Whether then in the present instance, this author, ingenious and learned as he undoubtedly is, deserves more to be condemned 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 ATTEMPTED TO PROVE THE PASSOVER NOT TO BE A SACRIFICE.

PAGE 31. (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 Exodus xii. 27. is not the only one, in which the Paschal lamb is termed , 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 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 sin

very

offering" nor is the animal slain in any of the various kinds 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 victims usually slain in sacrifice, as appears from

*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."

Exod. xxiii. 18. and xxxiv. 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,

*See Cudwo. 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 volat dicitur, Marc. xiv. 22. Sed præcipuum est, quod sanguis agni a sacerdote spargebatur, 2 Par. xxx. 16. xxxv. 11. in quo radix, seu essentia, sacrificii 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 sacrifice, 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,