The suruey of popery vvherein the reader may cleerely behold, not onely the originall and daily incrementes of papistrie, with an euident confutation of the same; but also a succinct and profitable enarration of the state of Gods Church from Adam vntill Christs ascension, contained in the first and second part thereof: and throughout the third part poperie is turned vp-side downe.

The 3. conclusion.

The popishe oblation of Christes naturall bodie in their masse, by which they ascribe remission of sins to the quicke and the dead, is blasphemous and iniurious to Christes holy passi∣on. I prooue it first, because the apostle saith, that we are sanc∣tified by the oblation of the body of Iesus Christ once. For if it [ 1] be true that S. Paule saith, that it is but once offered;* 1.1 it must needes bee false that the papistes say, that it is offered in their masses, ten thousand times in one houre.

I proue it secondly, because the apostle saith, that Christ hath [ 2] with one oblatiō made perfect for euer, them that are sanctified. For doubtlesse where one oblation doth make vs perfite and consummate; there need neither mo oblations,* 1.2 nor often itera∣tion of the same. Therefore the popish oblation of Christ to his father in their masse is blasphemous against Christ, as which maketh his oblation vpon the crosse vnperfect, and insuffcicient for our sinnes. I prooue it thirdly, because the apostle prooueth [ 3] Christes priesthood to excell the priesthood of the old lawe,* 1.3 for that Christ did take away sinnes by one onely oblation, which the priestes of the law could not doe with many. But doubtles this reason of S. Paul is friuolous and to no purpose, if Christ must stil be offered in the masse to put away sinne.

I prooue it fourthly, because the apostle saith, that as it is appointed to men, that they shall once die,* 1.4 and after that com∣meth [ 4] the iudgement; euen so Christ was once offered to take a∣way the sins of many, and vnto them that looke for him, shall he appeare the second time without sinne vnto saluation. Loe, Christ is no more offered before his second aduent, then men die before the iudgment, and yet euery child knoweth, that men die but once by ordinary course. I prooue it fiftly, because S. Paul saith that if he should often offer himselfe,* 1.5 as the high priest en∣tred [ 5] into the holy place euery yeare, then must hee haue often

suffered since the foundation of the world; as if he had said, hee can but suffer once, and therefore he is but once onely offred▪ Note this reason well, for doubtlesse it doth conuince.

[ 6] I proue it sixtly, because there is nowe no other thing in the holy Eucharist, then that which Christ gaue to his apostles at his last supper. Marke well my words (gentle Reader) and thou shalt with facilitie espie the blasphemous trecherie of the papists. For, if that which Christ gaue to his apostles in his supper, were his natural body sacrificed for the sinnes of man∣kind:* 1.6 then was mans redemption twise accomplished, then was Christ sacrificed before he died, then was mans redemption re∣ally done before it really began, then was hee dead before his passion, then was his body in one place and his bloud in ano∣ther, then was hee both liuing and dead at once, then was his death in vaine: for al these absurdities do follow perforce, vp∣on the forged propitiatorie sacrifice in the popish masse.

[ 7] I proue it seauenthly, because Christ himself said of his holy and bitter passion,* 1.7 that it was the consummation of euery thing needefull for mans saluation. But doubtlesse where one oblati∣on once made, maketh mans saluation perfit and consummate, there not only moe oblations, but also the iteration of the same oblation, is meere frustrate and needelesse.

[ 8] I prooue it eightly, because the Apostle saieth flattely, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.8 There is not henceforth any oblatiō for sin. For if Saint Paul say truely, that there is no oblation for sinne after Christs death on the crosse; then doubtlesse the pa∣pists must needs say falsely, that they haue a daily propitiatorie sacrifice in their masse.

I proue it ninthly, because if the sacrifice of the masse, were [ 9] the self same sacrifice of the crosse, but vnbloudy, as the papists dreame: then shoulde their masse sacrifice be of infinite valure, which yet no papist dareth auouch. This reason doth confound the papists, & therfore I wil proue effectually euerie part ther∣of. First, that it is the same sacrifice which Christ offered on the crosse, all papists grant being enforced with S. Paules words when he saith: With one oblation he made perfit for euer, those that are sanctified. Secondly, that it is not of infinite valure, our Iesuite graunteth in these wordes;* 1.9 Valor sacrificii

missae finitus est. The valure of the sacrifice of the masse is finite.

Now I prooue the consequution of my proposition, which is the third thing remaining; wherein resteth all the difficultie, if there be any at all. First therefore the sacrifice supposed to be in the masse, is the naturall body and bloud of the son of God▪ For otherwise it could not be the same, that was offered vpon the crosse. Againe, he that is supposed to offer the sacrifice dai∣ly in the masse, is Christ himselfe the sonne of God. Who (as the papistes teach blasphemously) held in his hands at his last supper, that selfe same body that was borne of the virgine Ma∣ry, and suffered the next day after. And yet if the valure of the sacrifice of the m••sse be finite, then doubtlesse that sacrifice can not be the sonne of God: for he is of infinite power, of infinite glorie, of infinite maiestie, of infinite valure. Yea, whosoeuer denieth Christes body & bloud, subsisting in the person of God by hypostaticall vnion, to be of infinite valure; hee is become a flat Arrian, beleeuing Christ to bee pure man, and not God. And consequently, howsoeuer the papistes thinke or speake of their masse, yet in making it a sacrifice they are blasphemous: and that must needs followe, though it were freelie graunted them, that Christes body were present really in the Sacra∣ment.

I prooue it tenthly, because our Iesuite cannot denie, but that [ 10] a reall destruction is necessarily required,* 1.10 in euery true & reall sacrifice. Wherefore, since Christ dieth not in the popish masse, it cannot be that he is truly sacrificed in the same. For as Bel∣larmine truely saith, Abraham did not truely sacrifice his sonne Isaac, because he was not really slain. Now that this discourse may be made more manifest, I will propound the strongest ob∣iec••ions for the aduerse part, and adde briefe solutions to the same.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Heb. 10. v. 10.
• * 1.2

  Heb. 10. v. 14▪
• * 1.3

  Heb. 10. v. 10.11, 12, 13.
• * 1.4

  Heb. 9. v. ••••.2••.
• * 1.5

  Heb. 9. v. 25.26▪
• * 1.6

  Note well this reason.
• * 1.7

  Ioan. 19.30.
• * 1.8

  Hebr. 10.18.
• * 1.9

  Hebr. 10.14.
• * 1.10

  Bellarmine de missa lib. 1. c. 2••▪