« PreviousContinue »
mandments sanctioned by the Romish of Dr. Magec's manner of treating Church.
Dr. Priestley, and of the way in which The late Mr. Granville Sharp has he combats his arguments. gone farther into the subject, in his In No. XXXV. * (which he enti“ Remarks on the Catechism recom- tles) “ On the Arguments by which mended by the four R. C. Archbishops it is attempted to prove the Passover of Ireland," 1810. At p. 30 he says, not to be a Sacrifice," he says, “It inaccurately, according to Mr. Hal- is a curious fact, that the declaration lett's and R. H.'s accounts of Austin, of St. Paul, (1 Cor. v. 7,) that Christ that “ the first attempts to suppress our passover is sacrificed for us, is the second commandment-must have adduced by Dr. Priestley, (Tbeol. been made in very dark times of Po- Repos. I. 215,) as a convincing proof pery." In the subsequent pages he that Christ was not sacrificed at all.” has collected much curious informa. I ain inclined to think that this is a tion, and, notwithstanding his horror gross misrepresentation, or else that, of Popery, has not failed to do justice if the Doctor has said any thing like to several Catholic editions of the it, what he has said is so stated and percommandments, in which they are verted as not to convey the meaning arranged like those published by the he intended to convey. I have not the Protestants.
work referred to by me, or I would C. D. have examined into the truth of this
“ curious fuct.” Some of your (orSir,
respondents, who are in possession of NHERE is not any thing, in read. the Theological Repository, will, per
ing controversy, more disgusting haps, explain this matter. than the conviction, or even the sus- Dr. Magee goes on to quote the picion, that the writer misrepresents Doctor as saying, “ It follows from his opponent; and gives such state- the allusion to the Paschal lamb," ments of his sentiments and of his contained in this passage and others reasonings in support of them, as are of the New Testament, « that the calculated to make them appear ridi. death of Christ is called a sacrifice, culous, and thereby endeavouring to only by way of figure; because these create a prejudice the minds of his two" (namely, sacrifice and the pas. readers against him and the doctrines chal lamb) “ are quite different and he advocates, and in favour of his own inconsistent ideas : and the argument dogmas. Every man, as he has an by which he endeavours to establish undoubted right to think for himself this, is vot less extraordinary than the on all theological subjects, has also an position itself, as it brings forward au equal right to defend what he sin- instance, in which one of these totally cerely believes to be the truth; but different and inconsistent ideas is exif in doing this he treats with con. pressly called in the Old Testament tempt those who have defended op: by the name of the other; the passposite sentiments, as hardly possessed over being in the passage which he of common sense, and as incapable of quotes from Exod. xii. 27, directly sound reasoning and argument, al. termed the sacrifice of the Lord's passthough men of equal learning and over." “ This,” says Magee, piety with bimself, and so stating an odd species of logic." Had we the their arguments as to give them the Doctor's piece before us, or had Dr. air of being trifling, impertinent and Magee given us a fair, ungarbled quoabsurd, he who does this exposes tation of what he has said upon the himself to severe and merited censure, subject, we should, I have no doubt, and betrays the weakness of the cause be conviveed that this contemptuous he attempts to defend.
sneer at the Doctor's logic is imperI have been led to these remarks tinent, ungenerous, and without any by the manner in which Dr. Priestley foundation. Is it conceivable that is treated by Dr. Magee, in various Dr. Priestley would assert that she instances, in his “ Discourses and passover was not a sacrifice, and that Dissertations on the Scriptural Doc. sacrifice and the paschal lamb are two trines of Atonement and Sacrifice."
I shall select and make some observations on one instance, as a specimen
• Page 297, 4th edition.
quite different and inconsistent ideas," offered to God, but eaten by the chiland then bring forward (as he is here dren of Israel. It was not consumed. represented as doing) a passage of No priest was employed to kill the Scripture, without explanation or lamb and present it to God. There comment, where the passover is “di. was no altar upon which it was laid; rectly termed" a sacrifice ? Is the no confession of sin over it, or crime Doctor to be considered as an idiot? alleged for which it was to make an Yes, most certainly, if we form our atonement. How then could it pos. judgment from the representation sibly be a sacrifice ? given of him by Dr. Magee.
