LOOKING UNTO JESUS OR CHRIST IN TYPE AND ANTITYPE. BY ...

But in the type the scapegoat did not bear away the sins of
the people till after the cleansing of the sanctuary; hence
the antitype of this work cannot take place till after the
cleansing of the antitypical sanctuary, which work, as has
been proved, did not commence till the termination of the
2300 days in 1844. Dan. 8:14; Heb. 9:23. It is therefore
impossible to carry this work back to the crucifixion of
Christ, which was even before he commenced his ministry in
the heavenly sanctuary at all. Christ cannot therefore be
the antitype of the scapegoat. p. 258, Para. 3, [LOOKING].
2. The scapegoat, after being loaded with sin, was sent
away by the priest. He could not therefore be the priest
himself. But in this dispensation Christ is priest; he cannot
therefore be the antitypical scapegoat to be sent away
by the priest. Christ cannot send away himself. the conclusion
is hence inevitable that the scapegoat must be some
being whom Christ, after placing upon him the sins borne
from the sanctuary, shall send away into a land not inhabited.
p. 258, Para. 4, [LOOKING].
3. The scapegoat was sent away from Israel into the uninhabited
wilderness. If our Saviour is its antitype, he also
must be sent away, not his body alone, as some suppose who
refer it to his death, but his entire being (for the goat
was sent away alive) from not to, nor into, his people;
neither into heaven; for that is not a wilderness, or land
not inhabited. But instead of thus being sent away, Christ
is to dwell in the midst of his people, the true Israel of
faith, forevermore. p. 259, Para. 1, [LOOKING].
4. The scapegoat received and retained all the iniquities
of the children of Israel; but when Christ appears the second
time, he will be "without sin." p. 259, Para. 2,
[LOOKING].
5. It is impossible that two goats, one of which was chosen
by the Lord, and is called the Lord's, while the other
is not so called, but was left to perform an entirely different
office, -- it is impossible that these both should
typify the same person. But the goat on which the Lord's
lot fell, the blood of which was ministered in the sanctuary,
did certainly typify Christ. Just as surely the scapegoat
did not typify him. p. 259, Para. 3, [LOOKING].
It being thus proved by evidence which must be conclusive
to every candid mind, that Christ cannot be the antitype of