Lev. iv. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31. "And if any one of the common people sin, he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish for his sin which he hath sinned; and he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering. And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar; and he shall take away all the fat thereof as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings, and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the Lord; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him."

If God did not require a sacrifice for sin, as an expiation of the sinner's guilt there can be no meaning in the whole of the above performance. The sinner laid his hand upon the victim that was to be slain, denoting a symbolical transfer of sin from the sinner to the sin offering; the latter dying in the place of the former. Nor can it be pretended that the offering was a mere fine for the sinner's trespass, for in such case it would have been an offset, in itself considered, which was not the case as appears from two circumstances.

1. The victim received all its validity, as a sacrifice for sin, from the place and circumstance of the offering, and not from any intrinsic value it possessed in itself, as being equal to damages sustained by the sinner's trespass. Had the victim been offered in any other place, save in the sanctuary, it would not have been accepted as an atonement for sin. The sanctuary was regarded as the place of the divine presence, for in it God had recorded his name; and this being the place where the sacrifice was made, marked it as an offering to God on the part of the sinner. The offering was made by the priest, who must be acknowledged to be the type of Jesus Christ, in his great sacrificial work. Had the sacrifice been presented by any other person save the priest, it would have been no atonement; whereas neither the place nor the person making the offering could have affected its value, if it was to be regarded as a mere fine for trespass. Again, nothing else, of the same or even greater value, than the victims prescribed by the law could have been accepted in their place,

as a sin offering, which shows that the law did not have reference to their value as a fine for an equal amount of damage done, but that they were by divine appointment, rendered acceptable in their death, as a substitute for the sinner's death, who had forfeited his life by his sin.

2. The offender was not released on the ground of having paid an equivalent for his sin, which must have been the case if his offering was regarded as a mere fine for his trespass; but he received a pardon of the offence on the presentation of his sin offering. It is said "the priest shall make an atonement for him and it shall be forgiven hin. This clearly proves that an atonement for sin was directed by the law, to be made to God to procure his pardon, and not to man, exclusively to procure his reconciliation to God. It also proves that the atonement, directed by the law, was an expiation of the sinner's guilt, effecting his deliverance from the punishment he deserved, not however by an absolute payment of the debt, but by procuring a pardon. God pardoned the sinner on the ground of the sin offering or atonement, directed to be made by the priest of the sanctuary, which was rendered acceptable by two circumstances.

1. It was of God's own appointment.

2. It had reference to, and typically pointed out, the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, "who gave himself a ransom for all, by whom we have now received the atonement." These remarks may serve as a comment on all the offerings for sin, ordained under the Levitical priesthood, which are too numerous to be particularly mentioned; the annual atonement, however, is of sufficient importance to entitle it to some special notice. Lev. xvi. 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 21, 22. "And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats, for a sin offering and he shall take the two goats and present them before the Lord at the door of the congregation. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord and the other lot for the scape goat; and Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the Lord's lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scape goat, shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scape goat into the wilderness. 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 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 ceremony 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 bornc 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