his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness; and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited." On this offering Dr. Clark has made the following remarks: "It is allowed on all hands that this ceremony, taken in all its parts, pointed out the Lord Jesus dying for our sins, and rising again for our justification; being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the spirit. Two goats are brought, one to be slain as a sacrifice for sin, the other to have the transgressions of the people confessed over his head, and then to be sent away into the wilderness. This animal, by this act was represented as bearing away, and carrying off, the sins of the people. The two goats made only one sacrifice; yet only one of them was slain. One animal could not point out both the divine and human nature of Christ, nor show both his death and resurrection, for the goat that was killed could not be made alive. The divine and human natures of Christ were essential to the grand expiation: yet the human nature alone suffered; for the divine nature could not suffer; but its presence in the human nature, while agonizing unto death, stamped those agonies, and the consequent death, with infinite merit. The goat therefore, that was slain, prefigured his human nature, and its death the goat that escaped, pointed out his resurrection. The one shows the atonement for sin as the ground of justification; the other Christ's victory, and the total removal of sin in the sanctification of the soul." On the above ceremo

ny of making the annual atonement for the sins of the people, we remark, in addition to the quotation from Dr. Clark already given,

1. That the offering must be regarded as an atonement for sin and expiation of the sinner's guilt, from the plain and simple language in which it is set forth: "And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and the goat shall bear on him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited." Here is an actual removal of sin, not by suffering its punishment, but by an atonement or expiation. Is it said that this

bearing away of the sins of the people by the scape goat was not real, but symbolical, or typical? It is replied, that this does not in the least invalidate the argument; for if the Mosaic ritual, in pointing to better things to come, symbolically represented the removal of sin by an atonement, then, it must follow that the better covenant provides a real atonement which does in fact remove sin and save from the punishment it deserves.

2. This atonement was made for past sins, and not in anticipation of sins which might be committed in future, nor to prevent the future commission of sin, which universalists contend is the only way in which Christ saves from sin. The high priest confessed the iniquities of the people, laying his hands upon the head of the goat, and the goat bore them away. We ask, what sins the high priest confessed? If they were sins which had not been and were never after committed, he confessed that of which they were never guilty, and his confession must have been false; and if they were sins which were afterwards committed, then, the confession and atonement produced no effect, since, the sins confessed and atoned for existed the same as though no confession and atonement had been made, and the offenders were punished for them, if there is no salvation from merited punishment. This proves that the notion that atonement saves only from the commission of sin in the future, is false. On the same principle, we ask, what sins the scape goat bore away? If they were sins which were never committed, he bore away just no sins at all; for he could not have borne away that which had not been, was not, and never should be; and if they were sins which were afterwards committed, then he did not bear them away, since they were afterwards committed and the people suffered for them, if an atonement does not save from the punishment due to sin. It is clear then that the atonements, made under the law, were, at least, typically an expiation of sins that were passed.

3. The atonements, made under the law, were symbols and types of the atonement or offering of Jesus Christ, who gave himself a ransom for all. This position is clearly sustained by the reasoning of the Apostle, Heb. ix. 1, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. "Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctua

ry, which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience. But Christ being come a high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot, to God, purge your consciences from dead works to serve the living God. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens, should be purified with these; for Christ is not entered into the holy place made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."

This language of the apostle is too plain to be misunderstood or to need explanation. It must be seen that he draws a comparison between the offerings under the law and the one offering of Jesus Christ, and represents the former as shadowing forth the latter, and the latter as the substance, object, and end of the former; exceeding them in character and value in the same proportion in which a substance outweighs a shadow, or a thing itself transcends its mere pattern or symbol. He refers directly to the annual atonement made by the high priest: "Nor yet that he (Christ) should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others." This offering he represents only as a temporary relief, saying, Chap. x. 3. "But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance made of sins every year," but the offering of Christ he represents as being more perfect, saying, "he entered in once into the

holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us," having "now once in the end of the world appeared to put away sin by the offering of himself." Much more might be said under this head, but we trust sufficient has been advanced to show that the sacrifices of the Mosaic ritual point out Jesus Christ, as a real atonement and expiatory sacrifice for sin. Deny the vicarious and expiatory character of the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ, and the ceremonial worship of the Jews loses its charm, their sanctuary is divested of its significant grandeur, their smoking altars lose their sanctity, the confession upon the head of the scape goat becomes foolish mummery, and their sacrifices of slaughtered hecatombs are rendered useless, barbarous and cruel.

III. The scriptures teach, directly, that the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ, were in the place of the punishment which was due to sinners; he suffering in their stead, bearing the punishment which they otherwise must have borne and from which they, consequently, may now be delivered on gospel terms. By this, however, we do not mean that Christ suffered the same in kind and degree that sinners would have suffered, but simply that what he suffered was a substitute for what they must have suffered without the atonement. Isa. liii. 5, 6, 8, 11, 12. "He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed. The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all; for the transgression of my people was he stricken. He shall bear their iniquities, and he bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors."

That this whole chapter relates to Jesus Christ there is no doubt, and if it does not teach that he suffered for sinners, bearing a punishment for their sins, it is because the sentiment cannot be couched in the English language. Why was he wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities, if it was not to save us from being thus wounded and bruised? It is worthy of remark, that in this interesting chapter, Christ is represented as suffering for us by divine appointment, and under the divine sanction: "the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all"-" when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin." Now, if it was not the divine

purpose to save us from the punishment our sins deserve by laying our iniquities on Jesus Christ, and making his soul an offering for sin; if after all this, we must inevitably suffer all that our sins deserve, then what Christ suffered for us must have been over and above what justice requires, and, consequently, unjust and cruel.

But we recollect of having seen an attempt made by universalists to evade the force of the above quotations from the Prophet. It has been said that this prophecy was fulfilled in the miracles which Christ wrought for the relief of the afflicted; in proof of which they quote Matt. viii. 16, 17. "He healed all that were sick, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esais the prophet saying, himself took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses." That this is a quotation from the same chapter, we admit, but it is not a quotation from any portion which we have quoted, or on which we rely as proof of the point in question, but is borrowed from the 4th verse which reads thus: "Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows. "" These are the words which the Evangelist applies to Christ's healing the sick, which can furnish no ground for making the same application of the whole chapter, some of which most clearly refers to his death and not to the works of benevolence which he performed during his ministry. There is a vast difference between his bearing our grief and carrying our sorrows, or as the Evangelist renders it "taking our infirmities and bearing our sicknesses, and being wounded for our transgressions" and "bruised for our iniquities; or being "numbered with the transgressors" and bearing "the sin of many." But this question is settled by the fact that two other Evangelists quote from the same subject and apply it to his crucifixion, Mark. xv. 27, 28. "And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand and the other on his left, and the scripture was fulfilled which saith, and he was numbered with the transgressors." This is a quotation from the 12th verse which reads thus: "He hath poured out his soul unto death, and he was numbered with the transgressors, and he bare the sin of many." Luke xxxii. 37. "And he was reckoned among the transgressors.' It is clear then that the prophet describes the death, as well as the life, of our blessed Lord, and forcibly points it out as a sacrifice for sin.