appears to strike observers as a whimsical exception to the general
practice of churches. The peculiarity has had its origin in hereditary
and historical associations: but it has its defence in the noblest
principles of religious freedom and Christian communion. At present, it
must suffice to say, that our Societies are dedicated, not to
theological opinions, but to religious worship: that they have
maintained the unity of the spirit, without insisting on any unity of
doctrine: that Christian liberty, love, and piety are their essentials
in perpetuity, but their Unitarianism an accident of a few or many
generations;—which has arisen, and might vanish, without the loss of
their identity. We believe in the mutability of religious systems, but
the imperishable character of the religious affections;—in the
progressiveness of opinion within, as well as without, the limits of
Christianity. Our forefathers cherished the same conviction: and so, not
having been born intellectual bondsmen, we desire to leave our
successors free. Convinced that uniformity of doctrine can never
prevail, we seek to attain its only good,—peace on earth and communion
with heaven,—without it. We aim to make a true Christendom,—a
commonwealth of the faithful,—by the binding force, not of
ecclesiastical creeds, but of spiritual wants, and Christian sympathies:
and indulge the vision of a Church that “in the latter days shall
arise,” like “the mountain of the Lord,” bearing on its ascent the
blossoms of thought proper to every intellectual clime, and withal
massively rooted in the deep places of our humanity, and gladly rising
to meet the sunshine from on high.
And now, friends and brethren, let us say a glad farewell to the
fretfulness of controversy, and retreat again, with thanksgiving, into
the interior of our own venerated truth. Having come forth, at the
severer call of duty, to do battle for it, with such force as God
vouchsafes to the sincere, let us go in to live and worship beneath its
shelter. They tell you, it is not the true faith. Perhaps not: but then,
you think it so; and that is enough to make your duty clear, and to draw
from it, as from nothing else, the very peace of God. May be, we are on
our way to something better, unexistent and unseen as yet; which may
penetrate our souls with nobler affection, and give a fresh spontaneity
of love to God and all immortal things. Perhaps there cannot be the
truest life of faith, except in scattered individuals, till this age of
conflicting doubt and dogmatism shall have passed away. Dark and leaden
clouds of materialism hide the heaven from us: red gleams of fanaticism
pierce through, vainly striving to reveal it; and not till the weight is
heaved from off the air, and the thunders roll down the horizon, will
the serene light of God flow upon us, and the blue infinite embrace us
again. Meanwhile, we must reverently love the faith we have: to quit it
for one that we have not, were to lose the breath of life, and die.
NOTE.
---------------------
_The Jewish Passover not a proper Sacrifice._
In an essay on “the one great end of the life and death of Christ,” Dr.
Priestley makes the following observations on the words (occurring in 1
Cor. v. 7,) “_Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us_:” “This
allusion to the paschal lamb makes it also probable, that the death of
Christ is called a sacrifice only by way of figure, because these two
(viz., sacrifice and the paschal lamb) are quite different and
inconsistent ideas. The paschal lamb is never so much as termed a
sacrifice in the Old Testament, except once, Exodus xii. 27, where it is
called ‘_the sacrifice of the Lord’s passover_.’ However, it could only
be called a sacrifice in this place, in some secondary and partial
sense, and not in the proper and primary sense of the word; for 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 were
essential to every proper sacrifice. The blood indeed was sprinkled upon
the door-posts, but this was originally nothing more than a token to the
destroying angel to pass by that house; for there is no propitiation or
atonement said to be made by it: and the paschal lamb is very far from
having been ever called a _sin-offering_, or said to be killed on
account of sin.”[626]
Every reader, I apprehend, understands this description of the manner of
celebrating the passover, to refer to the particular “occasion” spoken
of “in this place” (Exod. xii. 27). ‘The writer of this verse,’ argues
Dr. Priestley, ‘could not use the word _sacrifice_ in its strictest
sense; for his own narrative of the very celebration to which it is
applied, describes it as destitute of all the essentials of a proper
sacrifice.’ The allusion to the blood sprinkled upon the door-posts, as
“a token to the destroying angel to pass by that house,” immediately
connects Dr. Priestley’s assertions with the Egyptian passover. By
cutting out this allusion, and otherwise breaking up the passage in
quotation, Archbishop Magee has contrived to conceal its character as an
historical description of a single occasion, and to give it the air of a
general account of the Jewish paschal ceremony in all ages. Having
accomplished this, and obtained for himself the liberty of travelling
for a reply over the whole Hebrew history and traditions, he says; “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 זבח, a _sacrifice_, it
being expressly so called in no less than four passages in Deuteronomy
(xvi. 2, 4, 5, 6), and also in Exodus xxxv. 25, and 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.”[627] The _last three_ of these “direct contradictions”
establish nothing but this Prelate’s habit (not adopted, we may presume,
without urgent necessity) of misrepresenting his opponents in order to
confute them: for it is quite needless to observe that, in the Egyptian
passover, of which alone Dr. Priestley speaks, there was neither priest,
altar, nor burning: and though the Archbishop should be able to detect
all these elements in a festival of King Josiah’s time, he will have
proved no error against the passage which he criticises. In his _first_
contradiction, he would have gained an advantage over his opponent, had
not his eagerness induced him to strain his evidence too far. A more
modest disputant would have thought it sufficient to reckon _three
successive verses_ (Deut. xvi. 4, 5, 6) _in which the same phrase is
simply repeated_, as a _single_ instead of a _triple_ authority: the
other citation from the same passage is not to the point, as will
presently be shown: and in one of the verses quoted from Exodus (xxiii.
