to the house of their fathers; a lamb without blemish, a male of the first year. The whole congregation of Israel were to kill it, in the evening; and with the blood they were commanded to strike or sprinkle the two side-posts and the upper door-post of the houses wherein they were to eat it. The flesh of it was to be roasted with fire, and they were to eat the whole of it; nothing was to remain until the morning; but if any did remain, it was to be burned with fire. Here remark,

1. It was a lamb without blemish. This was strikingly typical of Christ; hence Peter thus speaks of Christ-" For ye are not redeemed with silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." Here is reference to this paschal lamb, which, in order to its being acceptable, must be without blemish.

2. The lamb was a male. So Christ is the only begotten Son of God.

3. The blood of the lamb was sprinkled on the door posts of the houses of the Israelites, and secured them from the hand of the destroying angel. All were safe, in those houses that were thus marked with blood. So every, soul is safe that is washed in the blood of Christ. But if Christ hath not made atonement, his blood cannot secure the sinner.

Can any man explain this sacrifice in any other way, or so as to deny that it has respect to the atonement of Christ? Does not Peter assert that we are redeemed by the blood of Christ? to which sacrifice he refers.

In another place it is said, "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us." The apostle in these words points to the paschal lamb, and to the benefits that result from his sacrifice. Deny the atonement of Christ, and I ask, what consistent sense can be given to the passover?

The scape-goat is also another very striking type of Christ, bearing the sins of his people. The circumstances of this type are, two goats were to be chosen, lots were to be cast to determine which should die. The one that was to die, was brought to the door of the tabernacle, and there he was to be slain; but the other goat was also to be brought, and Aaron was to lay his hands on his head, and confess all the sins of the people; and then he was to be led away into the wilderness. The one that was put to death, represented Christ dying for the sins of his people: the live goat led away into the wilderness typified Christ rising again from the dead, and ascending to heaven for their justification. What else can be meant by the confessing of sins with hands laid upon his head? If this be not its meaning, we know of no other that can be given to it.

But I will leave the doctrine of offering sacrifice, after having made one observation more; and that is, that all the victims were first brought to the door of the tabernacle, and that the priest with hands imposed on their heads, confessed all the sins of the people; after which they were slain. Is not the plain meaning of this conduct, that the victim was a substitute for the people, and by his death made a typical atonement? In proof of this I add, that it is repeatedly said that atonement was made by these offerings. And it

was the opinion of the people that atonement was thus made for their sins.

I will now lay before you the language of prophecy, in perfect agreement with what has been said in support of the doctrine of atonement.

Isaiah stands in the front of the prophets respecting Christ. Please to read chapter liii. in particular, begin at the 4th verse. "Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.

Can

He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." "And the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." "For the transgression of my people was he stricken." language be plainer in describing Christ as bearing sin, or its punishment as a vicarious sacrifice? But if he died only as a martyr, he died as Paul died, as Peter, and as many others died. But of them it was never said that they bare the sins of the people, made atonement for them, redeemed them.

Daniel assures us, that Messiah should be cut off, but he adds, not for himself. That he should finish the transgression and make an end of sins, make reconciliation for iniquity, and bring in everlasting righteousness. Does not this language clearly foretel that he would make atonement for sin? In what other sense can it be said that he hath made an end of sin, and finished transgression?

If we now pass to the New Testament, we shall find that the doctrine of the atonement is writ ten as with the point of a diamond, on almost every page.

In Matt. i. where the evangelist speaks of the nativity of Christ, he says, "His name shall be called Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins." How was he to save his people? I answer, in the words of the apostles, by suffering "the just for unjust;" by being "made a curse for his people, he was to redeem them from the curse; by "bearing their sins in his own body on the tree." He "who knew no sin was made sin for us," said Paul," that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." "While we

were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

The whole epistle to the Hebrews explains the rites and ceremonies of the legal economy; and every where speaks of the sacrifice of Christ as vicarious. He was once offered to bear the sin of many. "How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works, to serve the living God."

In the book of Revelation, the saints are represented as singing, to all eternity, this song: “To him who loved us, and washed us from our sins in his blood." It follows then, that his blood is infinitely efficacious. It remains,

III. That we consider the extent, the application, and the efficacy of the atonement; also attend to the consequences of denying it, and show why we are exhorted to look to Christ for salvation rather than to any other object.

Some general observations are necessary here. 1. That the entrance of sin into the world rendered the atonement absolutely necessary.

2. We remark, that all mankind have sinned, therefore need the atonement. Because without the shedding of blood, there is, and can be no remission.

It may be asked, why divine mercy or good, ness could not pardon the sinner without shedding of blood, or the death of Christ? I answer, It is not for us to say what God can do, but to determine by his revealed will, what he will do.

We have in the preceding part of this discourse proved by the sacrifices of the law, by the plain language of the prophets, by the whole New Testament, and by the event itself, that it was necessary that one should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. But as a more direct answer to the question, whether God from mere mercy could not pardon the sinner without the death of Christ? I beg leave to observe, that it is confessed that the mercy of God would have been displayed in the forgiveness of the sinner, but he has other attributes besides mercy, that are equally dear to him; such as holiness, faithfulness, justice. Sin is the transgression of the law; the law condemns the transgressor to suffer the penalty that was made known when the law was given. I ask, if God had pardoned sin from mere mercy, what display would there have been of his faithfulness to his threatenings? Where would have been the manifestation of his justice? But in the forgiveness of sins through the shedding of blood, holiness, faithfulness, justice, and mercy, as well as love unparalleled, are made manifest. In the sacrifice of every victim that was slain, the evil of sin was exhibited, and mankind were taught that