An answer to a challenge madeAn ansvver to a challenge made

The first of these may be plainly seen in the Text: where our Saviour doth not only say, I am the bread of life, vers. 48. and, I am the living bread that came down from heaven, vers. 51. but addeth also in the 55. verse. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. Which words being the most forcible of all the rest, & those wherewith the simpler sort are commonly most deluded, might carry some show of proof, that Christs flesh & blood should be turned into bread & wine; but have no manner of colour to prove, that bread and wine are turned into the flesh and blood of Christ. The truth of the second, appeareth by the fourth verse: in which we find, that this fell out not long before the Passover; and consequently, a year at least before that last Passover, wherein our Saviour instituted the Sacrament of his Supper. We willingly indeed do acknowledge, that that which is inwardly presented in the Lords Supper, and spiritually received by the soul of the faithful, is that very thing which is treated of in the sixth of John: but we deny that it was our Saviours intention in this place, to speak of that which is externally delivered in the Sacrament, and orally received by the Communicant. And for our warrant herein, we need look no further then to that earnest asseveration of our Saviour in the 53. verse: Verily, verily I say unto you; Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Wherein there is not only an obligation laid upon them for doing of this, (which in no likelihood could be intended ⟨p. 48⟩of the external eating of the Sacrament, that was not as yet in being:) but also an absolute necessitie imposed, non praecepti solùm ratione, sed etiā medij. Now to hold, that all they are excluded from life, which have not had the means to receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper: is as untrue, as it is uncharitable. And therefore many of the Papists themselves, as Biel, Cusanus, Cajelan, Tapper, Hessels, Jansenius, and others, confess, that our Saviour in the sixth of John did not properly treat of the Sacrament.

The first of these may be plainly seene in the Text: where our Saviour doth not onely say, I am the bread of life, vers. 48. and, I am the living bread that came downe from heaven, vers. 51. but addeth also in the 55. verse. For my flesh is meate indeed, and my bloud is drinke indeed. Which words being the most forcible of all the rest, & those wherewith the simpler sort are cōmonly most deluded, might carry some shew of proofe, that Christs flesh & blood should be turned into bread & wine; but have no maner of colour to prove, that bread and wine are turned into the flesh and blood of Christ. The truth of the second, appeareth by the fourh verse: in which we finde, that this fell out not long before the Passeover; and consequently, a yeare at least before that last Passeover, wherein our Saviour instituted the Sacrament of his Supper. Wee willingly indeed do acknowledge, that that which is inwardly presented in the Lords Supper, and spiritually received by the soule of the faithfull, is that verie thing which is treated of in the sixth of Iohn: but wee denie that it was our Saviours intention in this place, to speake of that which is externally delivered in the Sacrament, and orally received by the Communicant. And for our warrant herein, wee need looke no further then to that earnest asseveration of our Saviour in the 53. verse: Verily, verily I say unto you; Except yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, and drinke his blood, ye have no life in you. Wherin there is not onely an obligation laid upon them for doing of this, (which in no likelyhood could be intended