18) the word זבח does not occur at all in relation to the passover. So
that Dr. Priestley having discovered two passages _too few_, the Prelate
makes compensation by discovering two passages _too many_.
Having said thus much in reference to Archbishop Magee’s fairness to his
opponent, I will add a few strictures on the reasonings by which he
supports his general position, that the passover was a proper sacrifice.
He adduces two arguments from _words_, and three from _facts_. 1. The
word זבח, _sacrifice_, is applied to the passover.—2. The word קרבן,
_Corban_, a _sacred offering_, is applied to it.—3. The slaying of the
lamb took place at the tabernacle or temple.—4. The blood was offered at
the foot of the altar.—5. The fat and entrails were burnt as an offering
on the altar fire.
(1.) It has been already stated, that Archbishop Magee has improperly
adduced _two_ passages, as applying the word _sacrifice_ to the
passover. The first of these is Exod. xxiii. 18, where it is said: “Thou
shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread; neither
shall the fat of my sacrifice remain till morning.” The second clause
here undoubtedly refers to the paschal lamb: but the term “_sacrifice_”
occurring in it is not the proper translation of the original; nor is
the Hebrew word the same that is correctly so rendered in the first
clause. The phrases being not the same, but discriminated, in the two
parts of the verse, the less reason exists for supposing that both
allude to the passover. More probably, the reference in the former is to
the sacrifices appropriate to the _feast of unleavened bread_, which
being contiguous to the passover in time, is naturally conjoined with it
in the precepts of this verse.
The second irrelevant passage is Deut. xvi. 2: “Thou shalt therefore
sacrifice the passover unto the Lord thy God, of the flock and of the
herd.” Since the paschal _lamb_ could not be taken “_from the herd_,” it
is evident that the word “_passover_,” is used here in a wider
sense,[628] to denote _the joint eight days’ festival, including that of
unleavened bread_, when _heifers_ were offered “from the herd.” This
more comprehensive meaning of the term is frequent, not merely with
Josephus and the later Jewish writers, but in the Hebrew Scriptures
themselves; and renders inconclusive most of the arguments by which the
passover is made to assume the appearance of a proper sacrifice. An
example occurs in the very next verse: “_Seven days thou shalt eat
unleavened bread therewith_,” that is, with the passover; and in 2
Chron. xxxv. 9: “Conaniah also (and other persons) gave unto the priests
for the _passover offerings_, 2,600 small cattle, and 300 _oxen_.”
In the remaining places, however, this feast is undoubtedly called a
sacrifice. But then it is clear that the Hebrew word זבח is used with a
latitude, which renders it impossible to draw from it any inference as
to the character of the ceremony to which it is applied. It denotes
_slaying of animals for food_, without any necessary reference to a
sacred use.[629] Thus, 1 Sam. xxviii. 24. “And the woman had a fat calf
in the house; and she hasted and killed it,” (_sacrificed_ it, תזבחהו);
also 1 Kings, xix. 21. “And he took a yoke of oxen, and slew them
(ויזבחהו), and boiled their flesh with the instruments of the oxen, and
gave unto the people, and they did eat.” And the substantive occurs thus
in Prov. xvii. 1. “Better is a dry morsel, and quietness therewith, than
a house full of sacrifices (evidently _meats_,—the luxury of animal
food) with strife.”
