ut Joannes Fernelius docet, in i. lib. de partium corporis humani descript. cap. 7. integritatis virginalis amissio non infractione membranee alicujus consistit, sed in sola di¬ latatione partium conjunctarum, seu conti¬ guarum. Verum nec post partum Virgo mansisset. Nam virginitas carnis semel amissa reparari nequit, ut recte ait Hieronymus in epistola ad Eustochium de custodia virginita¬ tis. Nam etiamsi possint iterum conjungi par¬ tes revulsee, tamen fieri nequit, quin revulsas fuerint, si revulsee fuerunt. Atqui esse Virgi¬ nem, est nunquam fuisse corruptum. Sed objicit Beza Ambrosium, etalios quos¬ dam Patres, qui dicunt, Christum aperuisse uterum Matris cum natus est. Sic enim scri¬ psit Ambrosius lib. n. in Luc. cap. 7 : « Qui vulvam sanctificavit alienam, ut nasceretur Propheta, hic est, qui aperuit matris suas vulvam, ut immaculatus exiret» . Similia habet Origenes, hom. 14. in Lucam, et Ter¬ tullianus in lib. de carne Christi. Ac de Tertulliano quidem ambiguum est, quid sibi voluerit, nec magni facienda est ejus auctoritas, cum contradicit aliis Patri¬ bus, cum constet eum (ut Hieronymus loqui¬ tur) hominem Ecclesirc non fuisse. De Origene, et Ambrosio, facilis solutio est : id enim so¬ lum docent, Christum sua virtute, non auxi¬ lio obstetricum, vel alia humana opera de utero egressum, sed ipsum sibi aperuisse aditum. Porro aperuisse sibi aditum per clausum uterum, non eum dividendo, sed mirabiliter penetrando, docet idem Ambro¬ sius locis supra citatis. Sic enim ait in lib. de Instit. Virgin, cap. 7. «Quae est haic por¬ ta, nisi Maria, ideo clausa, quia virgo ? Porta igitur Maria, per quam Christus, intravit in hunc mundum, quando virginali fusus est partu, et genitalia virginitatis claustra non solvit. Mansit intemeratum septum pudoris, et inviolata integritatis duravere signacula, cum exiret ex Virgine, cujus altitudinem mundus sustinere non potest » . Et cap. 8 : « Hsec porta clausa erit, et non aperietur : bona porta Maria, qum clausa erat, et non aperiebatur : transivit per eam Christus, sed non aperuit ». Origenes quoque tract. 26. in Matth. asserit. B. Mariam etiam post partum virginem fuisse. Quartum exemplum est de egressu Domini ex clauso monumento. Nam, ut colligitur ex Matth. cap. 28. et Marco cap. 16, lapidem ab ostio monumenti non revolvit Christus, cum resurrexit ; sed post resurrectionem Angelus de coelo descendit, et revolvit la¬ pidem, ut ostenderet sanctis mulieribus, quse Christum ungere volebant, monumentum vacuum esse. Unde S. Hieronymus in epist. ad Hedibiam, qusest. 6. docet, nulli homi¬ num notam esse horam, qua Dominus resur¬ rexit, cum tamen exEvangelio satis constet, qua hora fuerit lapis revolutus a monumento. Ad hoc argumentum Calvinus lib. iv In¬ stit. cap. 17. §. 29. Petrus Martyr in lib. contra Gardinerum , object. II. Theodorus Beza in lib. de omniprtesentia carnis Christi supra citato, non negant Christum sur- rexissc, atque exivisse de monumento an¬ tequam lapis amoveretur per Angelum : licet existiment probabilius esse, amotum prius fuisse lapidem : sed more suo respon¬ dent eodem modo, quo ad superiora, nimi¬ rum divina virtute lapidem cessisse, vel an- nihilatum, et continuo restitutum. Sed ista non possunt ipsi probare, nisi propria auctoritate; cui nos objicimus testi¬ monia Patrum, qui in eo ponunt miracu¬ lum, quod per clausum sepulchruin verum corpus exiverit. Justinus qusest. 