Part 83

I am aware that there is _Talmudical_ authority for considering this “burning” as a part of the process connected, in later times, with the killing of the paschal lamb.[634] It was probably one of the modifications of the rite, introduced by the priests on its transference from the private homes of the people to the temple. The original law required, that the lamb should be roasted whole, not even the entrails being removed; it also enjoined, that whatever was left should be immediately burned with fire, and every trace of it destroyed before morning.[635] This private burning was clearly no religious and sacrificial act, though, perhaps, a provision against any superstitious use of the remnants: and it is easy to perceive, that the parts thus destroyed would be the same, which subsequently it was the custom of the priests to consume on the altar fire. When the killing became a collective act, and the temple the scene of it, doubtless both people and priests thought it more cleanly and agreeable to burn the parts which were sure to be left, _before hand_ on the public fire, than _afterwards_ on the hearths of their private dwellings: and it would require a very illiberal interpreter to pronounce this a violation of the original law, the spirit of which it certainly observed. This view, which treats the burning on the altar as simply a mode of consumption, substituted for the destruction of the same worthless parts at home, is less insulting to the Jewish religion than the opinion which discerns here an act of worship. The Jews were certainly a very coarse people, and offered many disagreeable things to God: but really, such a gift as this is without any parallel. They always,—in obedience to their law,—presented _something_ valuable (sometimes the whole animal, sometimes the breast and right shoulder), either to Jehovah on the altar, or to his ministers the priests:[636] and the pious Jew would have indignantly resented the idea of quitting the temple courts with the whole value of his sacrifice on his shoulder, and only the refuse remaining in the sanctuary.

By law, then, there was nothing of the paschal lamb burned on the altar: and by custom there was no part offered to Jehovah or given to the priests: and without these characteristics, there is no proper sacrifice.

Archbishop Magee admits, that the ceremony of laying the hand on the head of the victim, which was observed in the undoubted sacrifices, did not take place in the rite under consideration: and he notices the statement of Philo, that the animal was slain, not by the priest, but by the individual presenting it.[637] He considers Philo to have been mistaken, however, in his assertion that this immolation by private hand was peculiar to the passover; and cites the language of Lev. i. 4, 5; iii. 2; iv. 24, to show that the burnt offering, the peace-offering, the sin-offering, might all be slain by the offerer. Certainly these passages appear to leave such permission open to the Israelitish worshipper: but it seems more likely that the sacrifices here enumerated were intended to be made by the hands of the priest: nor would it be easy to reconcile the liberty of private sacrifice with the sacerdotal duties and privileges defined in Num. xviii. 1-7. As to the actual practice, it cannot be reasonably doubted that Philo was correct: and his expressions seem to imply that, in the paschal rite, the priest might be altogether dispensed with, and his intervention required for no religious act. He says: “On the fourteenth day of this month, at the coming of the full moon, is celebrated the public festival of the passover, called in the Chaldee language the Pascha: when, instead of the private citizen presenting his victim at the altar to be slain by the priest, the whole nation officiates in sacred things, every one in turn bringing and immolating his own victim with his own hands. The whole people is festive and joyous, every one being entitled to the dignity of priesthood.”[638] He uses similar expressions in his treatise on the decalogue: The festival, “which the Hebrews in their language call the Pascha,” is a time “when each and all of them slay their victim, without waiting for the services of their priests: the law, on an appointed day of every year, conceding to the whole people the sacerdotal functions, to the extent of permitting them to officiate for themselves at a sacrifice.”[639] This language evidently implies, that _every essential part_ of the passover rites, every act necessary to constitute and complete its character as a religious celebration, was performed by private hand: so that the auxiliary operations of the priests,—the pouring out of the blood and burning the inwards,—must be regarded as non-essentials and accessaries; menial contributions to the main act; and in the performance of which, therefore, the usual law, forbidding to the non-official Jew all approach to the altar, came into effect again. Had the paschal celebration required, as an indispensable ingredient in it, any transactions at the altar, the private Israelite, being temporarily invested with whatever sacerdotal privileges were needful for the rite, would have gone himself to make his offering. Philo indeed obviously conceived of the subsequent part of the ceremony, in which the temple and the priest had no share,—the domestic meal which took place in the several homes of the people,—as its peculiarly sacred element: “Each house,” he says, “at that time put on the form and sanctity of a temple, the victim that has been slain being made ready for a suitable meal.”[640] Fond as this writer is of types, it is impossible to express the retrospective and commemorative character of the passover more emphatically than in his words: ὑπομνητικὴ τῆς μεγίστης ἀποικίας ἐστὶν ἡ ἑορτὴ, καὶ χαριστήριος.[641]

