A treatise of justifying righteousness in two books ... : all published instead of a fuller answer to the assaults in Dr. Tullies Justificatio Paulina ... / by Richard Baxter.

Aphorism.

BƲt clearly Luke, who speaketh of two Cups (which the other do not) doth ap∣ply and subjoyn these words, [I will drink no more of the fruit of, &c.] to the Cup which was before the sacramental.

Animadvers.

By this Reason Bellarmine would prove that we have no more certainty from the Scripture, that Wine was in the sacramental Cup, than that Water was in it. But Jansenius doth well refute those that apply those words, Matth. 26. 29. & Mark 14. 25. to the first Cup which Luke mentioneth: At istud non patitur ordo ho••um Erangelistarum (saith he) cum enim nul∣lius alterius Calicis fecerit mentionem praeterquam sacri, quando dicitur, ex hoc gemmine, nullus alius calix intelligi potest ab iis demonstratus, quando hujus meminerunt. Jan∣sen. Conc. cap. 131. sub finem. And therefore whereas Luke brings in those words, before he speaks of the Institution of the Sacrament, Austin (and after him Jansenius) doth well ex∣pound it by an Anticipation, the words being brought in not in their due order, which Matthew and Mark observed. Sup∣pose Luke had never written his Gospel; How could any have once imagined that the words, [I will drink no more, &c.] as rela••ed by Matthew and Mark, could be referred to any other Cup than that of the Sacrament, no other Cup besides being mentioned by them. But though Matthew and Mark had not written, the words as they are in Luke, might be taken as related by Anticipation; it being no unusual thing in Scripture, to relate things or words out of that order in which they were done or spoken.

Reply.

1. As to my purpose, it is of no great moment in which sense we take: For if Christ did receive the Sacrament of his Supper, it is certain it was but that his example, joyned to his words, might be the Institution, and not to the ends that we take it; no more than he was baptized for incorporation into him∣self, burying with himself, remission of sins, &c. which are our ends.

2. I say, as Calvin, Facile solvitur hic nodus, quia ad rem parum interest quo temporis momento hoc Christus dixerit. Nam huc tantum spectant Evange∣listae, admonitos fuisse discipulos tam de propinqua Magistri sui morte, quam de nova & coelesti vitâ, &c. Yea, why not as Paraeus, Nihil vero impedit, quin bis idem repetiverit de utro{que} poculo: quia neutrum cum illis amplius erat bibiturus. Or, as Piscator: Sed nihil est absurdi, si statuamus eadem verba bis dicta esse, s••mel quidem de poculo paschali, deinde iterum de poculo coenae novae: vel certè verbae illa alieno l••c•• vel à Luca vel à Matthaeo esse narrata. Indeed I wholly comply with Piscator's modesty, in judg∣ing it uncertain, though men may cast in this or that conjecture. But yet I take it to be most proba∣ble, that the words belong only to the Pascal Cup, as Grotius and many more think: And that there is no Anticipation in Luke, because Luke reporting the whole more fully than the rest, and adding that of the Paschal-Cup, which the other omitted, it is more likely he should be most exact in this: (Though I know not only Austin, but more of the Ancients, thought Christ received the Sacrament, as Pelargus in loc. shews of some.)

3. Your Supposition, (if Luke had never writ∣ten)

might alter the matter were it true: And if Matthew and Mark had never written, if you would have taken the liberty to dislocate that of Luke un∣der the pretence of a never-proved Anticipation, you would have been bolder than I durst be.

Notes

• Pag. 315.