addresses to others. We should, when we speak from experience, speak clearly and with confidence. We can say, "that which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you." Such are likely to speak with earnestness. It will come from the heart. They are the persons who know what a miserable condition it is to be absent from God, and they who have made a trial of reconciliation with God, are the men to speak his faithfulness; yes, they who have tasted that the Lord is gracious, to say to others, "Oh, taste and see that the Lord is gracious." Therefore do this; think well of his name-speak well of his name-recommend him to all around. Only take care of this one thingwhile you recommend religion see that you are examples of it yourselves. Some professors often speak in favour of it; they would do much more good if they were silent, they do more harm than good, when the mouth says one thing and the temper and conduct another. When you strongly recommend a medicine to others, and yet they see disease staring you in the face, they say, you don't believe one word you are saying to us in recommendation of this medicine-you have no confidence in it yourself-try it upon yourself, and then from its influence recommend it to us.

Then you

See that your conduct is such as becomes the Gospel of Christ. cannot say too much. Then you may hold forth the word of life. Then the word speaks in your souls. How good it is! Avail yourselves of every opportunity to recommend the Saviour you have received; and say, as Moses did to his father-in-law, "We are journeying toward the place of which the Lord said, I will give it you: Come thou with us, and we will do thee good; for the Lord hath spoken good concerning Israel." "If a man err from the truth, and one convert him: let him know, that he which converteth a sinner from the error of his way, shall save his soul alive, and shall hide a multitude of sins."'

THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE DEATH OF CHRIST AND THE JEWISH SACRIFICES.

REV. H. MELVILL, A. M.

CAMDEN CHAPEL, CAMBERWELL, GOOD FRIDAY, 1834.

"For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, be clean from all your sins before the Lord."-LEVITICUS, xvi. 30.

that
ye may

On the evening of the last Sabbath I engaged you with an examination into the institution of sacrifice; and endeavoured to establish the important truth, that the slaying of animals, as a religious observance, was an appointment of God, and typical from the first of the offering of Christ. We dwelt, however, at greater length on the patriarchal than on the legal sacrifices; our great object having been to shew, that no human origin could, with any fairness, be assigned to the opinion, that Deity might be propitiated by blood-shedding. It still remains, in order to the completeness of our argument, that we trace, in some striking particulars, the correspondence between the death of Christ and the sacrifices of the law. There can be no doubt, that if God instituted sacrifice, and if he appointed a close and immediate connexion between the death of the animal and forgiveness of sin, it must have been by a typical virtue (for, uhquestionably, there was no natural), that the blood which was shed made expiation for the transgressors: and if sacrifices in general, and in the legal sense more especially, were typical, we are bound to search for some great propitiation to which they may all have respect; and if we find that propitiation in Christ, we shall at once clear up the mysteries of the ceremonial dispensation, and derive from those mysteries illustrations of the Christian.

That the law had a shadow of good things, and that the substance was Christ, is a point conceded by all who admit the inspiration of the New Testament. The unhesitating manner in which the Apostles apply to the offering up of Christ, the various sacrificial services of the Jewish ritual-the labour bestowed in the epistle to the Hebrews, in shewing the insignificancy of legal observances, when viewed in their reference to the Mediator-these, if the authority of Scripture be admitted, compel us to the acknowledgment, that between the temple sacrifices and the sacrifice of Christ, there subsists the relationship of the type and antetype; and when once this relationship is admitted, it becomes a great point to ascertain the sense in which the legal sacrifices take away sin; for, of course this sense must determine that in which the sacrifice of Christ made atonement for transgression. Hence there is nothing on which Unitarian writers have bestowed more labour than on the endeavour to invalidate the propitiatory nature of the Mosaic sacrifices. They have seen clearly enough, that, if they could succeed in demonstrating that the sacrifices under the law were not expia

tory-in other words, that they were not efficacious to the removing of guilt and obtaining of pardon-they would have made a long advance towards establishing their favourite theory, that Christ only died to set an example and confirm his doctrine, and not as a sin-offering for a fallen creation. The relation of type and antetype being admitted, whatever proves that there was no propitiatory virtue in the type, would go far towards proving that there was none in the antetype. On the other hand, if it be shewn that under the law the offering of animals was taken as a substitute for the punishment of offenders, so that by virtue of this offering the sinner was released, we shall possess an almost irrefragible demonstration that Christ died as a real sacrifice for sin, and that by the energy of such sacrifice forgiveness is now attainable by man.