In one passage of his note on the Passover, Archbishop Magee appears to admit that the paschal lamb was not a “_sacrifice for sin_,” and affirms that he “would not dispute with Dr. Priestley any conclusion he might draw from so productive a premiss.”[642] Yet, a few pages further on, he quotes with apparent approbation the arguments by which Cudworth sought to prove the rite to be an _expiatory sacrifice_.[643] I cannot pretend to reconcile these two portions of his Essay. But if the passover cannot be shown to be an expiatory sacrifice, I do not see what the advocates of the doctrine of atonement gain by proving it a sacrifice at all. If the paschal lamb was not a _sin-offering_, to what class did it belong? It must have been either of the eucharistic kind, or else unique and simply commemorative; and so far as the death of Christ was analogous to any _such_ offering, it was destitute of expiatory efficacy: and either was an expression of thanksgiving, (which seems absurd) or, like the blood of the lamb sprinkled on the lintel, a mere _sign_ of some deliverance which it was not instrumental in effecting, but which, simultaneously perhaps, yet independently occurred. Those, therefore, who are disposed to strain the resemblance between the passover and the cross, must either maintain the _expiatory_ nature of the Jewish right, or admit the Lord’s Supper to be, not even the celebration of a real deliverance, but the mere _commemoration of a sign_.

POSTSCRIPT.

In the notes to the Sixth Lecture of this series (p. 89-92,) I have adduced an example of Archbishop Magee’s misrepresentation of Mr. Belsham, and stated that the Prelate had quoted his opponent falsely. In comparing the two authors, I employed the latest editions of both their works; not being able to procure a copy of the first edition of the Calm Enquiry, which has been out of print for twenty-two years. At the same time, I thought it only just to insert the following note: “There is a possibility, which I think it right to suggest, of a difference between the two editions of Mr. B.’s work; as, however, the accusation is still found in the newest edition of the Archbishop’s book, I conclude that this is not the case. Indeed, even if the Prelate’s quotation had been _verbally_ true, it would _in spirit_ have been no less false; for, at all events, Mr. B. cites the Vulgate, to give evidence as to the _text_, not the _translation_; and had he used the word _renders_, it would only have been because the term naturally occurs when a VERSION is adduced to determine a READING.”

I have since obtained a copy of the first edition of the Calm Enquiry; and I hasten to acknowledge that the Archbishop’s quotation _is_ “_verbally_ true,” as far as it goes. But I regret to say that this makes only a formal difference in his favour; for by stopping short in his citation, he accomplished the very same object, of leaving an absolutely false impression, which I had supposed him to have effected, in this as in other instances, by direct falsification of his author. He wishes to make it appear, that Mr. Belsham (purposely mistranslating for the occasion,) appeals to a certain verse in the Vulgate in evidence, not of a READING, but of a RENDERING; and so he cites these words from the Calm Enquiry: “The Vulgate renders the text, the first man was of the earth, earthy; the second man was from heaven, heavenly;” but he leaves out the very next words, in which _the point intended to be proved_ by this testimony of the Vulgate is cited, “This is not improbably the TRUE READING.” Doubtless it was one of Mr. Belsham’s _incuriæ_ that he did not attend to his italics in his first edition: but the charge of intentional mistranslation is simply injurious; except indeed, that it is also absurd, seeing that Mr. Belsham has put the Latin of his mistranslated passage at the bottom of the page;—a policy which this heresiarch could scarcely have thought safe, unless he had taken his Unitarian readers to be either more “dishonest critics,” or more “defective scholars,” than even our learned opponents are prepared to think them.

Footnotes for Lecture XIII.

Footnote 607:

Ps. li. 16, 17.

Footnote 608:

Is. i. 13, 14, 16.

