Annotatio secunda Gregorii de Valentia societatis Iesu de controversia ubiquetaria

Schmidelin does not know how widely "uncircumscribed" extends.

Not every "uncircumscribed" is a divine property.

(...per mode of substance) ...beneath the quantity and the remaining accidents of the bread, although these do not exist in it as in a subject. This matter need not be explained here in more words. It is enough for me now that it remains possible for the body of Christ to be uncircumscribed in the most holy Sacrament in some way that is not, however, the specific mode of divine uncircumscription, since uncircumscription extends more broadly than divine uncircumscription, as I have demonstrated before with several examples. Wherefore, the Jesuits neither fight against themselves nor in any way defend a Sacramentarian error, as Schmidelin has slandered. For it is truly and without any contradiction taught by the Jesuits that neither the divine uncircumscription—inasmuch as it is joined with the highest simplicity—nor other divine properties can be communicated to or belong to any creature in such a way that it might use them as its own; and yet, the body of Christ is nevertheless uncircumscribed in the most holy Sacrament, not by the divine uncircumscription itself, but by another of a different mode, such as may be observed in several other things.

Rebuttal of Schmidelin's double slander.

The second crime of falsehood of this man was that, in that very Thesis where our people had written that it is impossible for the visible and invisible body of Christ to be in one and the same PLACE, he slandered them, claiming they had affirmed that it is impossible for the body of Christ to be visible in heaven and at the same time invisible in other places at one TIME. Here, this singular smith, making TIME out of PLACE, most foully corrupted our Thesis. For even as he himself quotes it, the Thesis has: "But neither can it be in any way possible that the same body of Christ be circumscribed and uncircumscribed, defined and undefined, visible and invisible, patient and impassible in one and the same place; which, however, this neotheologian (Schmidelin)—provided he is consistent with himself (that is, if he maintains what he feels, that Christ is invisible in all places because of the hypostatic union, and thus even in heaven, where he is also visibly)—is forced to confess." This is the Thesis in which Schmidelin wrote that we affirmed it to be impossible for the same body of Christ...

II. Thesis 9 [sic: 93]; Ingolstadt Disputation, edited in the year 64. In Admonit. Germ. page 16 & 17. Page 11.