vour." Ephes. v. 2. In the epistle to the Hebrews, the inspired writer teaches us that the tabernacle or temple was a figure, and that the law and its sacrifices. were shadows of good things to come. chap. ix. 9, x. 1. He also assures us of the superior efficacy of the Redeemer's offering, above the efficacy of the Levitical offerings: "For if," says he, "the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; 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?" chap. ix. 13, 14.

Now, the type being the shadow, and the antitype the substance, what was prefigured by the former must be found in the latter. It will follow, then, that as the victims under the law stood figuratively charged with the sins of those for whom they were offered, so the great victim, to whom they all pointed, stood really charged

with the sins of all for whom he was of

fered.

With this fact the language of the New Testament plainly and fully accords. "He," says Paul, "hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." 2 Cor. v. 21. Made him TO BE SIN-A figurative expression, say our brethren; and we reply, doubtless it is a figurative expression. Christ was not literally made sin: for sin is an act or quality of a rational creature; and no person can be so absurd as to believe Christ was converted into sin, any more than to believe the paschal lamb was converted into the angel's act of passing over the houses of the Israelites, because it was called the passover. But what is the meaning of the expression? Does the apostle intend to teach us that Christ was stained with sin? Certainly not; for he bears his testimony that "he was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners." What then is his meaning? The phrase was well chosen and selected, to

convey a very important truth. There is a manifest antithesis between the two parts of the text; and it is reasonable to conclude that just as we are made the righteousness of God in Christ, so he was made sin for us. As we are made the righteousness of God in Christ by the imputation of the Redeemer's righteousness -according to the explanation of the author of the text, in other parts of his writings, when speaking on the subject, (Rom. iii. 22.) "Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all that believe;" and again (ch. iv. 6), "Even as David describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works"—so Christ was made sin for us, by having our sins imputed to him, that he might justly bear the punishment of them.

But suppose we adopt the construction put on the phrase by some able commentators, that Christ was made a sin-offering, because sin-offerings under the law were called sin; yet the result will be the same.

For a question arises, Why were sin-offerings denominated sin? There certainly was a good and sufficient reason for this denomination, or the Old Testament writers would not have given it to the legal offerings: and no other reason can be assigned than the fact, that sin was imputed to the victim, and the victim was slain in place of the offerer, whose iniquities it bore. In like manner our Redeemer became a sinoffering, by having the sins of his people imputed to him, and dying as their substitute. Peter was crucified; Paul was beheaded; thousands of martyrs shed their blood; and all suffered in consequence of sin; but neither Peter nor Paul, nor any martyr ever became a sin-offering; nor is it ever in Scripture said of any mere man that he was made sin for us. And the reason is that, although the prophets, and apostles, and martyrs suffered much, and in consequence of sin, yet none but Christ was ever charged with our sins, and died as our substitute, to make expiation for them.

In entire harmony with Paul, Peter in

culcates the same important truth: "Who his OWN SELF bare OUR SINS, in his own body on the tree, that we being dead unto sin, might live unto righteousness." 1 Pet. ii. 24. BARE OUR SINS. How? Sins were not a tangible mass that could be taken from us as a burden, and placed on the Saviour. Nor could they be infused into him, so as to render him inherently polluted by them. In what way then could he bear them? In no other than by having them imputed, charged to him, so as to be made responsible for their penal consequences. Or will any prefer saying the Redeemer bore the punishment of our sins? That this idea is included in the apostle's meaning we shall readily admit: but, if he bore the punishment of our sins, it will follow, that they were previously charged to his account; because this imputation was necessary to render him responsible for them, and make it just to inflict on him the punishment due to them.

"Abigail, when mediating between David and Nabal, when the former was pro