117, LIBEIt III. 148 Nazianzenus in Tragoedia : Christus patiens. Chrysostomus liomil. de sancto .Joanne Baptista, tom. 3. Hieronymus in cpist. ad Hedibiam, quaest. G. Augustinus senn. 138. de tempore, qui est tertius de resurrectione. Beda hom. in vigilia Pascha). Euthymiusin cap. 28. Mattii. Bcrnardus serm. i. de re¬ surrectione. Quintum exemplum est de ascensione Christi, et beatorum in coelum. Nam fide certissima tenemus Christum ascendisse super omnes coelos, Ephes. -4. et similiter corpora beatorum post resurrectionem a- scensura. Nulla autem est in ccelojanua, nulla fenestra, nulla rima, per quam supra coelum ascendi possit ; et ut dicitur Job. xxxvn : Solidissimi quasi iere fusi sunt cadi (1). Ne- cesse igitur est, ut possint plura corpora esse in eodem loco. Ad hoc argumentum id solum responderi posse videtur, quod respondet Durandus in iv. distinet. 44. qurest. G, divina virtute coelum dividi, quando corpora beatorum illuc ascendunt. At si coelum natura sua solidum est, et incorruptibile, ut fere omnes hoc tempore Theologi, et Philosophi docent, certe pro¬ babile non est, tot foramina in coelo esse’ facienda, quot corpora beatorum ascendent, praesertim cum illa plurima sint futura. Sed quidquid de hoc sit, de corpore Christi non nisi temere dici potest, coelos omnes disru- ptos fuisse, cum ipse ad Patrem ascenderet. Nam primo, Scriptura nusquam id habet ; imo contrarium insinuat, Hebraeor. -4, cum dicit, Christum penetrasse coelos. Et sane tam novum, et inauditum miraculum sine Scripturae testimonio affirmare, mirum est, si non insignis temeritas judicetur, praeser¬ tim apud eos, qui nihil credere volunt, nisi quod in divinis litteris continetur. Secundo, si corpus Christi clausis januis in ccenacu- lum intravit, ut ex Scriptura ante proba¬ vimus, cum tamen facillime potuisset eas aperire, quanto credibilius est non disrupto coelo, quod natura sua disrumpi nequit, idem illud corpus supra sidera collocatum. Neque his repugnat, quod in Scriptura soepe legimus, apertum, vel divisum esse coelum, ut Matth. m. Joan. i. 'Actor, vii. et x. et Apocal. xix. Nam Scriptura in his lo¬ cis, loquitur de apertione coeli secundum apparentiam, ac metaphorice : significat enim speciem quamdam in coelos app aruisse ac si divideretur. Non fuisse autem reales crnli divisiones, vel ex eo colligi potest. : quod eodem modo loquitur Scriptura de a- pertione coeli, qua) facta est in sola imagina¬ tione et intelligentia, qualis est illa, qua) de¬ scribitur Actor, x. et Apocal. xix. et de ea, qua) facta est in oculis corporalibus, Matth. m. Joan. i. et Actor, vn. constat autem il¬ lam priorem non fuisse realcm. Deinde, nulla fuit causa, cur cadum dividi deberet. Nam Matth. m, dicitur divisum coelum, cum do coelo Spiritus sanctus descendit in forma co¬ lumba) : at neque Spiritus sanctus egebat cadi apertione, ut descenderet, cum sit ubi¬ que : neque ea columba de coelo proprie dicto missa est, sed in acre, et ex aere pro¬ ducta fuit : tamen ut intelligerent homines, rem illam fuisse divinam, ita apparuit, quasi e summo cudo missa fuisset. Joan. i. elicit aperiri coelum ob descensum Angelorum. Angeli autem cum spiritus sint, omnium consensu, per quaelibet corpora penetrare possunt. Actor, vii , aperitur coelum, ut S. Stephaniis videat Christum in dextera Pa¬ tris. At neque tum ulla ratio luit , cur caelum scindi deberet. Nam aut oculis cor¬ poris, aut oculis mentis videt Stephaniis Christum, coelum autem cum sit perspicuum, aut diaphanum, neutram visionem impedire poterat. Itaque vocata est eo loco apertio coeli, non scissio corporis caelestis, sed nova quaedam illustratio, qua factum est, ut ocu¬ lis Martyris appareret, quod antea non ap¬ parebat : quemadmodum Lucae ult. dicun¬ tur aperti oculi duorum discipulorum, quan¬ do Dominum agnoverunt; non quod antea clausos oculos habuerint, sed quia tunc agno¬ verunt, quem ante cognoscere non potuerant. Sextum exemplum est de poenis damnato¬ rum ; sunt enim in his poenis multa miracula difficiliora, vel aeque difficilia, atque est hoc, de quo agimus. Ac primum quod corpora damnatorum ab igne corporali comburan¬ tur, et vere, ac realiter torqueantur, et ta¬ men non dissolvantur : nam dolor corpora¬ lis ad dissolutionem corporis tendit. Si est igitur in illis poenis verus dolor corporalis, quomodo nunquam dissolvitur corpus ? si nulla dissolutio, unde dolor ? Itaque ethnici haec ridebant, ut impossibilia, et tamen Ca¬ tholici non propterea voluerunt unquam spi- ritualiter, vel metaphorice interpretari illa (i) Job. XXXVII, 18. CAPUT VI. 149 supplicia, certo persuasi Deum posse facere supra id, quod cogitare possumus, vel intel- ligere. Deinde, non minus difficile videtur, ut spiritus teneatur, et impediatur a corpore, ne transeat quocumque voluerit, quam ut corpus non teneatur, nec impediatur a cor¬ pore, sed libere transeat per solida corpora, ac si nulla essent : non enim minus convenit natura) spirituali non posse impediri, quam corporali posse impediri. At divina potentia alligat spiritus hominum, et etiam dsemo- nuin in gehenna certis locis, et corporibus, quasi carceribus, ut nullo modo egredi va¬ leant. Et quid opus est in gehennam de¬ scendere, ut hoc miraculum videamus ? an- non potest unusquisque in scipso id cernere? Siquidem animus noster spiritus est per se existens, et a corpore independens et tamen tam mirabili artificio est inclusus a Deo in corpore mortis hujus, quasi in carcero, ut non possit inde egredi, nisi prius corporis constitutio dissolvatur. Denique, illud est supra modum mirabile in poenis damnatorum, ut non solum animee, ac damiones teneantur ab igne corporali, sed etiam affligantur, et torqueantur : quod tam difficile est, ut adhuc nemo inventus sit, qui rationem hujus rei, in qua alii acquies¬ cerent, reddere potuerit. Nam si ignis incen¬ dium non affligit, nisi (ut diximus) dissol¬ vendo continuum : quomodo potest intelligi ut affligat indivisibilem spiritum? Vide de hoc toto argumento Augustinum lib. xxi. de Civit. Dei cap. 2, 3, 4, o, 6 et 10, vide etiam cpistol. 49, ad Deo gratias, qua) st G. ubi Au¬ gustinus quosdam reprehendit, qui qua)dam miracula Christiana) religionis credebant, quaedam credere nolebant. Id enim rectissime in Sacramentarios convenit : deberent enim aut omnia credere, qua) ex divinis litteris Ecclesia proponit, aut omnia negare. Septimum exemplum sumitur a multis rebus similibus. Nam non magis convenit corpori quanto occupare locum, quam gravi ponderare, colorato videri, lucido lucere, calido calefacere. Sed potest Deus efficere, ut grave non ponderet, ut coloratum non videatur, etiamsi sit in lumine, et medium sit diaphanum, et oculi astantium sint aperti et intenti : ut lucidum non luceat, et calidum non calefaciat. Cur igitur facere non poterit, ut corpus quantum non occupet locum? Assumptio perspicua est in divinis litteris. Nam Matth. 14. Christus et Petrus cum adhuc corpora mortalia haberent, super aquas ambularunt: et Josuem. aqua) Jorda¬ nis non modo non descendebant, sed etiam ascendebant, et instar montis elevabantur, dum transiret populus Dei : et simile mira¬ culum scribitur a S. Hieronymo in vita B. Hilarionis. Christus item non semel invisibi¬ lem se fecit, ita ut a vicinis hominibus non videretur; cum tamen ibi esset, neque colo¬ rem amisisset, neque aliquid inter se, et illos opposuisset Luc. iv. Ipse autem transiens per mediumillorumibat (1). Et Joan. viti, abscon¬ dit se, ne lapidaretur : non autem se abscon¬ dit in aliquo angulo, quod nec decebat eum nec poterat commode fieri, cum esset in media turba, et omnium oculi in eum con¬ jecti. Et Luc. ult., cum evanuit ex oculis eorum. Ex quibus locis Marcionita) probare nitebantur, Christi corpus non verum, sed phantasticum fuisse, ut B. Hieronymus re¬ fert in epist. ad Pammachium de erroribus Joannis Hierosolymitani, quibus ipse B. Hie¬ ronymus respondet : verum fuisse corpus Domini, sed divina virtute se invisibile fa¬ cere potuisse, qua etiam per januas clausas potuit penetrare. Idem etiam Domini corpus post resurrectionem soleisto coelesti lucidius est, ut Paulus testatur Actor. 