Footnote 609:

Conference with Fisher, § 15; quoted in Tracts for the Times, No. 76. Catena Patrum, No. II. p. 18.

Footnote 610:

Of Persons dying without Baptism, p. 979; quoted in _loc. cit._ pp. 19, 20.

Footnote 611:

History of Popish Transubstantiation, ch. 4; printed in the Tracts for the Times, No. 27, pp. 14, 15.

Footnote 612:

Bishop of Exeter’s charge, delivered at his Triennial Visitation in August, September, and October, 1836, p. 44-47.

Footnote 613:

Tracts for the Times, No. 4, p. 5.

Footnote 614:

Ibid. No. 5, pp. 9, 10.

Footnote 615:

Luke iv. 18, 19.

Footnote 616:

Archbishop Whately, speaking of the word ἱερεὺς and its meaning, says; “This is an office assigned to none under the gospel-scheme, except the ONE great High Priest, of whom the Jewish Priests were types.”[c] Of the “_gospel-scheme_,” this is quite true; of the _Church-of-England scheme_, it is not. There lies before me Duport’s Greek version of the Prayer-Book and Offices of the Anglican Church: and turning to the Communion Service, I find the officiating clergyman called ἱερεὺς throughout. The _absence_ of this word from the records of the primitive Gospel, and its _presence_ in the Prayer-Book, is perfectly expressive of the difference in the spirit of the two systems;—the difference between the Church _with_, and the “Christianity _without_ Priest.”

Footnote c:

Elements of Logic. Appendix: Note on the word “Priest.”

Footnote 617:

Matt. xviii. 18.

Footnote 618:

See Rom. vi. 2-4. “How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that, like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” Mr. Locke observes of “St. Paul’s argument,” that it “is to show into what state of life we ought to be raised out of baptism, in similitude and conformity to that state of life Christ was raised into from the grave.” See also Col. ii. 12. “Ye are ... buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” The force of the image clearly depends on the sinking and rising in the water.

Footnote 619:

See Note.

Footnote 620:

Compare Matt. xxvi. 26-28; Mark xiv. 22-24; Luke xxii. 19, 20, with Exod. xii. 3-11, 14, 24-27, 43-49; Lev. xxiii. 5; Num. ix. 10-14; xxviii. 16; Deut. xvi. 1, 4-7.

Footnote 621:

Compare Matt. xxvi. 17-21; Mark xiv. 12-17; Luke xxii. 7-17, with John xiii. 1, seqq.; xviii. 28; xix. 14, 31, 42. See also 2nd Lecture, pp. 38, 39.

Footnote 622:

See 1 Cor. xi. 17-34.

Footnote 623:

Prov. ii. 4.

Footnote 624:

Mr. Dalton’s Lecture on the Eternity of Future Rewards and Punishments, p. 760.

Footnote 625:

Mr. Dalton’s Lecture, p. 760.

Footnote 626:

Theological Repository, vol. i. p. 215, and Priestley’s Works, by Rutt, vol. vii. pp. 243, 244.

Footnote 627:

Magee on the Atonement, vol. i. pp. 291, 292, 5th edit.

Footnote 628:

This is admitted by a learned writer, with whose work on sacrifices Archbishop Magee was familiar, and who had anticipated most of his arguments on the subject of the passover: “Cum ad Paschale sacrificium etiam pecudes ex armento lectas in sacris literis imperatas legimus, non designatur illa victima, quæ פסח proprie appellatur, sed alia quædam sacrificia eidem victimæ adjungenda.”—_Outram de Sacrificiis_, lib. i. ch. xiii. § 10.

Footnote 629:

Simonis describes the _verb_ זבח as meaning (1.) in genere _mactavit_; (2.) in specie _mactavit ad sacrificandum_; and the _noun_, as proprie _mactatio_; metonym. (1.) _caro mactatorum animalium_; (2.) _sacrificium_.—_Lex. Hebr. et Chald. Ed. Eichhorn, in_ v.

Footnote 630:

The following passages constitute the whole passover-law: Exod. xii. 3-11, 14, 24-27, 43-49. Lev. xxiii. 5. Num. ix. 10-14; xxviii. 16. Deut. xvi. 1, 4-7. We have here the original statutes provided for the perpetual regulation of the rite: and in any discussion respecting its character, the appeal should be to these alone. The advocates for its sacrificial nature must be aware that this rule would destroy their whole case.

