ed for his trifling as a reasoner, or for his presumption as a critic, it is not an easy matter to decide.

No. XXXV.-ON THE ARGUMENTS BY WHICH IT IS AT

TEMPTED TO PROVE THE PASSOVER NOT TO BE A SACRIFICE.

PAGE 33. (It is a curious fact, that the declaration of St. Paul, (1 Cor. v. 7.) that Christ our passover is sacrificed for us, is adduced by Dr. Priestley, (Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 215.) as a convincing proof that Christ was not sacrificed at all. It follows, he says, "from the allusion to the Paschal lamb," contained in this passage and others of the New Testament, "that the death of Christ is called a sacrifice, only by way of figure, because these two (namely, sacrifice, and the paschal lamb) are quite different and inconsistent ideas :" and the argument by which he endeavours to establish this, is not less extraordinary than the position itself, as it brings forward an instance in which one of these totally different and inconsistent ideas is expressly called in the Old Testament by the name of the other: the Passover being in the passage which he quotes from Exod. xii. 27. directly termed the Sacrifice of the Lord's Passover.—This seems an odd species of logic. Dr. Priestley however hopes to mend the argument by asserting that "this is the only place in the Old Testament in which the Paschal lamb is termed a sacrifice:" and that here "it could be so called only in some secondary and partial, and not in the proper and primary sense of the word:" and for these reasonsnamely, that "there was no priest employed upon the occasion; no altar made use of; no burning; nor any part offered to the Lord: all which circumstances (he adds) were essential to every proper sacrifice."-Now in answer to these several assertions, I am obliged to state the direct contradiction of each for 1st, the passage in Exod. xii. 27. is not the only one in which the Paschal lamb is termed na, a sacrifice: it being expressly so called in no less than four passages in Deuteronomy (xvi. 2, 4, 5, 6.) and also in Exodus xxxiv. 25. and in its parallel passage, (xxiii. 18.)--2. A priest was employed.-3. An altar was made use of.-4. There was a burning, and a part offered to the Lord: the inwards being burnt upon the altar, and the blood poured out at the foot thereof. Dr. Priestley adds for the completion of his proof, that "the paschal lamb is very far from having been ever called a sin-offering, or said to be killed on the account of sin." But neither is the burnt-offering "ever called a sinoffering" nor is the animal slain in any of the various kinds W

of peace-offering, whether in the votive, the free-will, or the sacrifice of thanksgiving, ever "said to be killed on account of sin." In other words, one species of sacrifice is not the same with, nor to be called by the name of another. I agree with Dr. Priestley in this position; and shall not dispute with him any conclusion he may draw from so productive a premiss.

But so evident is it that the passover was truly a sacrifice, that even Sykes himself, (whose work on Redemption has been the great armory whence Dr. Priestley and the other combatants of that doctrine have derived their principal weapons of attack,) found it impossible to deny the position. He accordingly fully admits the point. (Essay on Sacrifices, p. 41.) And indeed whoever considers what are the essential characters of a sacrifice, can have little difficulty upon this head, as the passover will be found to possess them all.

1. It was a Corban, or offering brought to the Tabernacle or Temple, as we find it expressly enjoined in Deut. xvi. 2, 5, 6. and exemplified at the solemn passover in the reign of Josiah, 2 Chron. xxxv. 5, 6, 10, 11. That the tabernacle or temple is intended by the expressions used in the passage of Deuteronomy above referred to, and not Jerusalem at large, is evident from this, that the very same expressions are employed when speaking of all the sacrifices and offerings, in Deut. xii. 5, 6, 11, 14. where it is manifest that the temple, the peculiar habitation of God, is necessarily meant. This still farther appears from 1 Kings viii. 29. and 2 Chron. vii. 16. Moreover, we find the Passover expressly called a Corban, (Numb. ix. 6, 7, 13.) and it is certain that nothing was so called, but what was brought and offered up to God at the tabernacle or temple-see Cudw. Int. Syst. Discourse, &c. p. 13. We may also add that it is actually specified by Maimonides as the reason why the Jews of later times cannot kill the Paschal lamb, that they have no temple to offer it in*- -see Ainsw. on Exod. xii. 8.-2. The blood of the paschal lamb was poured out, sprinkled, and offered at the altar by the priests, in like manner as the blood of the vic

Bishop Patrick in a note on Exod. xii. 21. makes the following observation-" Here it may be fit to note that the lamb being first killed in Egypt, it was killed in every man's house, for they had no altar there, nor any other place where they had liberty to kill it. But after they came to the land of Canaan it was not lawful to sacrifice it any where but in the place which God appointed for his worship, Deut xvi. 2. From which Maimonides concludes, that whatsoever they did with other sacrifices, yet this could not be offered in the high places, but only at the temple And it is likely they did so in the wilderness, the tabernacle being newly erected at the keeping of the second passover, Numb. ix. 5."