We have no intention on this the most solemn anniversary of the services of our church, to engage you with an examination of Unitarian statements with respect to the character of the Mosaic dispensation; enough will be done, and the argument of our last sermon made complete, if we select one great legal observance, and shew you that there was strictly what we call propitiatory virtue in the sacrifices there associated.

Nothing, apparently, can be more express than the language of our text: it is there declared, that the priest shall make atonement for the people, and that the people would be cleansed, and that the people would be free from all their sins before the Lord. You will not easily be persuaded, that these words mean aught else than that, as a consequence of the atonement, the congregation would be transferred from a position of condemnation to a position of pardon; so that an expiatory power, no matter whence derived, must have resided in the atonement. We must indeed admit, and we do it frankly, that the word "atonement," as used in the Old Testament, does not always refer to sacrifice for sin. When Moses, for instance, went up into the mountain to entreat forgiveness for the people who had sinned in the matter of the golden calf, he said to the congregation, "Peradventure, I shall make an atonement for your sin," he was not about to offer sacrifice, but only prayer; and hence it follows, that atonement, according to the sense of the word in the Old Testament, might be made without blood-shedding. We might adduce other equally pertinent instances; but we believe, that though atonement is often spoken of when there is no sacrifice, it is never spoken of but when something was done which reconciled Deity by removing his displeasure. The original meaning of the word translated "atonement," seems always kept in view its meaning is that of covering with pitch; and those words are used first of all in reference to Noah's ark. Whatever, then, serves to hide what was displeasing to God, and so renders him propitious, is called an atonement. Hence, naturally, the word would be used, in a variety of cases, instead of sacrifice. But, of course, though there might be atonement where there had been no blood-shedding-external impurity, for instance, being removed by some ceremonial process, and then that which removed it being called an atonement, as having covered what displeases-still, where moral impurity was concerned, so that reconciliation was effected between God and the transgressor, atonement, partook closely of the nature of propitiation, and a sacrifice, an atonement a veiling to hide sin from Him who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, must have possessed an expiatory virtue, such as we are wont to ascribe to the sacrifice of Christ.

We make these remarks on the use of the word in the Old Testament, that we may not be thought to lay undue stress on it as occurring in our text.

We believe, that however various the cases in which atonement is said to be made, there is only one way in which the notion of reconciliation, as a consequence of that which is offered or done, may be distinctly traced: and if atonement always marks reconciliation, then when atonement is by sacrifice, and the reconciliation that of the Creator with his offending creatures, we seem warranted in saying, that the sacrifice must be propitiatory, and that, because propitiatory, it served to make atonement.

We will now turn to the chapter from which our text is taken, and examine that great legal observance with whose details it is occupied. The chapter relates to what is ordinarily terraed" the great day of atonement," or "expiation," the tenth day of the month, Tisri, which among the Jews was the first month of the civil year. This day was termed “the great," or "first," or simply "the fast;" not only because the people fasted all the day long, but because no other fast was actually enjoined by the law.

It will be our business, in the first place, to take a brief survey of the services of this day in the second, to shew that the sacrifices then offered were strictly propitiatory; in the third, to trace the correspondence between this annual expiation under the law, and that one great expiation which we this day com

memorate.