26. qui et ex ejus aspectu excee catus fuit : et tamen seepius apparuit Apostolis, et cum eis familliarissi- me conversatus sine ullo insolito splendore. Potuit ergo id efficere, ut corpus lucidum non luceret : et sicut de corpore suo fecit, ita prorsus do sole isto coelesti facere posset si vellet. Denique ignem divina virtute non calefacientem habemus Daniel. m. et sccpe idem legimus in historiis Sanctorum. Qui ergo potuit tam multa a)que difficilia, cur non potuerit hoc unum de quo disserimus? Respondet Petrus Martyr ad hoc argu¬ mentum in lib. cont. Gardinerum objecto 12. ac dicit, non esse similia exempla, qua) addu¬ cimus : siquidem facile fuit Deo suspendere gravitatem corporis, ne mergeretur in aquis, et actionem ignis, ne calefaceret; non enim propterea destrui naturam corporis, aut ignis : sed ut corpus sit praBsens, et non oc¬ cupet locum, non posse fieri sine destru¬ ctione corporis. At nostrum argumentum, non est nostrum sed Patrum, qui illam ipsam consecutionem (1) Luc. IV, 30. 150 LIBER III. probant, quam Petrus Martyr, improbat. Nam Justinus qusest. 117. ad Orthodoxos. Hieronymus in Epistola de erroribus Joan- nis Hierosolymitani, et in epist. de obitu Paula ; Augustinus in lib. de Agone Chri¬ stiano, cap. 24. et Cyrillus lib. xn. in Joan. cap. 53. qui objicientibus hsereticis non po¬ tuisse Christi corpus intrare per clausas januas, objecerunt exemplum de ambulatio¬ ne Christi, et Petri super aquas, et Augu¬ stinus lib. xm. de civitate Dei, cap. 18, et lib. xxii. cap. 4 et 11. multum laborat, ut re¬ spondeat Gentilibus, qui putabant, fieri nullo modo posse, ut corpora terrena, id est, hu¬ mana, post resurrectionem supra aerem a- scenderent, cum ipsa graviora sint aere. Preeterea ratio plane convincit, exempla esse similia. Nam tota ratio cur possit di¬ vina potentia fieri, ut grave non ponderet, lucidum non luceat, calidum non calefaciat, coloratum non videatur, est, quia causa est prior effectu, et proinde ab eo non pendet, et sine illo esse potest. At eadem ratio valet in magnitudine, qua est causa, et occupa¬ tione loci, qua est effectus. Neque multum interest, sitne causa formalis, an efficiens, quod ad rem prasentem pertinet. Nam etiamsi effectus formalis a sua propria causa separari nequeat, et ideo non possit a Deo suppleri, possit autem effectus efficientium causarum : tamen causa ipsa quacumque, etiam formalis, sine suo effectu esse potest, cum nulla causa ab effectu pendeat. Adde, quod gravitas ineodem genere causae dat cor¬ pori gravi ponderare, in quo moles dat quan¬ to replere : et tamen fatetur Petrus Martyr posse Deum facere, ut corpus gravo etiam extra regionem suam non ponderet. Quod autem videatur destrui natura cor¬ poris (ut dicit Petrus Martyr) si non occupet locum, idem etiam videtur in exemplis alla¬ tis. Nam si lapis ingens marmoreus, Deo impediente gravitatis officium, duobus digi¬ tis attolli posset, instar plumee huc atque illuc jactari, quis non diceret, illud videri marmor, sed non esse ? Et si ignis ardens, Deo impe¬ diente actionis calorem, manibus tractari posset sine ullo sensu caloris, quis non dice¬ ret depictum illud esse, non verum ignem ? et si nivem candidissimam manibus tractare¬ mus, et tamen videre non possemus, quis non arbitraretur se deludi. Denique si solem in medio cmlo conspiceremus non lucentem et nihil tamen interpositum esse videremus quis non assereret naturam solis mutatam esse ? Si igitur fieri possunt ista omnia sine destructione natura, ut Petrus Martyr affir¬ mat, licet ignorantibus miraculum videatur omnino destrui natura in ejusmodi suspen¬ sione causalitatum : cur non idem fieri po¬ terit in magnitudine locum non occupante?