Fathers

A Candid Inquiry into the Controversies among Evangelicals · §74

Controv. XI: Was majestic ubiquity given to Christ's flesh by the union, the exaltation, or the institution words?

Click or tap any sentence to jump there. The side buttons skip a paragraph.

Controv. XI. On the ubiquity of Christ's flesh.

II. Was majestic omnipresence — or ubiquity — specially communicated to Christ's flesh or body, whether by the union with the Word (λόγος) in the Virgin's womb, or by the exaltation to God's right hand, or at least by the truth of the institution words, so that that flesh is omnipresent, but by a personal act, as they put it?

On that account it would be no wonder if he were bodily present in the Holy Eucharist, once his omnipotence had taken away the body's locality, and with it its tangibility and visibility in the first act.

Then Christ's ascension would not have been a true local going up, but rather a vanishing of the body; and the heaven he entered would not be a created, finite, bodily place above the visible heavens, but some uncreated, boundless, bodiless heaven — God himself, or God's own majesty, and incomprehensible glory and power.

The Ubiquitarians say yes. The Reformed say no.

Latin

II. An speciatim Carni vel Corpori Christi, seu vi Unionis cum λόγῳ in Utero Virginis, seu vi Exaltationis ad Dextram Dei, aut saltem vi veritatis Verborum Institutionis, communicata sit Omnipraesentia Majestatica, seu Ubiquitas, secundum quam ea Caro sit Omnipraesens, sed actu personali, ut loquuntur: Unde nihil mirum sit, corporaliter eum praesentem esse in S. Eucharistia, sublata per ejus Omnipotentiam Corporis localitate, hinc tactilitate, visibilitate in actu primo? Ut adeo nec Ascensio Christi fuerit vera aut localis, sed potius disparitio Corporis; Nec Caelum in quod Christus ascendit, sit locus creatus, finitus, corporeus, supra visibiles Caelos; verum Coelum quoddam increatum, immensum, incorporeum, Deus ipse, vel ipsa Dei Majestas, & incomprehensibilis Gloria, ac Potentia? Affirmant Ubiquit. Negant Reformati.

About this text

Samuel Strimesius — Prefatio through Controversiae Post Lutherum Controv. III-XIII + XV Tolerantia, Hexades Annotationum Prooemium and Annotatio I through Decem Theses / Francus plus Annotatio II §.I-§.VI and Annotatio III §.I–§.VII (through Cassellanum 1661) from Ingenua in Controversias Evangelicorum (Frankfurt an der Oder, 1708). Honest partial; Prefatio silence reasons, Annotatio III §.VIII+ fruits / §.IX+, Hexades theses body, deeper Controversiae / Part II remain.

English follows the locked 1708 Francofurti ad Viadrum Latin of Prefatio §I–II, Crimina defenses through III, Part I Protheoria through Controversiae Obices/Historia/Varii gradus, Formula Discord/Disparitas, Ulterius confirmatur / Classes / Formula protest / triplex differentia, Coena Domini Controversiae Priores through Precariae Hypotheses (Controv. print pp. 34–40), Controversiae Post Lutherum Natae Controv. III–XV tip (providence through De Tolerantia mutua; Controv. print pp. 40–78), Hexades Annotationum Prooemium H.I–§.III (Hexades print pp. 1–4 / PDF ~182–185), and Annotatio I De Augustana Confessione §.I–§.VIII tip (Hexades print pp. 5–24+ / PDF ~186–205+), reconstructed from Google Books PDF page images (ONB copy, id 3epYAAAAcAAJ) with pdftotext as check. No modern English was copied. Sister Halle digitization of Ingenua in Arminianismum (DOI 10.25673/65287) remains Anubis-blocked — skipped; Controversias only. Prefatio silence reasons, Annotatio I §.IX+, Hexades theses body beyond §.VIII, and remainder of Controversiae / folio remain.

Witnesses

This is an AI-assisted study translation. Source fidelity and completeness have not been independently certified. Open Latin on each section (or the Latin source witness link) for the source text. This is not a complete critical edition.