NOW THE CHIEF SERVICES OF THE DAY OF ATONEMENT (for it would be beside our purpose to enumerate all) were these:-The high priest, having purified himself by sundry ceremonial observances, and offered a bullock for himself and his house, cast lots between two goats, one to be sacrificed and the other sent to the desert. Having slain the first goat on the altar, he carried his blood into the Holy of holies, sprinkled the mercy-seat therewith, and then returned to lay his hands on the head of the second goat, denominated "the scape-goat," to confess over him the iniquities of the people, and send him away, by a fit person, into the wilderness. Of this scape-goat it is expressly said, "It shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited." Such were those observances of the great day of atonement on which we wish to comment; the minor, and less significant, we purposely omit.

We have now, in the second place, to inquire, WHETHER THE SACRIFICES WERE STRICTLY PROPITIATORY-whether, that is, the atonement spoken of in our text, was not strictly analagous to that which is meant by atonement in orthodox Christianity.

In order to the rightly answering this question, it is important that you observe, that the two goats are spoken of throughout the chapter as constituting together the sin-offering; so that the ceremony of the scape-goat is not a distinct ceremony, but rather a continuance and consummation of the sin-offering. It appears that, although it was usual in the sacrifice of animals in expiation, that there should be imposition of hands on the head of the victim, this significant rite was omitted in the case of the goat that was slain, but employed in the case of the goat sent away. Hence, rather, if the two goats had not been described, as they are, making up conjointly the sin-offering, we might have inferred the fact from the omission of a part of the sacrificial service, which ought otherwise to have been performed on the offering. And when you consider the two goats as together constituting the sin-offering, you must receive, as the only satisfactory account of the transaction, that the sign

which set forth the scape-goa, exhibited the fact of the expiation which was represented by the death of the other. The sins of the people were laid upon the head of the scape-goat, and borne away into the wilderness; but this scape-goat was a part of the sin-offering: hence, by combining the parts of the sin-offering, you have before you both the means and the effect; you have the means of shedding of blood without which there is no remission; you have the effect of removing the guilt, so that iniquity, though searched for, can no more be found. This we think the only fair and legitimate account. One animal could not have exhibited both the means employed and the effect produced; hence, two are united in the sin-offering; and whilst the first effects, at least typically, an expiation, the second exhibits the consequences or results.

But the question now before us is, whether the sacrifices thus offered were not strictly propitiatory; whether the victims were not symbolically a substitute for the people. The ceremony of the imposition of hands is, to our minds, quite conclusive upon this. Nothing could be more significant than this ceremony, as we find it recorded in the chapter before us. "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." You can attach no sufficient meaning to these words, unless you admit that the sins of the people were actually transferred to the sin-offering. We do not forget, when we speak of the transfer as actual, that it could not, at most, have been more than typical : we are not concerned to observe whence the virtue was derived, but only with the fact that there was virtue in the rite which prevailed to the removal of the guilt. And hat guilt was actually removed, we conclude from the ceremony of the imposition of hands. All the transgressions of the people are said to have been put upon the head of the goat, and borne away unto a land not inhabited. And over and above these express statements, which seem wholly unintelligible unless we allow the actual, though symbolical, transfer of sin from the people to the victim, you will observe, that the goat thus sent into the wilderness, was to be considered a polluted thing; the man who took it becoming thereby unclean, and not being allowed to return into the camp until he had performed certain legal purifications. And why, when the goat, which when led up to the altar, had been accounted clean-for otherwise it could not have been made a sin-offering-why was it reckoned now so impure that its very touch was defilement? We can give no answer but that the transgressions of the people had been laid on him as a substitute, and that, therefore, when it went away, it went away laden with iniquity; so that what, in itself, had been pure and unblemished, became, by the transmitted defilement of the sinner, so fearfully polluted, that the least contact with it communicated ceremonial uncleanness.

It seems certain that such was the view entertained by the Jews, who were wont to treat the scape-goat as actually an accursed thing. Though not commanded by the law, they used to insult over the goat, the Azazel-for by this name was the scape-goat known-to spit upon him, and to clip off his hair. They thus acted towards the goat precisely as they afterwards acted towards Christ, who, in the true sense, as the Azazel, was made sin for us. And if further proof were needed of the sense in which the second goat received the ceremony of the imposition of hands, it is to be found in the forms of