tims usually slain in sacrifice, as appears from Exod. xxiii. 18. and xxiv. 25.-2 Chron. xxx. 15, 16. and xxxv. 11. And in this sprinkling of the blood consisted, as we are told by the Jewish doctors, the very essence of a sacrifice—see Cudw. ut supra, p. 10.-3. The fat and entrails were burnt upon the altar, as may be collected from the accounts given of the ceremony of the Passover in the passages already referred to; as also from the declarations of the Jewish doctors, the descriptions of the paschal sacrifice in the Misna of the Talmud, and the testimony of the Karraites, who are known to reject all the Talmudical traditions not founded on scripture.* Thus then, all the distinguishing characters of a sacrifice,† we find to belong to the offering of the Paschal lamb. It was brought to the temple as a Corban, or sacred offering to the Lord. It was slain in the courts of the temple; and the blood was received by the priests, and handed to the high priest; who pouring it forth, and sprinkling it before the altar, offered it together with the fat and entrails which were burnt upon the altar.

One circumstance indeed has been urged, which wears the appearance of an objection; namely, that the paschal lamb was slain, not by the priest, but by the person who brought it to the temple. Philo, in his Life of Moses, (p. 686.) has stated this as distinguishing the Passover from all other sacrifices, (which, by the way, clearly implies that he considers that to be a sacrifice as well as the rest; and so indeed he expressly calls it, Пardues OYZIA-De Sept. & Fest. p. 1190.) In this, however, as in many other particulars of the Jewish rites, Philo is manifestly mistaken, this being by no means peculiar to the Passover: for that, in every kind of sacrifice, the individual that offered it might kill the sacrifice, is evident from the instance of the burnt-offering, in Levit. i. 4, 5.

See Cudw. Int. Syst. Disc. &c. pp. 12, 14, 15. 16.-see also Beausobre's Introd. pp. 134, 135, ed. 1790-and Sykes's Essay on Sacrifices, p. 41.

"Pascha nimirum erat sacrificium proprie dictum, Exod. xxiii. 18. xxxiv. 25. Hinc Pascha buas dicitur, Marc. xiv. 22. Sed præcipuum est, quod sanguis agni a sacerdote spargebatur, 2 Par. xxx. 16. xxxv. 11. in quo radix, seu essentia, sacrifici est, inquit canon Judæorum notissimus. Adde quod in Egypto ubi nullum erat altare ad quod spargeretur sanguis, huic tamen analogum fuit, quod postes illinebant sanguine agni. Deinde Pascha in loco sacro mactari oportuit, Deut. xvi. 5."-Poli Syn. in Exod. xii. 27.—In like manner Bishop Patrick expresses himself on the subject. of the Passover. "It is" (he observes) "frequently called by the name of a sucrifice, Exod. xxiii. 18. xxxiv. 25. Deut. xvi. 4, 5, 6.—And it is called a Corban; which is a name given only to those things which were brought to be offered up to God, See Numb. ix. 13. where, as it is called Corban, so the same word is used for bringing it, which is commonly used about other sacrifices. And it further appears to have been properly a sacrifice, by the rites belonging to it: for the blood of it was sprinkled by the priests, 2 Chron. XXX. 16. xxxv. 11."-Patr. on Exod. xii. 27.

from that of the peace-offering, iii. 2. and from that of the sin-offering, iv. 24. the proper duty of the priests being only to sprinkle the blood, and to place upon the altar whatever was to be offered.*-It must certainly be admitted, that the ceremony of laying hands upon the head of the victim, which was usual in other sacrifices, was not adopted in that of the passover. This distinction, however, at the same time that it is noticed by Sykes, (Essay, &c. p. 41.) is sufficiently accounted for by that writer, inasmuch as "the paschal lamb was the sacrifice of a company; and where a company are concerned no one can act for the whole, unless there be a proper representative; as the elders of a congregation are for the congregation, or persons deputed are for those who depute them, or governors may be for their people."

If farther confirmation can be yet wanted to show that the Passover was truly a sacrifice, we are supplied with this by the express testimony of Josephus; who in the third book of his Antiquities, treating of the subject of sacrifices, calls it the sacrifice which the Israelites had been ordered to sacrifice when leaving the land of Egypt—την ΘΥΣΙΑΝ ην τότε εξίον τας Αίγυπτο ΘΥΣΑΙ προειπον ημας, ΠΑΣΧΑ λεγομενην.†The authority of Josephus, himself a priest, and one of the most intelligent of his nation, will hardly be disputed as to what was considered by the Jews to be a sacrifice in his day.