(2.) The passover is called קרבן, _Corban_, _a sacred offering_, in
Numb. ix. 7, 13. Certain men who had been defiled by performing funeral
rites, present themselves to Moses, and say, “Wherefore are we kept
back, that we may not offer the offering of the Lord in his appointed
season among the children of Israel?” And then follows the law which
Moses takes occasion from this incident to announce; that persons
disqualified by absence on a journey, or by uncleanness, from joining in
the celebration at the appointed time, may observe it at the
corresponding period of the next month. Such disqualifications, if
existing at all, would have excluded from _the whole eight days’
festival, including the feast of unleavened bread_, and held the parties
away till the following month; “the offering of the Lord,” therefore,
which they were kept back from presenting, comprised all the sacrifices
proper to the “season;” and the word “offering” is comprehensively
applied to the whole set, from its particular propriety in reference to
the most numerous portion of them, the sacrifices at the feast of
unleavened bread. The paschal lamb, by itself, is never, I believe,
designated by this term.
In treating of the actual details of the paschal ceremony, it is
necessary to distinguish between those which were of legal obligation,
and those which were merely consuetudinary or occasional. Nothing can
justly be pronounced an essential of the celebration, which is not
enjoined in the statutes appointing it; and should other customs present
themselves in the historical instances of the commemoration which we
possess, they cannot be received as authoritative illustrations of its
intended character, but as accessaries appended by convenience,
tradition, or sacerdotal influence.[630] With this remark I proceed to
the next argument.
(3.) The slaying of the paschal lamb is said to have been restricted to
the tabernacle or temple.
The only passage from the law, adduced to prove this, is Deut. xvi. 2,
5, 6, where it is said, “Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within
any of thy gates, which the Lord thy God giveth thee; but _at the place
which the Lord thy God shall choose_ to place his name in, there shalt
thou sacrifice the passover at even.” The reader might naturally suppose
that _Jerusalem_ was here denoted by the phrase, “the place which the
Lord thy God shall choose,” in contradistinction from the provincial
cities described as “any of thy gates;” but Archbishop Magee sets aside
this interpretation, by referring us to this very same expression in
Deut. xii. 5, 6, 11, 14, where it evidently means the _tabernacle or
temple_, not the city; for a multitude of rites are there enumerated, to
be performed, “in the place that the Lord shall choose,” which could be
celebrated only at the sanctuary. It so happens, however, that in this
enumeration, the _Passover_ is precisely _the one thing which is not
mentioned_; from which we might fairly infer, that it was not among the
ceremonies limited to the sanctuary; and further, that in addition to
the vague description of place common to both passages, there occurs
exclusively in the latter, the additional one, “there shall ye eat,
BEFORE THE LORD YOUR GOD,” which is well known to be the usual mode of
designating the tabernacle. And that in the passover-law, the locality
intended was the city, and not the sanctuary, is evident from a verse
which Archbishop Magee has not thought it necessary to quote, though it
is the immediate sequel of his citation; “and thou shalt _roast and eat
it_ (the paschal lamb) in the place which the Lord thy God shall
choose.” Whatever doubt may exist about the _slaying_, the _roasting and
eating_ could not take place at the tabernacle.
The law, then, nowhere prescribes the slaying of the paschal lamb at the
sanctuary. But neither does it _forbid_ this; and therefore we are not
surprised that the act should take place there, on any particular
occasion rendering such arrangement obviously convenient; or as a
general practice, in concession to any strong interests tending to draw
it thither. When, therefore, a long period of idolatry and political
confusion had obliterated from the minds of the Israelites the very
memory of their religious rites; when new modes of worship had become
habitual, and the annual festival had grown strange; when, to induce
them to come up to the passover at all, their monarch was obliged to
provide for them the whole number of their victims, and the officiating
Levites needed to study again the appointed ceremonies of the season; it
is no wonder that king Josiah thought it expedient to collect “the whole
congregation” at the temple, and there to let them witness the form of
slaying, by well-trained hands, and receive instruction how to complete
the celebration of their feast. Such was the solemn passover described
in 2 Chron. xxxv. and that in the reign of Hezekiah, mentioned in the
thirtieth chapter of the same book; the circumstances of both which were
too peculiar to afford evidence of a general practice, much less of a
legal essential.