Dr. Magee may swell his pages Notwithstanding all that Dr. Magee with numerous quotatious from Jewish has said to the contrary, Dr. Priestley and Christian writers to prove that was certainly correct in saying that they considered the passover as a sa“the
passover was not a sacrifice, crifice, and speak of it as such; but and that these two (namely, sacrifice we have evidence that will outweigh and the paschal lamb) are quite dif- them all, (the evidence of the most ferent and inconsistent ideas." In enlightened Jews, that of our Lord the institution of the passover, (and and his disciples, and of the Jews in every circumstance belonging to that their time,) to prove that they neither iustitution is minutely detailed by considered the passover to be a sacri. Moses,) there is not any thing of the fice, nor did they observe it as such. nature of sacrifice connected with it. The historian tells us, that when the It was not a sacrifice but a feast, as day of unleavened bread came that it is expressly and repeatedly called, the passover must be killed, the disciand as such it was observed in all ples of Jesus asked him where they their generations. The command to should prepare to eat it. What was all the congregation of Israel was, the answer? Was it, provide a lamb, that they should take a lamb every carry it to the Temple that the priest man according to the house of their may present it to the Lord, slay the fathers; a lamb for a house; that they victim and offer it on the altar, a should kill it in the evening, and burnt-offering to the Lord ? Such it that they should eat the flesh in that must have been had the passover been night, roast with fire and unleavened a sacrifice; but instead of this lie di. bread. And Moses concludes with rects them to go into the city, and to saying, + “This day shall be unto you follow a man bearing a pitcher of for a memorial; and ye shall keep it water, and to say to the master of the a feast to the Lord throughout your house into which he entered, “the generations; ye shall keep it a feast Master saith, Where is the guestby an ordinance for ever.”
chamber, where I may (not sacrifice A learned writer $ gives the fol- but where I may,) eat the passover lowing account of the nature of sacri- with my disciples" They did so, and
“ Whatever is offered in a the man shewed them a large upper solemn manner immediately to God, room, where they made ready the so that a part of it, or the whole of it, passover, and Jesus and his disciples is consumed, is what is meant by the sat down and ate it together. “With word sacrifice, whether it be upon an desire have I desired (said he to his altar, or what is used instead of an disciples) to eat this passover with you altar; whether it be by fire, or in any before I suffer." other manner, is not material; but Had the passover been a solemn there must be a gift or oblation of sacrifice to God, this conduct of our it; whatever the subject or matter of Lord and his disciples would have
may be, it must be offered to God, been a profanation of that sacred or. and there must be a consumption of dinance, and a gross violation of the it." But in the celebration of the law of Moses, by converting a solemn passover, as instituted by Moses, none sacrifice into a feast, and thus robbing of these circumstances occur; there God of his offerings. Had the Jews was no oblation. The lamb was not in their days considered it as a sacri
fice to God, in vain would Jesus have + Verse 14. made the appeal to them, “ Which I Sykes on Sacrifices, p. 4.
of you convinceth me of sin?" This SR
• Exod. xii.
very circumstance would have con- that “there was no priest employed victed him of transgression.
upon the occasion, no altar made use But to what authorities does Dr. of, no burning, nor any part offered Magee appeal? To Jewish rabbies; to the Lord: all which circumstances men who made void the command. (he adds) were essential to every proments of God by their traditions; to per sacrifice." What is the reply of Christian writers, who, in general not Dr. Magee to all this? “ Why," he satisfied with the simplicity of the says, “low, in answer to these segospel of Christ, have defended every veral assertions, I am obliged to state corruption, both of Judaism and of the direct contradiction of each : for, Christianity. And is this evidence to first, the passage in Exodus xii. 27, be set up in opposition to the testimony is not the only one, in which the pasof Jesus Christ?
chal lamb is termed nas, a sacrifice; But that the passover was not a it being expressly so called in no less sacrifice we have even greater evi: than four passages in Deuteronomy, dence than that of Jesus, the testi- (xvi. 2, 4, 5, 6,) and also in Exodus mony of God himself. The passover xxxiv. 25, and in its parallel passage, was instituted and observed by the xxiii. 18." Let us examine this reply: Israelites on the day in which the Lord and, first, we affirm that neither in their God brought them out of the land Exodus xii. 27, nor in any of the of Egypt: but God addressing the other passages referred to, is the passpeople of Israel by the prophet Jere. over termed a sacrifice. The Hebrew miah, says, “Thus saith the Lord of word nar does not necessarily mean hosts, the God of Israel, put your a sacrifice, but simply to kill, and burnt-offerings unto your sacrifices, when used in relation to the passorer and eat flesh; for I spake not unto cannot possibly have that meaning; your fathers, por commanded them, in for the best of all reasons, namely, the day that I bronght them out of because, as we have seen, the passover Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or was no sacrifice at all. The passage sacrifices; but this thing commanded in Exodus should have been rendered, I them, saying, obey my voice." But, “ It is the slaying of the Lord's passif we believe Moses, God did at that over;" but the killing of an animal, time speak to them by him concerning intended to be offered in sacrifice, do the passover, and did expressly com. more constitutes it a sacrifice than the mand them to observe it as an ordi- slaying of it for food does. nance for ever. If, then, the passover Parkhurst, in his Hebrew Lexicon, was a sacrifice, this declaration is not gives the following explauation of the true, or else it was not of divine origin, word: “nar to slay in general, e God did not command it. Dr. Magee Kings xxiii. 20; Ezek. xxxix. 17, 19. says that it was a sacrifice, and that Sometimes for food, as in 1 Sam. God did command it; but “ let God xxviii. 24; 1 Kings xix.21; but most be true and” (Dr. Magee, and all the frequently for sacrifice. Gen. xxxi. Jewish rabbies and Christian writers, 54, xlvi. 1, and al. freq., and so it who dare to contradict him) “ every may be rendered to sacrifice." In the man a liar."