Thus then upon the whole it appears, that when St. Paul declares, that Christ our passover has been sacrificed for us, there can be no question, that he means a true and effective sacrifice and that Christ has been to Christians that species of sacrifice which the passover had been to the Jews.

The question now arises, what was the nature of that sacrifice? The name of the institution, and the circumstances of its appointment, fully explain its import: the original word signifying to pass over, not merely in the sense of change of place, but in the sense of sparing, passing without injury; Jehovah in his work of destruction having passed over, and left in safety, the houses of the Israelites, on the door-posts of which the blood of the sacrificed lamb was sprinkled, whilst he slew the first-born in all the houses of the Egyptians.

Now, that the blood of the sacrificed lamb had any natural virtue whereby the family, on whose door-posts it was sprinkled, might be preserved from the plague; or that Jehovah,‡

See Levit. i. 4-9. iii. 2-5. iv. 24-26.-see also the Jewish doctors, as quoted by Cudworth, Discourse, &c. pp. 11, 12. and Jennings Jew. Antiq vol. ii. p. 191.

Aatiq. Jud. lib. iii. cap. x.-Josephi Opera, p. 93. A.

+ Εμελλεν εν ο Θεος πλανάσθαι ει μη το σημείον τετο επί των θυρων εγεγονείς κ φημι εγώ, αλλ' ετι προεκήρυσσε την μελλέσαν δι αίματος τε Χρισε γενησεσθαι σωτηρίαν τω γενεί των ανθρώπων. Just. Mart. Thirib. p. 374.

in passing, needed any such signal to distinguish between the Egyptians and the Israelites, (although the philosophy of Dr. Priestley has not scrupled to admit the supposition, see Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 215.)-it cannot be necessary to controvert. For what purpose, then, can we conceive such a ceremony to have been instituted, but as a sensible token of the fulfilment of the divine promise of protection and deliverance? And are we not, from the language of scripture, fully autho rized to pronounce, that it was through this intended as a typical sign of protection- from the divine justice, by the blood of Christ, which in reference to this is called, in Hebr. xii. 24. "the blood of sprinkling?" Indeed the analogy is so forcible, that Cudworth does not hesitate to pronounce the slaying of the paschal lamb in its first institution, to be an expiatory sacrifice; the blood of the lamb sprinkled upon the door-posts of the houses, being the appointed means of preservation, by Jehovah's passing over. In confirmation also

of the typical import of the ceremony, he notices a very extraordinary passage, quoted by Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho, from the ancient copies of the bible; in which Ezra expounds, in a speech made before the celebration of the passover, the mystery of it as clearly relating to Christ: and which Justin concludes, was at a very early day expunged from the Hebrew copies by the Jews, as too manifestly favouring the cause of Christianity. The passage is too remarkable to omit. "This passover," saith Ezra to the people, "is our Saviour and refuge;"* and if you can feel a

Patrick on Exod. xii. 13. remarks that the blood was a sign by which the Israelites were assured of safety and deliverance.-And indeed the words of the original are, the blood shall be to you for a token-Patrick adds from Epiphanius, that there was a memorial of the transaction preserved even among the Egyptians themselves, though ignorant of the original of the rite. For at the equinox, (which was the time of the passover,) they marked their cattle, and their trees, and one another, z pirts, with red ochre or some such thing, which they fancied would be a preservative to them. See Patrick as above.

* Και είπεν Εσδρας τω Λακ Τέτο το πασχα ο σωτης ημων, και η καταφυγή mjcev. Και εαν διανοήθητε, και αναβε υμων επί την καρδίαν, οτι μελλόμην αυτόν ταπείνων εν σημείων και μετα ταυτα ελπίσωμεν επ' αυτόν, ο μη εξημώθη ο τόπος αυτός εις τον απαντα χρόνον, λέγει ο Θεος των δυναμεων· Εαν δε μη πιςεύσητε αυτά, μηδε εισακέσητε το κηρυγματος αυτό, εσεσθε επίχαρμα τοις εθνεσι. (Just. Mart Thirlb pp. 292, 293.)-Justin says that this passage was among the εξηγήσεις ων εξηγήσατο Έσδρας εις τον νόμον τον περί το πασχα: and hence Mr. Whitaker concludes (Origin of Arianism, p. 305.) that it originally stood in Ezra vi 19-22. and probably between the 20th and 21st verses. It must however be confessed, that the reasons assigned by the learned Commentator on the passage here quoted by Justin, leave some reason to doubt its having existed in any genuine copy of the Old Testament. Grabe gives it as his opinion, that the sentence which Justin thus testifies to have stood in the ancient copies of Ezra, is rather to be considered as having crept in from a marginal addition by some early Christian, than as Iraving been expunged from the later copies by Jewish fraud.