Annotatio secunda Gregorii de Valentia societatis Iesu de controversia ubiquetaria

What, I ask, is contained in these Theses that is less than the Calvinist dogma, namely that Christ's body is circumscribed wherever it is, and cannot be present in more than one place at one time? And yet, so that he may prove by consequence at least that this is our sentiment, Schmidelin reasons in this way: Page 16. "To be uncircumscribed is a property of God; but (according to the Jesuits in these Theses) the divine properties cannot be communicated to any creature, and thus not to the humanity of Christ. Therefore, it is a consequence that the humanity of Christ, wherever it is, is circumscribed, and thus it cannot be uncircumscribed in the Sacrament." Then he adds: "Since the Jesuits nevertheless confess (in Thesis 110, specifically) this to be a certain faith and Orthodox confession: that the body of Christ, which is visible and circumscribed in heaven, is also invisible and uncircumscribed in the most holy Sacrament; they contradict themselves."

The error or ignorance of this man, from which all this caviling proceeds, is of this kind: He has not thought that there is, or can be, any other uncircumscription besides the divine one, which is a property of God. Therefore, he thought that if, according to the Jesuits' sentiment, the body of Christ cannot be uncircumscribed by that divine uncircumscription—as the Ubiquitarians wish—it could in no way be uncircumscribed anywhere according to the Jesuits. But the soul is in the body in an uncircumscribed manner, that is, whole in the whole and whole in every part. Likewise, an angel is in a place, yet not by that divine uncircumscription itself. Moreover, even material substance—for example, fire or water, and even (which pertains more closely to the present matter and cause) wine or bread—is subject to its own quantity and dimension in an uncircumscribed way, a mode of uncircumscription that differs greatly from divine uncircumscription. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the mode of uncircumscription extends much more widely than that "being uncircumscribed" which is a property of God. Since this is so, Schmidelin will now understand, I suppose (though because of his obstinacy he will not admit it), that it was the height of ignorance to conclude against the Jesuits as follows: "Divine uncircumscription, since it is a property of God, cannot, by the Jesuits' opinion, belong to any creature. Therefore, since the body of Christ is a creature, it is not, according to the Jesuits, and cannot be, uncircumscribed anywhere." It only follows that it is not, and cannot be, according to us, uncircumscribed by divine uncircumscription itself. This is very true, and is rightly and steadfastly defended by the Jesuits against the Ubiquitarian invention. Nevertheless, the same body of Christ, at the same time that it is in heaven, can be, and indeed is—by the Jesuits' sentiment—uncircumscribed in the most holy Sacrament, but in a different, admirable mode of uncircumscription. For just as the substance of bread is uncircumscribed beneath its own quantity, so it can happen, and indeed does happen by divine power, that the body of Christ itself, even though endowed with its own quantity, subsists uncircumscribed...