imagine comes nearest the truth, without prejudice to any. And here I find two different opinions among divines, that deferve our confideration. For, it is not worth while, to trouble ourselves, in refuting the opinion of thofe who, by the scapegoat, understand Barabbas or Antichrift; though Cornelius a Lapide ridiculously fays, that fuch speak more diftinctly and pertinently, than others concerning this figurative reprefentation. But fome learned men think, that, by the fcape-goat, the rebellious Jews were prefigured: others will have it to be a type of Christ.

LXII. The former speak to this purpose. Whereas the fending the goat away into the wildernefs, was done after the purification of the tabernacle, and it did not fall into the Lord by lot fo the difobedient people, and not the mediator of the teftament, seems to be fet forth by the banished goat. For, the wicked are called goats, Mat. xxv. 33. They controverted Christ's right of access to God. The determination between both was made by a divine lot. Chrift by his blood, was introduced into the heavenly fanctuary: over the others hung that curfe in Deut. xxix. 21. " and Jehovah fhall separate him unto evil out of all the tribes of Ifrael." Are not also the Jews fent away and dispersed among the nations? They are given up to Azazel, or, according to the ancient Rabbins, they are fallen as a portion to Samael (for the Serpent may eat the duft, Gen, iii. 14.) In a word, they are given up to the power of the devil. And how juftly are the veffels of wrath, faid to bear the fins of the faithful people, is evident. For, though there is no procuring cause of juftification in them, yet in them the severity of God is feen; thus all the blood fhed from the beginning of the world, and fo every fin, at any time commited, is avenged. For, they who refuse to confefs their own fins, in order to submit to the juftice of God, make the fins of all others their own. What is faid of the goat to be fent away, namely, its being to be prefented before the Lord to make an atonement, fignifies, that they alfo, as fanctified in the root, are prefented to God by Chrift the Priest, that even from them may arife a holy feed, Ifa. vi. 13. and children of the promife. In a word, that the time shall come, when all Ifrael fhall be faved, and at last be expiated by Chrift the Prieft, Rom. xi. 26, 27.

LXIII. It always did, and ftill does appear ftrange to me, after the closest and most folicitous meditation, that learned men could seriously give into fuch idle imaginations; than which I apprehend, nothing could be fpoken more foreign to the mystery of this ceremony; because it is altogether inconfiftent with the end and facred intention of this day. For, who can think it probable, that, on the folemn day of propitiation,

which

which was fet apart, for making an atonement for all the fins of the whole people, the rejection of the fame people fhould be fo folemnly inculcated by an anniversary fymbol? The whole people fast, afflict their fouls, confess their fins, pray for the forgiveness of them: the high-prieft is wholly taken up in procuring an expiation: God promifes to the whole congregation of Ifrael; ye fhall be cleanfed from all your fins before Jehovah. Can we believe, that, at the fame time, and by the very fame facred rites, the high-prieft and the believers among the people, fhould be commanded to lay their fins by direful ceremonies on the goat, reprefenting the far greatest part of their brethren according to the flesh, in order to be punifhed in them, by a moft fevere instance of a divine curfe; the like to which was never afterwards feen among men. I allow that the punishment of the rebellious Ifraelites was foretold in awful prophefies: nor would I deny, that there were fome Mofaic inftitutions, which prefigured that punishment. But at that time when the typical expiation of all Ifrael from all their fins was to be procured by thofe rites, it appears to me of all things the most improbable, that, at the fame time, and by the very fame ceremonies, the dreadful curfe of God for the fins of all, which could not be separated from the impofition of fin, was represented as refting on the greatest part of Ifrael, and that according to the imprecation of the expiating priest, and of believers who prayed for expiation. I know, it is faid, that "the godly, who were mixed with the ungodly among this people, might have the confolation of beholding, on this day, a fign, or token of their happier lot beyond the difobedient. But none, I imagine, will deny, that even this confideration must have yielded the greateft grief, which would have been an exceeding damp to the joy they had conceived from the pardon of their fins; and that the pious would rather intercede in behalf of the perishing than lay their own fins upon them with an imprecation. Certainly, Jefus himself deplored, with bitter tears, the impending deftruction of the most abandoned city. And Paul calls not only his confcience, but also Christ and the Holy Spirit to witness, that he had great grief and continual anguish of heart, when ever he reflected on the deplorable state of his brethren, according to the flesh; and was so far from wishing to make them a curfe for himself, by the impofition of his fins, that he rather wifhed himself separated from Chrift, to become a curfe for them, Rom. ix. 1, 2, 3.

