able parts of the atonement, which was made on the great day of expiation, was that effected by the two goats, together making one sinoffering, one of which was slain, and the other sent into the wilderness as a scape-goat. The high priest was thus directed: he "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." No terms can more clearly express the transference of the guilt of the offenders to the selected victim, by the appropriate symbol of imposition of hands: and the intention being declared in this instance, we cannot doubt that the same ceremony had the same import, when used in other sin-offerings, either for individuals, or for the whole congregation.

2. The second circumstance which shews, that the guilt of the offender was considered to be transferred to the victim, is the fact, that the sin-offering, upon which the solemn imposition of hands had been made, was cere

Lev. xvi. 5...10. See Magee on the Atonement, No. 73. • Lev. xvi. 21, 22.

monially unclean, and communicated this defilement to those who came into contact with it.

The man who led forth the scape-goat into the wilderness, and they, who on the same day carried out the bullock, which was burnt without the camp, after it had been solemnly offered with the usual ceremonies of expiatory sacrifices, and, therefore, probably with the imposition of hands, contracted legal uncleanness, by performing the ceremony: for they were commanded to wash their clothes, and bathe their flesh in water before they were permitted to come into the camp. The ceremonial defilement, in the principal expiatory sacrifices, doubtless arose from the symbolical communication of the offender's guilt, by the imposition of hands upon the head of the victim.

It would appear, that a similar pollution was incurred by those, who burned without the camp the bodies of any beasts the blood of which was brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin: and it certainly was communicated to those, who, in the same manner, consumed and gathered the ashes of the red heifer, which partook of the nature of an expiatory sacrifice, and was a purification for sin. In these institutions we perceive, then, an

d Lev. iv. 4, 15, 24, 29, 33.

e Lev. xvi. 26...28.

Numb. xix. 8, 9. See Outram de Sacrificiis, Diss. I. xvii. 1.

individual, or a whole people, confessedly labouring under the guilt of sin, and anxious to avert its punishment, by obeying a specific ordinance of God, appointed for that purpose. We observe a victim, selected with every precaution which should insure its perfection and purity, solemnly dedicated to God, with the rites which He had ordained: and, as soon as these rites are terminated, we perceive those who offered the sacrifice to be purged from their sins; but the victim to have acquired the greatest ceremonial pollution. Nothing could more significantly mark the fact, that the sins of the offender were transferred to the victim.

3. The punishment also of the victim was strictly vicarious, in that life was given for life.

The various disputes which have so often been held, respecting the principle of vitality, sufficiently shew, how necessary it was, if a vicarious sacrifice were made, to fix upon some sensible symbol which should designate that which was invisible, the life of the animal: and if any part be once fixed upon, and declared so to represent the life, it is evident that no reasonable objection can be made to the selection. Now the part, which was selected in the levitical sacrifices, is the blood; an emblem, perhaps, the most obvious of any

that could have been chosen, and excellently adapted to the purpose: for its continuance in the body is necessary to animal life; and, when shed, it still possesses a separate and visible existence; and leaves the body of the victim unmutilated, except by the wound inflicted for its death.

The blood of animals acquired, therefore, in the Mosaic economy, an adventitious holiness. The Israelites were forbidden to eat of it; for it represented the life itself, which was reserved to make atonement in sacrifice for the life of him who offered it. "The life of the flesh," it is declared in the law, "is in the blood, and," or therefore," "I have given it to you upon the altar, to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."

These three facts, the transference of guilt by the imposition of hands upon the victim's head, the consequent legal pollution of the victim, and the life of the animal being represented by the blood, and offered upon the altar, prove that, at least, the expiatory sacrifices of the Jews were of a strictly vicarious nature. And this conclusion agrees with the certainly unprejudiced opinions of the Jews themselves."

5 See Patrick on Lev. xvii. 11.

See Magee on Atonement, No. 33.

Now to these sacrifices the death of Christ is compared, not casually, not incidentally, not unadvisedly, but continually, and with evident design: not in mere figurative language, which, originating in the mind of the speaker, might imply no real connection between the objects of comparison; but by an analogy between the things themselves. The death of Christ is, in the Christian dispensation, what expiatory sacrifice was in the levitical dispensation. The two were connected by the design of Divine Providence, the first shadowing forth, imperfectly, what was exhibited fully and completely in the second.

If, then, the expiatory sacrifices of the law were strictly vicarious, so was the sacrifice of Christ. If the guilt of the sinner was transferred, under the law, to the victim which was slain, the guilt of a sinful world was in like manner transferred to Christ, who gave himself a ransom for all. If the victim, before immaculate, received a stain from the sins which it bore, Christ also, who knew no sin, was really made sin for us. If the life of the animal was given by the sprinkling of its blood, that of Christ was actually made an offering for sin. The language of Scripture, and the prefigurations of the law, unite in shewing the

i 1 Tim. ii. 6.

k