Some further Notes on the Day of Atonement, (Lev. 16:)

The letter of a correspondent raises question concerning some points of the interpretation of the day of atonement given, vol. 2:pp. 241-255, as well as regards the doctrine taught in this, which for the sake of others I feel it needful to answer publicly. The letter itself is too long for insertion, but I shall quote it as fully as may be necessary to bring out what is in question.

"The very fact of there being one lot for the Lord and another for His people speaks to us of the Lord having His lot in that work and of His people having theirs. What then was the Lord's lot ? Was it nothing more than Christ becoming a substitute for sinners-that is, His taking the sinner's place, and hearing the sinner's load of guilt? . . . Was it not the full, complete, eternal glorifying of God according to His nature and every attribute ? Was this nothing more than substitution ? Is it of substitution as such that the Lord's lot speaks? Why then another lot for the people ? "

I have already fully answered the last question. The scape-goat gives us the special application of the Lord's work to the people of Israel in the last days. In the offering for the priests, under which we come, there is no scape-bullock; a fact which its having been " long since remarked by others," (as our correspondent observes,) does not surely deprive of significance. It shows that the sins of the priestly family are as completely borne and borne away by the bullock for a sin-offering as those of the people by the scape-goat. If this be not so, then they arc not borne away. If it be so, then the goat which is Jehovah's lot, and which is expressly offered for a sin-offering (5:9) must be equally capable of such an application. What else is the universal meaning of a sin-offering, but an offering for people's sins? What else, if not a substitutionary sacrifice ?

But surely it is easy to see that does not destroy its significance as the "Lord's lot" in contrast with the scape-goat, in which simply the effect for the people is marked out, and there is no proper sacrifice at all! How could so simple and necessary a distinction fail to strike any careful reader? Nor does the fact of substitution being found in the sin-offering hinder, surely, its having the Godward aspect which as propitiation it necessarily has. It is, as I have shown, what the nature of God quires (as distinct from His moral government) presented to Him. Thus alone can it " reconcile the holy place But the glorifying of God in its full character I must , maintain is brought out rather by the bullock for the priest than the goat for the people. Our correspondent says of this,-

"May not the fact of there being a bullock for Aaron and his house teach us that none of the various families or classes . . . of God's redeemed enter bo fully into God's thoughts and estimate of the work of His Son as those whom Aaron and his house typify? Is not value the thought presented in the bullock? "

But surely the meaning of the bullock is perfectly well ascertained. The apostle gives us the key in i Corinthians 9:9, 10, and it seems (after the manner of Scripture) very uniformly maintained. That of the goat Matthew 25:33 gives, in perfect harmony with what we have seen as to the offerings. The contrast between the two is full of significance in the case before us; while the fact that both apply to the same blessed work should prevent the fear, which seems to lurk under these criticisms, that there is thus any lowering of the character of this. If the goat, the Lord's lot, speaks of propitiation, so must (at least equally) the bullock for the priesthood. And why should not the character of the latter be higher than that of the former? Is it not of necessity that it should be so?

Now as to the extent of propitiation and substitution :- "How can substitution have a universal aspect if He is not a. substitute for all? ' He is the Substitute of His people' (p. 254). Quite so:but they were His people before He bore their sins. He bore their sins because they were His. Yon will call this limited atonement; and so it would be if atonement and substitution were the same thing. You assume, not prove, that they are.''

That they are equal in extent (not the "same thing") in the type before us needs little examination to perceive ; and wherever a sin-offering was offered, it was the same thing. Whatever proof to the contrary may be adduced from elsewhere, it will not be found here. If we take the type before us, it is as simple as possible that the atonement, the propitiation, was as limited as the substitution was ; it was for the priests and people of Israel. On the other hand if a Gentile came in and was circumcised, he came among those for whom the substitution was made and availed. Propitiation did not avail for those outside. Both he substitution and the propitiation were thus available for all that desired to come,-had so far a universal aspect alike ; were, in effect, limited alike. What difficulty is there here?"But they were His people before He bore their sins:He bore their sins because they were His."

True; but the confusion lies in the thought of an exactly defined number-in bringing in the truth of election into a place to which it does not belong. Of course election is of a definite number ; but the provision made in atonement is not merely for the elect. It is the provision of a substitute, not for a definite number of individuals, but for a certain class. There is no better word to define what is meant.

The substitution of the Lord in death and under judgment for His people is of course effectual for them, and is the way in which He bare our sins. I apprehend that here lies the root of the misapprehension in our correspondent's mind, as in many others, that he thinks of such a measurement of the, exact due of these sins as there will be in the day of judgment-so much suffering for so much sin,-and so many sins being thus accounted for, and no more, these and no others must be remitted. Were another to be saved, it would have been, necessary in this way for the Lord to suffer more! Now this is in entire opposition to Scripture, which asserts, as in the trespass-offering (where the offense is thus actually measured as against the government of God) that there is in fact an overpayment The sacrifice is not of measured but of measureless value. Only in this way could it be said, "a propitiation for the sins of the whole world." No more suffering would be needed for the actual salvation of all men; and the treasure of divine grace is thus really without limit.
Yet He did not bear the sins of all men, or become a substitute for the world, as I have again and again said, but for a people who, while they may be indefinitely numerous, are still His people. I need not therefore reply to what is urged, that "if substitution is not for a limited number, then it is for all; and, according your own argument, all must be saved."We have only to define this " limit" and this "all," to see the mistake "If substitution is not for a limited number [a number limited to just so many millions], then it is for all the world]:"-this does not follow ; for the number may be limited another way, namely, to those who will accept" the Substitute, without a rigid exact number being at all implied.

It is not necessary therefore to limit the provision made by the actual number brought in by a grace whose sovereignty I believe as simply and fully as my correspondent can. I have no thought of disputing the truth and necessity of election; but what I deny absolutely is that in fact provision is made only for the elect. The sufficiency of the atonement for all must be a real one to make the general call founded upon it sincere.

The quotation from page 254, that" Christ's resurrection is the justification of all for whom He died," is misunderstood by being separated from its context. It is of substitution I am there speaking, and this is surely true with regard to all those for whom as their Substitute He died. "Who was delivered for our offenses, and raised again :our justification." The letter before me seems to ignore this altogether.-

"Romans iii, 4:show God's grace to be the source, Christ's blood the basis, and faith in us the principle of justification. We are justified when we believe, and not before, though the work that justifies us was done eighteen hundred years ago, and our sins borne then."

The resurrection of Christ is here left out, and yet that is the sentence of justification, or what do the words "raised again for our justification" mean? No doubt our correspondent cannot comprehend "our justification " by Christ's resurrection in view of our justification when we believe. What he is contending against is the key to the understanding of any seeming incongruity. Our justification as a class was given in the one case, our justification individually is when by faith we come into this class-among the people for whom the substitutions:) sacrifice has been accepted.