Annotatio secunda Gregorii de Valentia societatis Iesu de controversia ubiquetaria

glory of Lord and God. In this same way, Brentius, the Father of the Ubiquitarians, whose every dogma—however vain and paradoxical—Schmidelin kisses, perhaps not knowing what he was saying, taught the denial of Christ, which was in him, when he left this written: original: "NON est pueriliter cogitandum... quod Christus in ascensu progressus sit physico & corporali modo à nubibus vsq; ad fictitium illud cœlum, quod Empyreum vocârunt, & commoretur in eo illa semper FORMA, qua VISIBILITER è monte Oliuetì ascendit." "It must not be thought in a childish manner (Note the serpent, how he teaches us to fall from the simplicity of faith that is in Christ, by reproaching us with what he calls childish knowledge) that Christ in his ascent progressed in a physical and bodily way from the clouds to that fictitious heaven which they called the Empyrean, and that the FORM in which he VISIBLY ascended from the Mount of Olives always remains in it." And yet, lest the serpent’s cunning be easily detected, he then added: original: "Sed sentiendum est, quòd deposita forma, non quidem illa essentiali... sed accidentali, quam in externo ascensus spectaculo ad tēpus οἰκονομικῶς assumpserat, RECEPERIT formam Dei... Hoc enim est verè Christum esse in cœlo." "But it must be understood that, having laid aside the form—not indeed that essential one by which he is truly man and always remains man (the slippery Dragon twists himself in every direction to deceive)—but the accidental one which he had assumed for a time for the sake of the economy in the external spectacle of the ascent, he RECEIVED the form of God, which had for some time been a form covered by servitude, or to speak more significantly, he proceeded to enjoy all his celestial Majesty, which he had. For this is what it truly means for Christ to be in heaven." Oh, the craftiness! Oh, the slipperiness of the serpent! For how did Christ retain his true and essential human form if he did not retain that very one in which he ascended VISIBLY? Or did he retain it only metaphysically, as a naked, formless, and inherently invisible essence, without the distinction of limbs, without quantity, without color, without human figure? For he could not have meant here only the form of mortality and passibility, since Christ had already cast off such accidents of our weakness in his resurrection: for rising from the dead, he dies no more. But what does the Dragon want for himself when he teaches that Christ, in his ascent, received the form of God, and indeed as if in place of some human form which he then first laid aside in that ascent? Certainly, it seems he meant to say through Brentius what he once said through the Arians: namely, that Christ transformed the form of a servant into the divine form.

In the recognition of his doctrine concerning the Majesty of Christ, pages 167 and 168.

Brentius teaches the denial of Christ.

In the cited place.

To the Romans 6.