that he might sanctify the people with his own blood suffered without the gate," Heb. 13: 11, 12.

2. In respect to the transgressor. He was required to bring his offering, voluntarily, to the door of the tabernacle, lay his hands upon the head of his victim, and confess over it his sins. There is no instance recorded where a priest atoned for a transgressor until after a compliance with this requisition. So it is in the gospel. By faith, the sinner is required to appropriate to himself the great sacrifice for sin, confess over it his transgressions, and plead for pardon through his atoning blood. Hence we read, "Repent that your sins may be blotted out." "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." Sins can be blotted out only by atonement. We are saved only by the blood of Jesus, as the Scripture saith, " In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins. Unto him that loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood. The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.”

3. In respect to the office-work of the priest. The leading and principal part of this was, to take the blood of the victim after he was slain, and perform the ceremony of sprinkling, etc., in the place appointed. In addition to this he sometimes killed the sacrifice, and sometimes burnt it on the altar. But these acts appear to have been not essential to the official work of the priest, because, as we have seen, they were frequently performed by others. But the presentation and sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifice was appropriately, and exclusively, the official work of the priest, and the principal thing which constituted the act of atoning; "for the blood maketh the atonement."'

In the annual atonements made by the high priest, which more fully symbolize the atonements made by Christ our Great High Priest, this service of blood was required to be made in the Holiest of Holies. Hence the numerous references and applications of this symbol to Christ by Paul in his epistle to his Hebrew brethren, to whom the illustrations of this type were familiar. "But into the second [tabernacle] went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people. The Holy Ghost this signifying that the way into the holiest of all was not yet manifest. But Christ being come a high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building, neither by the blood

of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained *[procuring] eternal redemption for us," Heb. 9: 7, 8, 11.

Again, "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are figures of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us," Heb. 9: 24. "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool," Heb. 10: 12. "Now of the things which we have spoken, this is the sum. We have such a high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man," Heb. 8: 1, 2. "But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood: wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them: for such a high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners," Heb. 7: 24-26.

In the above passages, Christ is represented as being still invested, subsequently to his death, with the office of a royal high priest; as having entered in this official capacity into the holiest of holies on high with his own blood; as having sat down on the throne of priestly intercession, to remain there forever, exercising the office of his unchangeable priesthood; and as procuring the pardon of all those who come unto God for the remission of their sins through his atoning blood.

These and similar passages prove most clearly, that, as the typical atonements by the high priest were made in the holiest of holies amidst the fragrance of smoking incense, subsequently to the death of the victim, so Christ, after his sufferings were finished," was raised again for our justification," Rom. iv. 25, by officiating in the royal priesthood, and atoning for penitent sinners in the holy place above, into which he has for us entered, amidst their prayers and supplications, which to God are as smoking incense, Rev. 5: 8.

The idea that Christ made atonement on the cross, is one often

The Greek participle, supάuevos, translated in our version "having obtained," is an Alexandrine form of the 2nd Aorist Middle voice, and here signifies procuring. See Stuart's Commentary on the passage.

expressed in the writings of many excellent divines, but this we have not been able to find in the sacred writings. We do not learn from any of the typical illustrations which God has given us in his Word, that the dying sufferings of the victim constitute the atonement; but on the contrary, that the official act of the priest with the blood of the victim in the place appointed, subsequently to the death of the sacrifice, constituted it. That the victim suffered in the room and stead of the transgressor who presented it, and that there was propitiatory merit in those sufferings, is readily admitted. Indeed this sacrificed life seems to be regarded by God as being contained in the blood of the immolated sufferer, and as imparting to it its merit when the priest presents it before the Lord for atonement. This appears to be the reason assigned by God for the fact, that it is the blood which makes the atonement. "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar, to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the BLOOD that maketh the atonement for the soul," Lev. 17: 11. That the dying of the victim was not regarded as the atonement is evident from the fact, that in the ordinary atonements the priest did not kill the sacrifice, did not perform his official work till after those sufferings were ended; yet it was the act of the priest, in which he presented those dying sufferings in the blood before the Lord, that made the atonement-it was the priest that made the atonement, and not the dying victim.

