at any Time: Neither was it taken till the very Inftant when he laid it down of himself, condefcending to fufpend his divine Power, or the Exercife of it. But I fhall have another Occafion to fay more of this Matter, under the following Chapter.

CHAP. IV.

Pointing out fome EXCESSES in relation to the SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS.

T1

HE Sacrifice of the Cross is fo momentous an Article of the Chriftian Religion, that we have great Reason to be jealous of any Attempt either to overturn it, or to undermine it. No fuch Thing was ever formally attempted, that I know of, by any Divines of our Church, before 1718, when the fecond Part of Unbloody Sacrifice appeared. The Author himself, in his first Part, had owned the Sacrifice of the Crofs, more than once a, in words at leaft; tho' he then feems to have fcrupled, in fome measure, the Ufe of the Phrafe,

2 John x. 18.

2

F 4

and

Johnson, Unbl. Sacrif. Part i. p. 12, 66, 68, 95. ift Edit. N. B. Dr. Hickes all along owned the Sacrifice of the Cros (Chrift. Priefth. Vol. i. p. 165.) So likewife Mr. Leflie, and Mr. Scandret, p. 4, 8, 157. Dr. Brett alfo, as late as 1713, which appears by his Sermon on the Chriftian Altar, &c. p. 18, 19. Tho' he adopted Mr. Johnson's new Notions in or before 1720, Difcourfe, &c. p. 39

and to have been looking out for fome evafive Conftruction to put upon it. Afterwards, in fome Places he order'd Mactation to be read for Sacrifice b, or for Oblation: And Mactation, at length, became his ufual Expreffion for what we call the Sacrifice of the Crofs. Let us examine his Reasons, or Motives for this fo important a Change in Chriftian Theology.

1. His firft Scruple feems to have been what he had hinted in the first Edition of his first Part, where he fays, "By facrificed on the Cross, << we muft then mean, that he was flain as an

expiatory Victim, and not that he offered "himself as a Melchifedechian Prieft; for he

declares, that he did this in the Eucharift. "For this, fays he, is my Body given to God "for you. He adds afterwards, It cannot be proved, that the Melchifedek in Genesis did offer bloody Sacrifice d. This Pretence is very flight; because it cannot be proved, by any thing faid in Genefis, or any or any other part of Scripture, or by Antiquity, Univerfality and Confent, that Melchifedek facrificed Bread at all, or that he did any thing more (fo far as he is brought in for a Type) than what amounted to the Prefiguration of the grand Sacrifice, and an inftrumental Conveyance of the Bleffings of it. However, as it is certain from Scripture, confirmed by Antiquity, Univerfality and Confent,

that

that our Lord did offer himself a Sacrifice on the Cross, and that our Lord was not a Priest of any other Order but the Order of Melchifedek, it most evidently follows, that fuch hig Sacrifice was fo far Melchifedechian, was an Act of That Priesthood which was altogether Melchifedechian, and not Aaronical. In the ftricteft Senfe, no material Sacrifice, bloody or unbloody, no active Sacrifice at all (excepting the Sacrifice of Lauds) can be Melchifedechian; for Melchifedek, as a Type, offered nothing but Lauds to God, and Bleffings to Abraham under vifible Signs: But as our Lord's Priesthood was entirely Melchifedechian, and contained the atoning as well as benedictory Part, it is manifest that even the Atonement, fo confidered, was Melchifedechian, as oppofed to Aaronical. In fhort then, it must not be faid that our Lord's Sacrifice was bloody, and therefore not Melchifedechian; but it was Melchifedechian, though bloody s, becaufe it was our Lord's, who was of no other prieftly Order but the Order of Melchifedek. It is a poor Thought of the Romanifts, and it is well expofed by Dean Brevinth, that Bread and Wine are neceffary to every Act or Exercife of the Melchifedechian Prieft

↑ Heb. vii. 11, 13, 14, 16, 17.

N. B. It cannot be reafonably doubted but that Melchifedeck offered bloody Sacrifices, after the way of the antient Patriarchs: Only, That part of his Priefhood was not mentioned; as there was no need to mention it, fince the benedi&tory Part of his Priesthood was all that the Type intended was concerned in, as I before intimated.

Brevint, Depth and Myftery, &c. p. 116, 117, 118.

3

Priesthood: For, as the Notion is founded in Error, fo it terminates in Abfurdity. Our Lord had no Bread to offer on the Crofs; neither has he any Bread or Wine to offer in Heaven, where he intercedes as a Prieft in virtue of his Sacrifice once offered, and bieffes as a Prieft, and abideth a Prieft continually. But I proceed.

2. The first and main Scruple against the Sacrifice of the Cross being thus confidered, and confuted, there will be lefs Difficulty with the reft, which are flighter, and which appear to have been invented purely to wait upon the other. A fecond Scruple is, that our Lord could not, while alive, offer (unless it were under Symbols) his Body and Blood, as fubftantially feparated; because it appears not that any Blood flowed from him, till the Soldier pierced him; but it is probable, that the Nails fo filled the Orifices, that no Blood could ifjue thence k. I fhall venture to leave this ingenious Speculation with the Reader.

1

3. Against the Sacrifice of the Cross, it is pleaded, that to fuppofe it, "is to render the Sacrifice of Chrift a bloody one indeed; fo bloody, as that it cannot be reconciled to Purity of any Sort, till killing one's felf be e"fteemed a Virtue. The fame Argument, as lately revived by another Gentleman, runs thus: "He could not offer himself a Sacrifice in any other manner than by Symbols or Reprefentatives: For, had he in any man

i Hebr. vii. 3.

* Johnson, Unbl. Sacrif. Pref. p. 4, 5. Johnson, Unbl. Sacrif. part ii. p. 70.

ner

I

ner, put himself to Death, he might have been too juftly accufed of Self-murder m. Sorry am, that any thing of this kind, tho' only in the way of Argument, fhould drop from ferious and religious Perfons: And I was in fome doubt with myself, whether I could prudently or reverently repeat it, tho' in order only to confute it. But who can any longer bear to have that most precious Sacrifice, upon which all our Hopes and all our Comforts depend, treated in a manner far from becoming it? Why muft Chrift's laying down his Life, be fo invidiously, so injurioufly called putting himself to Death? To refign his Life, or voluntarily to fubmit to Death, is one thing: To put himself to Death, is quite another, differing as active Difobedience from paffive Obedience. But tho' he was paffively obedient, in fubmitting to fuffer, bleed, and die for us, it does not therefore follow, that he exercifed no Act of offering, or that he made no active Sacrifice on the Crofs. It was his own Choice to fubmit to the Will of his Enemies, and his chufing fo to fuffer, fo to be paffive, for the Honour of God, and the Salvation of Men, was the divineft Act and Exercife of true Piety and Philanthropy. It was active Virtue, as all Choice, (whether to do, or to fuffer)

66

m Brett's Anfw. to Plain Acc. p. 66. One might here make ufe of Tertullian's Argument against Marcion (cited above, p.27.) with a very little change. If our Lord made for himself a Body of Bread, to be facrificed, because he could not offer "himself in any other manner than by Symbols, then was "Bread given for the Life of the World, and Bread fhould "have been crucified for us.