former of the passages in Genesis, Let us see now how Dr. Magee “ Aud Jacob offered sacrifice upon the proceeds in his refutation of Dr. mount,” our translators have put in Priestley. “ Dr. Priestley, however," the margin of our Bible, “ 'killed he says, 7 “ hopes to mend the argu. beasts," " Jacob killed beasts upon the ment by asserting, that this (Exod. mount, and called his brethren to eat xii. 27), is the only place in the Old bread: and they did eat bread, and Testament in which the paschal lamb continued all night in the mount." is termed a sacrifice," and that here, The same remarks will equally ap" it could be so called, only in some ply to the Greek word made use of secondary and partial, and not in the by the apostle, i Cor. v. 7: “ Christ proper and primary sense of the our passover is slain for us." The word:" and for these reasons namely, apostle there refers to the passover,
not as a sacrifice, but as a feast ; for
he immediately adds, “ Let us there• Chap. vii. 21-23. + P. 298, fore keep the feast, not with the learers
of malice and wickedness, but with " a priest, a tabernacle, a lemple, an the unlearened bread of sincerity and altar, a sacrifice, a corban or offering," truth.” The Greek word en Tun, there or any one thing the passage is used from Juw, says Parkhurst,' means brought to prove. They were, it is “ to slay for food, occ. Matt xxji. 4; true, to kill it in the place which the Luke xv. 23, 27; Acts x. 19; xi. 7; Lord should choose to put bis name Compare John X. 10." “ lu the there: this, says he, must mean the LXX." he adds, “ it is used for man." tabernacle or temple. If it were so,
Upon what uutenable premises, that would not make it a sacrifice. then, does Dr. Magee assert, in con- Dr. Magre not only says that it tradiction to Dr. Priestley, that the was expressly enjoined in the passage passover is expressly called a sacrifice just quoled, but that it was “exemin the passages above referred to! plified at the solemn passover in the
But in further contradiction to the reign of Josiah, 2 Chron. xxxv. 5, 6, Doctor, Magee asserts : “ 2. A priest 10, 11." It is there stated that Josiah was employed. 3. An altar was made kept a passover unto the Lord in use of. 4. There was a burning, and Jerusalem; and they killed the passe a part offered to the Lord : the in- over on the fourteenth day of the first wards being burnt upon the altar, month, and he set the priests in their and the blood poured out at the foot charges, and encouraged them to the thereof." It is much easier to assert service of the house of the Lord, and and to contradict than it is to answer he commanded the Levites to put the and refute. What is there in the in- ark into the house which Soloinon had stitution of the passover to justify built, and to prepare themselves by these assertions of Dr. Magee? And the bouses of Their fathers after their yet the institution must necessarily courses, according to the writing of contain every thing in it essential to David, King of Israel, and according to the due observance of the ordinance; the writing of Solomon his son; and and that it did so we may be assured in the 10th and 11th verses it is said, from the particularity with which “ So the service was prepared, and Moses describes the manner in which the priests stood in their place, and they were to observe it, and he charges the Levites in their courses, according them, when the Lord shall have to the king's commandment." This brought them into the land which he ordering the charges of the priests, sware unto their fathers to give them, and the courses of the Levites, had no to keep this service.
