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, Πανδημος ΘΥΣΙΑ-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 burntoffering, in Levit, i. 4, 5; 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, treat

*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.

ing 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 τοτε εξιόντας Αιγυπτου ΘΥΣΑΙ προειπον ημας, ΠΑΣΧΑ 2εyouε. 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, in passing, needed

* Antiq. Jud. lib. in. c. x.-Josephi Opera, p. 93. A.

† Εμελλεν εν ο Θεος πλανάσθαι ει μη το σημείον τότο επί των θυρα εγεγονείς 8 φήμη, αλλ' ότι προκηρυσσε την μέλλεσαν δι αιματος τα Χριςε γενήσεσθαι σωτηρίαν τα γένει των avp. Just. Mart. Thirlb. p. 374.

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

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 Th. 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 authorized 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 related 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

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, Mats, with red ochre, or some such thing, which they fancied would be a preservative to them. See Patrick as above.

Ezra to the people, "is our Saviour and refuge;* and if you can feel a firm persuasion, that we are about to humble and degrade him in this sign, and afterwards should place our sure trust and hope in him, then this place shall never be made desolate, saith the Lord of hosts: but if you do not believe in him, nor listen to that which he shall announce, ye shall be a derision to all nations." (Cudw. Int. Syst. Disc. p. 16.) L'Enfant thinks the words of St. Paul, 1 Cor. v. 7. are a direct allusion to the first sentence of the passage here cited-see Doddridge on 1 Cor. v. 7. Allix in his judgment of the Jew. Ch. p. 333, says, that when John the Baptist speaks of the Lamb, which takes away the sins of the word, the type of the paschal lamb is alluded to: and that this appears the more clearly from two things taught amongst the Jews: 1. That the Shechinah delivered Israel out of Egypt: 2. That the Shechinah was typified by the paschal lamb.-But, in proof that the paschal lamb was the type of Christ, it is not necessary to resort to Jewish traditions. Scripture supplies the most decisive testimonies on the point.

४

* Και είπεν Εσδρας του Λαω Τέτο το πασχα ο σωτηρ ημών, και η καταφυγή ημών. και σαν διανοήθητε, και αναβη υμων επι την καρδίαν, οτι μέλλομεν αυτον ταπεινον εν σημεία, και μετα ταυτα ελπίσωμεν επ' αυτόν, ει μη ερημώθη ο τόπος αυτός εις τον απαντα χρόνον, λίγο ο Θεος των δυνάμεων Εαν δε μη πιςεύσητε αυτώ, μηδε εισακέσητε τε κηρυγματος αυτό, έσεσθε επίχαρμα τοις εθνεσι. (Just. Mart. Thirlb. pp. 292, 293.)-Justin says that this passage was among the nous av εξήγησα το 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 stor in the ancient copies of Ezra, is rather to be considered as h ing crept in from a marginal addition by some early Chris than as having been expunged from the later copies by Jewish fraud. See also Wolf. Bibl. Hebr. vol. ii. p. 85.

VOL. I.

32

AV

stian,

St. John, and St. Paul, both directly assert it, (Joh. xix. 36. 1 Cor. v. 7.) and our Lord himself seems to affirm it in his institution of the Eucharist at the last supper. (Mat. xxvi. 26.) But, whoever wishes to see this point fully examined, may consult Wits. Econ. Fod. de paschate; or the selection from that work in Jennings Jew. Ant. vol. ii. p. 201-208; or a yet more brief, and perhaps not less satisfactory, review of the subject, in Beausob. & L'Enfant's Introd. p. 133-138.

Dr. Priestley's mode of evading the force of the passage in 1 Cor. v. 7. as a proof that the death of Christ was a sacrifice, has been stated in the beginning of this Number. I shall conclude it by noticing a different mode, adopted by a celebrated fellow labourer of his in the work of refining away the fair and natural meaning of Scripture language, Dr. Sykes. In the words, Christ our passover is sacrificed for us, a plain unbiassed understanding would find it difficult not to discover, that the passover is affirmed to be a sacrifice; and that, in some corresponding sense, Christ is said to be sacrificed for us. Dr. Priestley, as we have seen, avoids the latter position, by a direct denial of the former. Dr. Sykes, on the other hand, admits the former, and yet peremptorily rejects the latter. Now, though Dr. Priestley's assertion, that the passover is not here pronounced to be a sacrifice, may appear sufficiently bold: yet the position, that it is called a sacrifice, and that Christ is not in the same sentence said to be sacrificed, seems a flight of criticisms, still more worthy of our admiration. On what ground an exposition so extraordinary is founded, it is natural to enquire. Christ, we are told, is called our passover, insomuch as by his means our sins are passed over, just as by means of the paschal lamb the children of Israel were passed over in Egypt. So far is well. But