I subjoin a list of the passages relating to the feast of unleavened bread: Exod. xii. 15-20; xiii. 6-10; xxiii. 18, first clause; xxxiv. 25, first clause. Lev. xxiii. 6-14. Num. xxviii. 17-25. Deut. xvi. 2-4, 8.

Footnote 631:

Lightfoot’s Temple Service, ch. xii. Introd.

Footnote 632:

See Lightfoot’s Temple Service, ch. xii. sec. 5. “The Mishna says: Mactat Israelita, excipit sanguinem sacerdos.”—The Treatise _Pesachim_, in Surenhus. ii. 153.

Footnote 633:

P. 294.

Footnote 634:

See Lightfoot’s Temple Service, xii. 5, and the Treatise _Pesachim_, Surenh. ii. 135.

Footnote 635:

Exod. xii. 9, 10. The phrase “_the purtenance thereof_,” in the common version, means “_the entrails thereof_,” קרבו‎.

Footnote 636:

See Lev. i. 9, 13, 17; vi. 15-18, 26, 29; vii. 3, 6-10, 14, 15, 30-36.

Footnote 637:

Pp. 295, 296.

Footnote 638:

De vitâ Mosis, p. 686. E.

Footnote 639:

De decalogo, p. 766. D.

Footnote 640:

De sept. et fest. p. 1190. B.

Footnote 641:

_loc. cit._ After the remarks which have been made on the word זבח as an epithet of the passover, it is hardly necessary to notice the application to the same rite of the word θυσία by Philo and Josephus. It must be clear to any one who will open Trommius or Biel at the word, that it will not bear the stress laid upon it by Archbishop Magee. No one denies that the paschal lamb was slain and eaten, in observance of a religious celebration, in obedience to a religious law, and in expression of religious feeling; and this surely is enough to attract to it the word θυσία. In itself, however, the term, according to Biel, does not necessarily denote even so much as this. He defines it _hostia_, _sacrificium_, etiam _epulum_ ac _profana manducatio_: and he exemplifies this latter meaning by reference to Judg. vi. 18. Biel’s Thesaurus, Ed. Schleusner in v.

Footnote 642:

P. 292.

Footnote 643:

Pp. 298, 299.

INDEX OF TEXTS.

EXPLAINED OR REFERRED TO IN LECTURES II. V. VI. XI. XIII.

Lect. & Page.

Genesis.

ii. 17 VI. 17 iii. 1 XI. 16 — 14-19 — 17 — 15 — 19 xviii. 1, 2 V. 18 — 22 — — xix. 10 — — — 15 — —

Exodus.

xii. 3-11 XIII. 35 - 59 — 14 — — - 59 — 15-20 — 59 — 21-27 — 35, 59 — 27 — 55 — 43-49 — 35, 59 xiii. 6-10 — 59 xxiii. 18 — 56, 57, 59, 61 xxx. 10 VI. 58 xxxiv. 25 XIII. 56, 59, 61

Leviticus.

i. 5 XIII. 61 — 9 — 63 — 11 — 61 — 13 — 63 — 15 — 61 — 17 — 63 iii. 2 — 61 — 8 — — — 13 — — iv. 5-7 — — — 16-18 — — v. 11-19 VI. 57 vi. 15-18 XIII. 63 — 26 — — — 29 — — vii. 2 — 61 — 3 — 63 — 6-10 — — — 14, 15 — — — 30-36 — — xii. 1-8 VI. 57 xiv. — — xvi. — 58 xx. 25, 26 — 57 xxiii. 5 XIII. 35, 59 — 6-14 — 59 — 26-32 — 58

Numbers.

vi. 9-12 VI. 57 ix. 7 XIII. 58 — 10-14 — 35, 59 — 13 — 58 xiv. 19, 20 VI. 23 xviii. 1-7 XIII. 64 xix. 11-20 VI. 57 xxii. 22 XI. 21 xxviii. 1-6 XIII. 59 — 17-25 — — xxix. 7-11 VI. 58

Deuteronomy.

