The Plan of Salvation.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3809, 14 March 1881, Page 2

The Plan of Salvation.

The Rev S. J. Neill gave "his second lecture on the above subject in the Presbyterian Church last evening. There was a very large attendance, and a marked interest was taken in the service. The lecturer dealt with the " objections " to the plan of salvation as held by the Presbyterian Church. The reverend gentleman commenced by saying:—■ "In our concluding words last Sunday evening, we referred to the great Day of Atonement, and the casting of two lots— | one for Jehovah and one for Azazel. The goat on whioh the lot for Jehovah tell was slain, and its blood sprinkled on the mercy seat; the other goat, on which the lot for Azazel fell, was sent into the wilderness as the scapegoat after the High Priest had put his hands on its head, and confessed over ifc the sins of the people. As the day of atonement, and the ritual in connection therewith, is regarded by Christians, though not by the Jews themselves, as pointing to Christ, and the atonement in Him, it becomes us to ask the meaning of the details specified. In this, alas ! there seems no settled opinion. The goat on which the sins of the people were confessed, on which the High Priest's hands had been laid, and which was led away into the wilderness, has been regarded as pointiug to Christ, and there are passages of Scripture which seem to support this view. Again, it is thought that tnis goat, instead of representing Christ, represented the devil, and the opinion of Gesenius, our greatest authority on the Hebrew language, favors this view ; and I do not sco, since we are to briug in the devil, that we can have a better place than this. Why should there be any inherent reason for the devil (eommouly thought of under the image of a serpent) not being in this part of the Hebrew ritual on the great day of atonement regarded as Azazel, the goat? And we have the high and almost conclusive authority of Gesenius favoring this interpretation, for hu regards" Aznzel as some false diety to wiiom the sacrifice of the secoud goat was made. Besides this, we know that other ancient nations pro pitiated the Spirit of Evil as well as the Spirit of Good, aud there is v<>ry much of this sacrifice to the evil spirit carried on among men still; and do we not, many of us, lay our weight of sins on the devil, and make a terrible Azezel of him ? Each character in the ritual has been regarded by Christains as designating Christ. Azazel, over which the sins of the people were confessed; the goat for Jehovah, which was slain ; and the priest himself who offered. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews refers, perhaps, to , this very subject when he speaks of " An high priest ot good things to come by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands (that is to say, not of his building), neither by blood of goats, but by his own blood he entered once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." Which, I think, is usually understood as implying that Christ was at one and the same time the person offering the victim, and the victim itself which was offered. Having thus glanced at the general outlines of the schetne of salvation as stated in creeds, and haying also referred to the connection between the word atonement, as -used by the Jews and by the Christians, we revert to the position from which we started—All may be regarded as at one in their view of what salvation itself is, a delivery, or salvation from sin, resulting in a state of oneness with the Divine, as, far as we poor finite beings are able to conceive the Ineffable and Absolute One. Can we find an equal oneness of opinion among the religions of the earth, or even among Christians with regard to the method of salvation or atonement ?

[We shall continue our report iv futwe issues.} *