In the above extracts from the epistle to the Hebrews we see that the manner of making atonement, as illustrated by the types, is applicable to Christ with great particularity. Subsequently to his death he exercises the office of a royal high priest; takes his blood which he had shed in death in his hand, enters with it into the holy place on high, to appear in the presence of God for us. What else can this mean but that he has gone thither to atone for the sins of penitent, confessing transgressors, who come unto God by him? Was not this the appropriate and the distinguishing official work of the Aaronical high priests when they went into the holy place? And why is this symbol applied to Christ with so much particularity? How can he be a high priest in the holy place which he has entered, unless he exercises there the priestly office? If then Jesus executes the office of a high priest within the vail, does he not make atonement there? He ever liveth there, says the apostle, to make intercession for us. The Scriptures give no intimation, however, that

the priest ever made intercession in the holy place with prayer. It was the intercession of the blood when presented before the Lord. This gave as it were a voice to blood. The blood of Jesus speaketh, and speaketh other and better things than the blood of Abel, for it crieth out, not against the transgressor, but for him. It pleads, saying, "Father, forgive, for I have found a ransom." The context shows that this is the kind of advocacy alluded to by John when he says, "If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world," 1 John 2: 1, 2. The Jews were in the habit of calling the high priest their napáxλntos, translated here advocate, on account of the aid he rendered them by his atonements. The intercessions by prayer which accompanied their atonements, were made, not by the priest, but by the people who stood without, praying, Lev. 16: 17, and Luke 1: 10. When Paul speaks of our reconciliation to God by the cross, Eph. 2: 16, and by the death of his Son, Rom. 5: 10, we should interpret the language as the Jews would to whom it was addressed. They would understand it, evidently, in the sense of a sacrificial death on the cross, which would be rendered efficacious only by the subsequent atoning act of the priest with the blood shed in that death, as in the case of the typical sacrifices. Offering the blood of the victim in atonement by the priest was no less essential to the forgiveness of a transgressor than the suffering of death by the victim. So it was equally essential to the justification of sinners that Christ should be raised from the dead, enter the holy place made without hands, and present there his own blood in atonement for their sins, as it was that he should die on the cross. Hence in upbraiding the Corinthians for their denial of the resurrection, Paul declares that "if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain, ye are yet in your sins. Then they also who are fallen asleep in Christ are perished," 1 Cor. 15: 16, 17. Hence also the declaration of Paul, in Rom. 4: 25, "Who was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification." The influence of the resurrection of Christ in procuring our justification is symbolized by the live goat on which iniquities were laid, and who then bore them away. So, Jesus bears away the sins of the penitent, not in his death, but in his life. When atonement is made for them they remain no longer on the transgressor. As in the types, atonement was immediately fol

lowed by pardon, so in the gospel, this is everywhere assumed as accompanying the pleadings of the blood of Jesus.

We proceed now to notice some discrepancies between the type and the antitype. These we shall find originate, necessarily, from characteristics belonging to the one, which cannot, in the nature of the case, belong to the other. In other respects we shall find the antitype to correspond with the type. In sketching the discrepancies we shall notice only the things which compose the main body of those shadows of things in the gospel. In these are embraced the sacrifice, the penitence of the transgressor, and the official work of the priest.

In the types, many sacrifices were offered; in the antitype but one.

In the types, the priests were furnished with sacrifices by the transgressors; in the antitype, Jesus, our High Priest, furnished his own offering.

In the types, the high priest entered the holy place once every year, when he abode there only long enough to make one atonement; in the antitype, our High Priest having entered once, ever remaineth there.

In the types, the priests made but one atonement with the blood of the same sacrifice; in the antitype, our High Priest with his own blood makes many atonements. It is said he died but once, and that he entered but once into the holy place; but it is nowhere said he makes but one atonement. On the contrary," This man because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood: wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them," that is, as we have seen, the intercession of blood, which is only another name for atonement.*

In the types, the confession of the transgressor preceded, not only the act of atonement by the priest, but also the death of the victim. In the antitype this is impossible, because Christ suffered once for all, and his sufferings could not therefore follow the confessions of all those who have sinned. But although the sacrifice was slain previous to the repentance of the trans

* In this essay, the term atonement is employed to express the office-work in heaven of our Great High Priest for the purpose of giving it a clearer illustration. Should any prefer the term intercession which is employed in the New Testament to express this work, there can be urged against it no valid