To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
THE Canons of thatc Councell of Trent decreed, as a Do∣ctrine of Faith necessary to salvation, to beleeve, That the
Body of Christ in this Sacrament is whole in every part of the Hoast; whereby is meant (saith yourd Jesuite) The whole Body of Christ is in every albeit the least part of the Hoast. So he. But wee demand; how then shall the Body of Christ but want proportion of di∣stinct parts, which you say are Vnseparably united to a Body? Your distinguish, that thee Body of Christ being in this Sacra∣ment hath extension of parts of a Body distinctly in it selfe; but in respect of the Place, or of the formes of Bread, under which it is, the whole Body is without distinction in every least Part and Indivi∣sible [ 10] Point thereof.
[ 20] THis is the common Resolution of the now Church of Rome. The exact discussion of this one point will in it selfe illum∣nate the Eyes of any Reader, to discerne betweene the Spirit of Truth, and of Errour; namely, to know, that there cannot be a greater Contradiction (and consequently Impossibility) than for a Body, consisting of proportionable dimensions of Parts, such as are Hands, Legs, Eyes, and other Organicall members, to have Being any where without Extension, Commensuration, and distinct Proportion of the same to the space, wherein it is, as the Pro∣positions [ 30] following will prove.
Totus & inte∣ger Christus sub spe∣cio panis, & sub qua∣libet ejus speciei perte inest. Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. Can. 3. Sub quavis particula. Ca. tech. Romde Euch. num. 29.
In singulis par∣tibus continuis, quan∣tumvis minimis, & ••••••••dem quantitatis. ••••••rez. Ies. Tom. 3. D. 5••. § 2 pag. ••79.
Respondeo, quod est difficili∣mum, ob〈…〉〈…〉 imbecilitatem. Dico corpus Domini habere partem extra partem, si vox [extra] dicat habitudinem ad subjectum, non si dicat habitudinem ad objectum, non si dicat habitudinem ad locum. Resp. nego conse∣quentiam, quia distinctio partium in subjecto est essentialis: at distinctio quoad locum non est essentialis, sed impediri potest. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 7. Negatur este impossible, corpus quantum in indivisibili puncto. collocari: quin potius impossibile est corpus Christi esse totum in toto, quùm sit etiam in punctis & terminis, quibus partes specierum Sacramentaliam continuantur. Suarez. quo supra. pag. 683.