Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1836-11-16
CONTROVERSIAL.
For the Telegraph.
ATONEMENT.

ATONEMENT.
Review OF ON" in Nos 40 and so of the
eighth volume of the Telegraph.
Mr.. EDITOR 1t is for truth, and not
for victory, that again call the attention
of your readers to the sentiments of NJ,
as exhibited in his several Recommendations
above named, in relation to the atonement.
In discussing subject of this magnitude
and character, il well becomes every man
10 subject his reason 10 the authority of
inspiration. and his passions 10 the immu-
table standard of perfect judgment. And
in this discussion, as in all others, the pub
lie, am we'll aware, are never delighted
with reciprocal recrimnaton, personal
illusions, and abuse. Such temper of
mind is i'll suited TO the graver bushes of
sober, rational and profound investigation
ofthe great, fundapental and mysterious
doctrines of divine Revelation as well
as derogatory TO the christian character,
and inconsistent with christian life.
1t has been we'll said, by an eminent
English divine Of the Baptist denomina-
ton, that controversy is to be deprecat-
ed when it is directed to minute or frivol-
Gus objects; or when it is managed in
such a manner as to call forth malevolent
passions" That discussions of a profess
sedly religious nature are always conduct
ed, by proftssedly pious men, on the prin-
ciple ofself-denial, and self-sacrifce, is too
lamentably and fearfulIy untrue.
In the present case, however, am not
about to bring the charge Of a gross NOR
al detection from the just rules Of debate,
against NJ, in his "rejoinder" to Daleth
in the 49th No. Of the Telegraph. This
much, however l must be allowed to say ::
l can not apprehend what Ms motives
could have been, in making use ofthe fol-
lowing language:
Had DaIeth read the Hebrew with
points for himself he probably would
have written it kapAar" &c.
Now fM. has read the Hebrew, with
points for himself" be knows that it does
not alter the sense Of the Hebrew word at
all, whether it is written gopher, or kaphar
Besides, we'll informed writer's are found,
who give their authority to the former or
biography, as we'll as to the latter 1t can
hardly be supposed that an intelligent,
and upright meaning man would throw
out such language in order to produce an
impression on the public mind that Da-
leth had written the word incorrectly,
when be must have known that the word
was frequently written in the manner
which Daleth ad opted, by large class OF
linguists, especially among those who do
not make use Of "ponts in their read
ing. repeat the sentiment: can not
apprehend, what could be the motives OF
NJ TO induce him, to make use Of per-
sonal allusion in this connection. What
could they have been! will not press
the answer. | will not attempt to canvass
the motives Of NJ, nor will l condemn
him, unheard; and will therefore claim
from him like treatment towards myself
should it ever be necessary.
10 relation to the arguments advanced
by NJ, in his "rejoinder" to Daleth,
shall now claim the attention of your
readers for few moments.
: |. The translation of the Heb. WORD
gopher. On this subject, Nj. holds the
following language: He (Daleth) IN
r forms US that this Hebrew word gopher
as he writes it, was translated into the
septuagint by the Greek word lasmos-
In this NJ. thinks he is mistaken" Now
whatever I'M. thinks" about the matter
does not alter the fact in the case. HI
has not denied the position Of DaIeth, ant
much less djsprored his assertion. HI
has not pretended 10 prope, that gopher a.
noun, (which by the way, was the Ian
guage ofthe Review,) was not translated
+ into the septuagint by the Greek noun, Il
Gsm0s. He has, indeed, quoted severa
) passages, to show, where gopher, as cert
: was translated into the septuagint by TIL
Greek verb iiaskomai But this does no
9 Prove, that gopher, as noun, is translates
d by the same Greek verb. But if M. ais
thinks" that Daleth has not "investigat