"So Christ was once offered to bear the sins." Heb.

ix. 28.

"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree." 1 Pet. ii. 24.

All these passages are supposed to refer to Jesus Christ. The first of them will be separately considered; and then I shall endeavor to ascertain the meaning of the others.

"The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." To one accustomed to regard the atonement by Jesus Christ as a display of God's anger, this text will naturally be deemed a strong proof of the correctness of that doctrine. But it should be recollected, that the inspired writers were in the habit of regarding God's hand in all afflictions, by whatever secondary causes or agents they might have been produced, Satan and wicked men were agents in stripping Job of his property, his servants, and his children; yet Job piously eyed the hand of God in these events, and therefore said, "The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away." "What! shall we

receive good at the hand of the Lord, and shall we not receive evil?" We may therefore say-The Lord laid on Job the iniquities of the Chaldean and Sabean robbers, who were instruments of his affliction.

Joseph, too, was the subject of great affliction, in being sold for a slave by his envious brethren; and by being cast into prison by the resentment of an impudent mistress. Yet after his exaltation in Egypt, and while his brethren stood trembling before him, lest he should revenge their wrongs-their father being dead; Joseph thus addressed them: "As for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass as it is this day, to save much people alive." So the sufferings of

the Messiah were according to the "determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God," "though" by wicked hands he was "crucified and slain." After his exaltation to the right-hand of God, he might have said to the Jewish Sanhedrim, what Joseph said to his brethren," As for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass as it is this day, to save much people alive." The salvation of sinful men was the purpose of God in both cases. But I see nothing of substituted penal suffering in either case, though in both, one suffered for others.

Prior to exhibiting the passages in which others, besides the Messiah, are represented as bearing iniquities or sins, I may briefly state several senses in which one may be properly said to bear the iniquity of another, or of many others :—

1. A child may be said to bear the sins of his father, when by his father's dissipation and wickedness, he is caused to suffer poverty and affliction.

2. A good man may bear the sins of the wicked, when he suffers persecution from their hands. In this sense, Christ bore the sins of many; and some Christians believe, that this was the principal idea intended in the prediction: "and he shall bear the sins of many." This opinion derives some support from the fact, that the conduct of his persecutors was predicted in connexion with the words which have been quoted.

3. A good man may be said to bear the sins of others, when, like Lot, his righteous soul is grieved from day to day by their unlawful deeds. Thus too Christ doubtless bore the sins of many.

4. A good man properly bears the sins of others,

when with meekness he endures their insults and revilings, and still exercises towards them the spirit of forbearance and forgiveness. Who will deny that Christ thus

bore the sins of many?

5. A good man may be truly said to bear the sins of others, when, on account of their sins, he is filled with concern for their souls, and not only prays for them, but freely exposes himself to reproach, peril, suffering, and death, that he may recover them from the ways of sin and misery. In this sense, all Christians must own that Christ bore the sins of many.

6. An innocent man may be said to bear the sins of others, if their crimes are imputed to him, and he is caused to suffer in their stead. Such a result may be brought about in different ways. It may occur, by the cruel design and deceptive management of guilty agents. Having committed a capital offence, they may conspire and accuse an innocent person of the crime,-—and, by false testimony, cause him to be arrested, tried, convicted, and executed. A similar result may occur by mistake. A murder may be committed under circumstances which fix suspicion on an innocent man, and cause him to be arrested; the same circumstances may on trial be deemed adequate proof of his guilt; and thus, while perfectly innocent of the crime laid to his charge, he may be put to death as a malefactor.

There is still another way in which an innocent person may suffer instead of the guilty. For some reasons of sufficient weight in his own mind, an innocent person may offer himself as a substitute for a guilty father, son, or friend; the offer may be accepted by the government,

and the innocent may suffer the punishment due to the guilty.

We have now a variety of senses in which one may be Isaid to bear the sins of another. But the last case, stated under the last head, illustrates more nearly than any other, the sense in which a vast multitude of Christians have supposed that the Messiah bore the sins of many. We have then to inquire, whether this hypothesis is warranted by a fair comparison of scripture with scripture. Various cases will therefore be brought to view, in which one is represented as bearing the sins or iniquities of another.

First. Under the Mosaic dispensation, Aaron and his sons were appointed to bear the iniquities of the Israelites. Thus said God to Moses: "Thou shalt make a plate of pure gold, and grave upon it,-Holiness to the Lord,and it shall be upon Aaron's forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy things which the children of Israel shall hallow, in all their holy gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord." Exod. xxviii. 36-38.

The priests were also required to eat of "the meat of the sin-offering in the holy place," as being given to them "to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord." Lev. x. 17.

Now what do we perceive in either of these cases, which has the least appearance of divine anger, punishment, or substituted suffering? Was the anger of God manifested towards Aaron or his sons while they faithfully observed the rituals of his own appointment? Was not the plate of pure gold with the inscription, "Holiness to the Lord," a symbol of the purity of heart which God

required of the people in all their acts of worship? Such a symbol of purity, so conspicuously placed on the forehead of the high-priest, was a constant admonition to the people, to beware of iniquity in their offerings; and by wearing this monitory symbol, it appears, that Aaron børe the "iniquities of their holy things, that they might be ac cepted."

In the other case, it appears that by eating the meal of the sin-offering, the priests bore "the iniquity of the congregation." Were not these merciful institutions adapted to make favorable impressions on the minds, both of the priests and the people,-impressions of God's purity, benevolence, and forgiving love, and of the importance of their reconciliation to a Being who constantly sought their spiritual improvement and happiness?

Secondly. The scape-goat also bore the iniquities of the Israelites : "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,-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 bare upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited." Lev. xvi. 21, 22. In this institution, we have symbolical acts performed to denote God's readiness to forgive, or remove from his people all their transgressions, on the most merciful terms, their humbly confessing their sins. Putting the hands on the head of the goat, and confessing over it the sins of the people, were affecting ceremonies, suited to lead the people to proper reflections on their own guilt, and the mercy of the Lord.

Thirdly. Ezekiel bore the iniquity of the house of Isael, and the house of Judah. As a "sign" unto them, he