LXIV. Moreover, as the interpretation, we are now examining, is foreign to the end and intention of that day, fo almost all the ceremonies, that were then used, ftrongly diffuade us from it. Ift, Aaron was commanded to receive both goats from

the

the congregation of the children of Ifrael, and that for fin, that is, to expiate and take away fin, ver. 5. "But the goat which was given by the people, fhews that what was foin them, is offered for them :" as thefe learned men themfelves fpeak very justly. If that be true of the one goat, why may it not be faid of the other, even that it reprefented its being from the people, in order to take away fin? For, fo far both are on a level. Both being from the people; both bought at the common expence; both of them for fin: thus far there was no diftinction in the types. What can then constrain us to imagine, there was fo great difference in the fignification? Is it confonant to reafon, that what was appointed to represent their eternal curse, was bought at their expence; that is, with their consent and approbation? And was the rebellious nation of the Jews given to the reft for fin, that in this refpect, they might be joined together with the Lord Chrift? Be it far, fays the learned perfon, they fhould thus be joined along with Chrift, for whose honour we are too much concerned, to speak fo impertinently. We are thankful to God, that he speaks fo far piously. But he denies, that one of the goats was taken for fin. He fays, "that is afferted of both which is true only of one. Before the lot diftinguished them that could be affirmed collectively of both, which, after the lot, was to be the cafe only of one." But I think, we are by no means to depart from the plain meaning of the words; nor to understand only of one, what is affirmed of both. Though we are to understand, with fome difference, what the following words of the law intimate: namely, both goats were for fin, which the law exprefsly affirms; yet with this difference; the one was fin, because it was flain for fin, the other, because by bearing the fins of the people, it took them away. To fum up all in a word, the whole of this facred expiation confifted of two parts; first, the flaying of the one goat, whofe blood was fhed to expiate the fins of the people: and then the fending away the other goat, which took away the fins which were laid upon it, by virtue of the facrifice juft offered. Both therefore concurred, in their place and order, to the folemn

atonement.

LXV. Secondly, Aaron was commanded to present both before Jehovah at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, ver. 7. By which both were declared to be equally devoted to God. Without all controverfy Aaron is here a figure of Chrift as prieft; the goat to be flain, fignified Chrift as the facrifice. For, he prefented himself to God, when" he went up to Jeṛusalem, that all things, that are written by the prophets conconcerning the Son of man, might be accomplished," Luke

xviii.

xviii. 31. But how did our high-priest, when he was about to to make an atonment, at the fame time prefent before God the the rebellious Jews, who were to be given up to the devil? To fay, that they were prefented before God, so far as they were fanctified in the root, and were to be the fathers of the fons of the promife, is quite from the purpose. For, the rebellious Jews, configned to the devil, are to be wholly diftinguished from the holy root, from which those degnerate branches took their rife, and from the children of the promise, who were to defcend from them in their appointed time. Thefe, certainly, the priest daily prefented to God in the names of the twelve tribes, which he wore on his breast: the very fame he also now presented to God, though without that fymbol. But it cannot be explained, how the high-prieft, when making atonement, could present thofe to God, if by this goat they were reprefented, as the portion of the ferpent.

