to succeed in due time, when the state of mankind would permit.

That the sacrifices of the law should therefore have chiefly operated to the cleansing from external impurities, and to the rendering persons or things fit to approach God in the exercises of the ceremonial worship; whilst at the same time they were designed to prefigure the sacrifice of Christ, which was purely spiritual, and possessed the transcendent virtue of atoning for all moral pollution, involves in it no inconsistency whatever, since in this the true proportion of the entire dispensations is preserved. And to this point, it is particu larly necessary that our attention should be directed, in the examination of the present subject; as upon the apparent disproportion in the objects and effects of sacrifice in the Mosaic and Christian schemes, the principal objections against their intended correspondence have been founded.(x)

The sacrifices of the law then being preparatory to that of Christ; the law itself being but a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ; the sacred writers in the Nen Testament, naturally adopt the sacrificial terms of the ceremonial service, and by their reference to the use of them as employed under the law, clearly point out the sense in which they are to be understood in their application under the gospel. In examining, then, the meaning of such terms, when they occur in the New Testament, we are clearly directed to the explanation that is circumstantially given of them in the Old. Thus, when we find the virtue of atonement attributed to the sacrifice of Christ, in like manner as it had been to those under the law; by attending to the representation so minutely given of it in the latter, we are enabled to comprehend its true import in the former.(y)

Of the several sacrifices under the law, that one which seems most exactly to illustrate the sacrifice of Christ, and which is expressly compared with it by the writer to the Hebrews, is that which was offered for the whole assembly on the solemn anniversary of expiation. (s) The circumstances. of this ceremony, whereby atonement was to be made for the sins of the whole Jewish people, seem so strikingly significant, that they deserve a particular detail. On the day appointed for this general expiation, the priest is commanded to offer a bullock and a goat as sin-offerings, the one for himself, and the other for the people: and having sprinkled the blood of these in due form before the mercy-seat, to lead forth a second goat, denominated the scape-goat; and after laying both his hands upon the head of the scape-goat, and confessing over him all the iniquities of the people, to put them upon the (x) See No. LXVIII. (y) See No. LXIX. (2) See No. LXX:

F

head of the goat, and to send the animal, thus bearing the sins of the people, away into the wilderness: in this manner expressing by an action, which cannot be misunderstood, that the atonement, which it is directly affirmed was to be effected by the sacrifice of the sin-offering, consisted in removing from the people their iniquities by this symbolical translation to the animal. For it is to be remarked, that the ceremony of the scape-goat is not a distinct one: it is a continuation of the process, and is evidently the concluding part and symbolical consummation of the sin-offering. (a) So that the transfer of the iniquities of the people upon the head of the scape-goat, and the bearing them away to the wilderness, manifestly imply that the atonement effected by the sacrifice of the sinoffering, consisted in the transfer and consequent removal of those iniquities. What then are we taught to infer from this ceremony? That as the atonement under the law, or expiation of the legal transgressions, was represented as a translation of those transgressions, in the act of sacrifice in which the animal was slain, and the people thereby cleansed from their legal impurities, and released from the penalties which had been incurred; so the great atonement for the sins of mankind was to be effected by the sacrifice of Christ, undergoing for the restoration of men to the favour of God, that death which had been denounced against sin; and which he suffered in like manner as if the sins of men had been actually transferred to him, as those of the congregation had been symbolically transferred to the sin-offering of the people.

That this is the true meaning of the atonement effected by Christ's sacrifice, receives the fullest confirmation from every part of both the Old and the New Testament: and that thus far the death of Christ is vicarious, cannot be denied without a total disregard of the sacred writings.

It has indeed been asserted, by those who oppose the doctrine of atonement as thus explained, that nothing vicarious appears in the Mosaic sacrifices.(b) With what justice this assertion has been made, may be judged from the instance of the sin-offering that has been adduced. The transfer to the animal of the iniquities of the people, (which must necessarily mean the transfer of their penal effects, or the subjecting the animal to suffer on account of those iniquities)-this accompanied with the death of the victim; and the consequence of the whole being the removal of the punishment of those iniquities from the offerers, and the ablution of all legal offensiveness in the sight of God:-thus much of the nature of vicarious, the language of the Old Testament justifies us in attaching to the notion of atonement. Less than this we are (a) See No. LXXI. (b) See No. LXXII.

clearly not at liberty to attach to it. And what the law thus sets forth as its express meaning, directly determines that which we must attribute to the great atonement of which the Mosaic ceremony was but a type: always remembering carefully to distinguish between the figure and the substance; duly adjusting their relative value and extent; estimating the efficacy of the one as real, intrinsic, and universal; whilst that of the other is to be viewed as limited, derived, and emblematic.(c)

It must be confessed, that to the principles on which the doctrine of the Christian atonement has been explained in this, and a former discourse, several objections, in addition to those already noticed, have been advanced. (d) These, however, cannot now be examined in this place. The most important have been discussed; and as for such as remain, I trust that to a candid mind, the general view of the subject which has been given, will prove sufficient for their refutation.

One word more, my young brethren, and I have done.On this day we have assembled to commemorate the stupendous sacrifice of himself, offered up by our blessed Lord for our redemption from the bondage aud wages of sin and on next Sunday, we are invited to participate of that solemn rite which he hath ordained for the purpose of making us partakers in the benefit of that sacrifice. Allow me to remind you, that this is an awful call, and upon an awful occasion. Let him who either refuses to obey this call, or presumes to attend upon it irreverently, beware what his condition is. The man who can be guilty of either deliberately, is not safe.

Consider seriously what has been said, and may the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well-pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever-Amen.

(c) See No. LXXIII. (d) See No. LXXIV.

ILLUSTRATIONS

AND

EXPLANATORY DISSERTATIONS.

No. I.-ON THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST, AND THE

SPECIES OF ARGUMENTS BY WHICH THIS ARTICLE OF THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE HAS BEEN OPPOSED.

PAGE 17. Exevare EaUTOY-strictly, emptied himself-viz. of that form of God—that glory which he had with God before the world was-see Phil. ii. 6, 7. compared with John xvii. 5. see also Krebs. Observ. Flav. p. 329. Fortuita Sacra, p. 217-219. Elsner Obs. Sac. ii. p. 240-245. See also Schleusner, on the word ExEWTEV. On the whole of the passage from Philippians, I would particularly recommend the observations of the Bishop of Lincoln, Elements, &c. vol. ii. p. 111-115. Middleton likewise (Doctrine of the Greek Article, p. 537-539.) deserves to be consulted.

It has indeed been pronounced in a late extraordinary publication, distinguished at least as much by strength of assertion as by force of argument, that "a person who has not paid particular attention to the subject, would be surprised to find, how very few texts there are which even seem directly to assert the PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST."-How this matter may appear to those who have "not paid particular attention to the subject," I leave to the author of this work to determine. With those who have, it is unnecessary to say, what must be the reception of an observation so directly opposed, not more to the plain and uniform language of scripture, than to every conclusion of a just and rational criticism applied to the sacred text. Bold however as this writer appears in assertion, he seems by no means deficient in prudence; for whilst he affirms that even those few texts, (as he chooses to represent them) furnish no real support to the doctrine they are adduced to confirm; he has on this, as on almost every other position throughout his book, affecting the interpretation of scripture, declined exposing his proof to hazard. We are referred indeed, to "the Commentary of Grotius, Dr. Lardner's letter on the Logos, Mr. Lindsey's apology for resigning the vicarage of Catterick, and