That in later times it was the custom to slay the paschal lambs in the
Temple courts, there can be no doubt. The system of ecclesiastical
police, and the operation of sacerdotal interests created the practice.
It was the business of the priests to see to the execution of the
festival-law; to ascertain who incurred the penalty due to neglect of
the prescribed rite: to register the numbers of those who observed it;
and to take care that neither too many nor too few should partake at the
same table. All this required that the heads of families should present
themselves, and report their intended arrangements to the authorities at
the temple. The priests moreover, being the judges of the qualifications
of the animals for the paschal table, availed themselves of this power,
to become graziers and provision-dealers. As the lambs must be presented
for their inspection, and were liable to be turned back if pronounced
imperfect, it became more convenient to buy the victim at once at the
Temple courts: and on the spot where the purchase was made, the slaying
would naturally follow. Lightfoot, speaking of the law which originally
required the lamb to be chosen four days before it was killed, says, “It
is not to be doubted but every one in after times took up their own
lambs as they did in Egypt, but it is somewhat doubtful whether they did
it in the same manner. It is exceedingly probable, that as the priests
took up the lambs for the daily sacrifice four days before they were to
be offered, as we have observed elsewhere; so also that they provided
lambs for the people at the passover, taking them up in the market four
days before, and picking and culling out those that were fit, and
agreeable to the command. For whereas the law was so punctual that _they
should be without blemish_, and their traditions had summed up so large
a sum of blemishes, as that they reckon seventy-three, it could not be
but the law and their traditions which they prized above the law should
be endlessly broken, if every one took up his own lamb in the market at
Jerusalem at adventure. The priests had brought a market of sheep and
oxen against such times as these into the temple, (for if it had not
been their doing, they must not have come there,) where they having
before-hand picked out in the market such lambs and bullocks as were fit
for sacrifice or passover, they sold them in the temple at a dearer
rate, and so served the people’s turn and their own profit: for which,
amongst other of their hucksteries, our Saviour saith, _they had made
the house of prayer a den of thieves_.”[631]
(4.) The blood is said to have been poured out as an offering at the
foot of the altar.
The only _legal_ evidence adduced to prove this, will be found in the
parallel passages, Exod. xxiii. 18, and xxxiv. 25. “Thou shalt not offer
the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.” I have already shown that this
command probably refers, not to the paschal lamb, but to the sacrifices
at the feast of unleavened bread. There is therefore no evidence,
throughout the law, in favour of the alleged regulation. Yet in cases of
undoubted sacrifice, Moses is usually very explicit in his directions
respecting the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar: as may be seen
from Lev. i. 5, 11, 15; iii. 2, 8, 13; iv. 5-7, 16-18; vii. 2.
The only _historical_ evidence adduced from Scripture on the point
before us, is from the accounts of Hezekiah’s and Josiah’s solemn
passovers before mentioned; 2 Chron. xxx. 15, 16; xxxv. 11. In both
these instances, it is merely said, that the priests “sprinkled (or
poured out) the blood,” receiving it from the hands of the Levites, who
were employed, for reasons already assigned, to slay the lambs on these
two occasions, instead of the heads of families, on whom that office
properly devolved. The altar is not named: but as the blood must be
disposed of _somewhere_, and as there was a drain for that purpose at
the foot of the altar, no doubt it was there that the priests sprinkled
or poured it away. The act was simply an act of cleanliness,—in plain
speech, a resort to the sink,—from which theology can extract nothing
profitable. The priests were the parties to perform the office because
no other persons could approach the altar under penalty of death. In
later times, when the sacerdotal influence had made the temple the scene
of the paschal slaughter, each head of a family killed his own lamb in
the court: the blood, received in a basin, was handed to the first of a
row of priests reaching to the foot of the altar, where it was poured
away at the usual place.[632] In this there is nothing of the nature of
an offering or proper sacrifice.
(5.) But it is said that the fat and entrails were placed on the altar
fire and burned.
Archbishop Magee says, that this “may be collected from the accounts
given of the ceremony of the passover in the passages already referred
to.”[633] It requires perhaps that able controversialist’s peculiar mode
of “managing passages” (to use a favourite phrase of his own) to elicit
this from the authorities named; at least, I am unable, after careful
examination of them, to conjecture what he means. The passages however
are before my readers, and I must leave the assertion to their judgment.
Meanwhile, I must conclude, that there is absolutely no trace in
Scripture of such a practice as is here pronounced to be one of the
essentials of the passover.
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.