LXVI. 3dly, After both the goats, which were purchased for God at the common expence of the whole people, were confecrated to God, by bringing them before Jehovah, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, Aaron was com manded to find out by lot, which was for Jehovah, and which for Azazel, because this was unknown both to the people, and the priest, till the lot determined it. But it fcarce admits of a favourable meaning, if that, which fell to Azazel, was the fi gure of the rebellious Jews. For, that fortition, or decifion by Lot, must be referred either to the figure, or to the thing reprefented. That it cannot to the thing reprefented is plain. For the Ifraelites neither ought, nor could have any doubt, which fhould fall to the devil, Chrift or the rebellious Jews, fo there was no need to make a trial of it by lot. What pious ears would not be offended, to hear any person affert, that the highprieft, at the command of God, caft lots between Christ and the rebellious Jews, whether he or they fhould be offered to the Lord? I imagine none will contend with me on this point, Though the wicked Jews had a controverfy with Chrift concerning the priesthood, yet it was not proper for that to be decided by lot, but, as was really done, by a demonftration from the facred writings. It therefore follows, that the cafting of lots here, regarded the goats themselves, fince it was unknown, what each of them was to prefigure. Moreover, as both were purchased at the common expence, for the benefit of the whole people of Ifrael, and confecrated to the service of God; neither the one nor the other feems adapted fymbolically to reprefent thofe, who were to be given up to the devil. For, though the goat fell by lot to Azazel, yet it ceafed not to be the Lord's.

The

The very learned Frifmuthus fpeaks to the purpofe, de birco Emiffar, Differt. 2. §. 14. "We must not think, that the former goat alone was confecrated to God. For as both were

ufually prefented before him, it is evident, that the goat, on which the lot fell for Azazel, was alfo the Lord's, as even R. Nachman has granted. But that the one, on which the lot fell for the Lord, did peculiarly and by special right become the Lord's, was because it was flain upon the altar. Such a facrifice offered in honour of God is called, in the Hebrew phraseology, the bread of God, Lev. xxi. 6. Which appellation could not be given to the other, that was to be sent to Azazel, it being appointed to be feparated from the flock, and carried to remote places, to be expofed, perhaps, to the teeth of wild beafts. The goat therefore, which is, and in the whole cere mony, remains confecrated to God, seems not adapted to be allotted for a symbol of those, who on all accounts were to be the flaves of the devil.

LXVII. 4thly, A strong argument may be taken likewise from the impofition of the hands of the prieft, of the fins of Ifrael, with those prayers of the high-priest and applause of the. people, we mentioned, fect. 48. which are very eafily applied to Chrift, when he bore, according to his own and his Father's will, and the wishes of all the godly, the fins of the whole myftical Ifrael. And if any thing was to be reprefented to the Jews, on the day of expiation, certainly this was the thing, which is the alone foundation of a true expiation. But very. difficultly, nay indeed in my judgment, on no account, can that which is fignified, in the facred ceremonies, by the impofition of hands and of fins, be referred to the rebellious Jews, whom the faithful Ifraelites never conftituted to stand in their room and ftead. Do they, the most abandoned of mankind," who please not God, and are contrary to all men," 1 Theff. ii. 15. bear the iniquities of all Ifrael, laid upon them by the priest, into an uninhabited land, carrying them far away from Ifrael? Why do we yield fo much to that most peftilent fect the Socinians, as to go to overturn an argument for the fatisfaction of Christ, hitherto happily defended from this rite, by this extravagant fiction.

LXVIII. In fine, who can digest so hard a faying? It appears, how justly the vessels of wrath may be faid to bear the fins of the faithful. Which of the prophets or apoftles, ever faid fo? Is this to fpeak with the Scriptures? Who has to this day ever heard, that those make all the fins of all men their own, who refuse to confefs their own? or, that all the fins ever committed, are avenged on the rebellious Jews? This is an imputation of fin, alVOL. II. together

Ff