connexion with the institution of the “ A priest was employed." What passover, but was the appointment of does the Doctor allege in justifica. David and Solomon for the general tion of this assertion? Why he says, t aud regular service of the sanctuary. • 1. It was a corban, or offering, They were, therefore, in their places brought to the tabernacle or temple, according to the king's (Josiah's) comas we find it expressly enjoined in mandment, on this solemn occasion. Deut. xvi. 2, 5. 6." " Thou shalt It follows, “ And they killed the passtherefore nai, kill the passover unto over, and the priests sprinkled the blood the Lord thy God, of the flock and from their hands, and the Levites the herd, in the place which the Lord Aayed them." This is all that is said shall choose to put his wame there. concerning the passover in the above Thou mayest pot kill the passover passage referred to by Dr. Magee, to within any of thy gates, which the prove that the passover Lord thy God giveth thee; but at ban, an offering brought to the taber. the place which the Lord thy God nacle or temple, as expressly enjoined shall choose to place his name in, in Deuteronomy, and exemplified in there thou shalt kill the passover at this passage." But there is not any even, at the going down of the sun, thing in the passage to show that it at the season that thou camest forth was a sacrifice, or that it was an offer, out of Egypt." This is all of it ex. ing brought to the temple and offered actly agreeable to the institution by to God. There is no mention of any Moses; but here is nothing said about altar, or that the blood was the blood
of a sacrifice, that it was spriu kled on
the altar, that it was shed for sin, or . Gr. Lex. under Few, ir. + P. 299. designed to make an atonement. The
was a cor
priests, indeed, seem to have been neither shall the fat of my sacrifice employed in the business: they killed remain until the morning." In the the passover, and sprinkled the blood margin, in which the translators profrom their hands, a singular mode of fess to give a more exact meaning of expression, if there was any mystery the original, instead of the word sacriin it, or an v importance attached to fice they have inserted ibe word feast, it, and this they did wot by the autho- the fat of my feast. Nor is there any rity of Moses or the command of God; word in the original that answers to but, as it should seem, by the autho- the word offer in the translation. The rity of the king; for we are told literal rendering of the passage, 1 con. they were there according to his com- ceive, is, Thou shalt not not kill mandment. Now we well know that with leaven the blood of my 121 kings and priests have always been slain beast, neither shall the fat of my fond of assumed, unauthorized power. feast remain uutil the morning. Kings sometimes dispense with the The killing of the blood, in this pas. law of God. Thus Hezekiab com- snage, evidently means the shedding of manded the passover to be kept on it, as appears from the parallel passage the fourteenth day of the second month, also referred to, Chap. xxxiv. 25, contrary to the command of God by “ Thou shalt not onw shed (not thou Moses, that it should be kept on the shalt vot offer, but thou shalt not fourteenth day of the first month. shell) with leaven the blood of my “ And a multitude of the people had slain beast, neither shall the slaying not cleansed themselves, yet did they of the feast an, or the festival victim eat the passover, otherwise than it was of the passover be left until the written; but Hezekiah prayed for morning." them, saying, The good Lord pardon “ The fat of my feast shall not reevery one."
main until the morning," is exactly As to the sprinkling of the blood of in agreement with the words of the the passover from the hands of the institution. The lamb was to be priests, it could have no relation to killed in the evening, and the flesh as the sprinkling of the blood of their to be eaten that night roast with fire; sacrifices by the high-priest within the head and the legs and the purte, the veil, but was properly a memorial nance thereof were to be eaten, and of the sprinkling of the blood of the nothing of it was to remain until the passover, on the lintel and door-posts morning. The command, therefore
, of the houses of the children of Israel was to eat the whole that night, and in Egypt; that the destroying Angel, not to leave any of it, even the fat
, seeing the blood, might pass over their till the following day. houses, and not slay their first-born. Dr. Magee next refers us to 2 Chrou. Besides, in the account of Josiah's
xxx. 15, 16: “ Then they killed the passover, there is not any mention of passover on the fourteenth day of the the high-priest, (who alone could second month." This is all that is carry the blood of their sacrifices into said about the passover in the passage
, the holy of holies and sprinkle it. The remaining part of the 15th and there,) as having any thing to do 16th verses relates entirely to the with it.
burnt-offerings that were offered for But to proceed. Dr. Magee goes on the cleansing of the priests and Leto assert, that, “ 2. The blood of the vites ; for it follows, “And the priests paschal lamb was poured ont, sprin- and the Levites were ashamed, and kled, and offered at the altar by the sanctified themselves, and brought in priests
, in like manner as the blood of the burnt-offerings iuto the house of the victims usually slain in sacrifice, the Lord, and they stood in their as appears from Exod. xxiii. 18, and places after their manner, according to xxxiv. 25; 2 Chron. xxx. 15, 16, the law of Moses, the man of God: the and xxxv. 11.".
priests sprinkled the blood, (namely
, In the former of these passages, we
the blood of the burnt-offerings,) which read, “ Thou shalt not offer the blood they received of the hands of the Leof my sacrifice with leavened bread,
• See Parkburst on the word. + Exod. xii. 6-10.
* 2 Chron. xxx. 15, 18.