xii. 5, 6 XIII. 59 — 11 — — — 14 — — xvi. 1 — 35, 59 xvi. 2 XIII. 56, 57, 59 — 4-7 — 35, 59 — 5, 6 — 59 — 8 — — xxix. 1-6 VI. iii — 2-6 V. 18

Judges.

vi. 18 XIII. 65

1 Samuel.

xxviii. 24 XIII. 58 xxix. 4 XI. 21

2 Samuel.

xxiv. 1 XI . 22

1 Kings.

xi. 25 XI. 21 xviii. 21 V. 77 xix. 21 XIII. 58

2 Kings.

xv. 29 V. 28 xix. 21 — 67

1 Chronicles.

v. 26 V. 28 xxi. 1 XI. 22

2 Chronicles.

xxx. XIII. 60 — 15, 16 — 61 xxxv. — 60 — 9 — 57 — 11 — 61

Job.

i. 6-12 XI. 22 ii. 1-7 — —

Psalms.

xiv. V. 37 li. 16, 17 VI. 25 — — XIII. 9 cxix. 6 XI. 22

Proverbs.

viii. 22 V. 73 — 30 — — xvii. 1 XIII. 58

Isaiah.

i. 13, 14 XIII. 10 i. 16 XIII. 10 — 16-18 VI. 25 v. 18-20 XI. 3 vii. 14-16 V. 25 — — — 66 viii. 23 — 68 — — IX. 4 viii. 8 V. 67 — 18 — — ix. 5, 6 — 28 — 6 — 68 xxiii. 12 — 67

Jeremiah.

xiv. 17 V. 27 xxxi. 4 — 66 — 13 — 67

Lamentations.

i. 15 V. 67

Ezekiel.

xxxiii. 14-16 VI. 25

Amos.

v. 2 V. 27

Jonah.

iii. 5-10 VI. 23, 24 iv. 10, 11 — 24

Micah.

iv. 8, 9 V. 27

Zachariah.

iii. 1, 2 XI. 22

Matthew.

i. 23 V. 24 ii. 15 II. 55 — 23 — — — — V. 68 iv. 1-11 XI. 27 — 12-22 II. 36 xii. 3 — 29 xiii. 58 — 25 xv. 24 VI. 36 xviii. 18 XIII. 30 xix. 16-21 VI. 25 xxvi. 17-21 XIII. 35 — 26-28 — — xxvi. 28 VI. 40 — 69 seqq. II. 37 xxvii. 32 — — — 37 — — — 44 — — xxviii. 19 V. 50 — — VI. iv

Mark.

i. 12, 13 XI. 27 — 16-20 II. 36 x. 45 VI. 40 xiii. 32 V. 50 xiv. 12-17 XIII. 35 — 22-24 — — xv. 26 II. 37 — 32 — —

Luke.

i. 2 II. 28 — 15 — — iv. 1-13 XI. 27 — 18, 19 XIII. 28 v. 10, 11 II. 36 vii. 47 VI. 30 x. 17 II. 26 xxii. 7-17 XIII. 35 — 19, 20 — — — 56-62 II. 37 xxiii. 26 — — — 38 — — — 39-43 — —

John.

i. 1-14 V. 28, 69 — 12 VI. 71 — 29 — 40 — 35-51 II. 36 iii. 13 V. 51 iv. 23, 24 — 48 — 48 II. 25 v. 19 V. 49 — 29, 30 — 53 — 30 — 49 — 36 — — vi. 44 II. 8 — — XI. 47 vi. 57 V. 49 — 62 — 51 vii. 17 II. 9 viii. 42 XI. 46 — 47 — — x. 14 — 47 — 16, 17 VI. 36 — 18 V. 52 — 27 II. 9 — — XI. 47 x. 29 V. 49 — 32 II. 25 — 37 — 9, 25 xii. 23, 24 VI. 35 — 32 — — xiii. 1 seqq. XIII. 35 xiv. 10 V. 49 — 16, 17 II. 30 — 23 — 7 — 26 — 30 xvii. 3 V. 47 — 5 — 51 xviii. 15-25 II. 37 — 28 XIII. 35 — 37 II. 9, 25 xix. 14 XIII. 35 — 17 II. 37 — 19 — — — 31 XIII. 35 — 35 II. 28 — 42 XIII. 35 xxi. 24 II. 28

Acts.