Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1836-05-05

stand it. "Christ hath redeemed US from
the curse of the law, being made curse
tor US" This was tae work ofthe atone
ment, to satisfy the demands Of broken
law, in order that the sinner, through faith
in God, might be saved. While mankind
were all threatened, by the law, with
eternal condemnation, way is opened,
through the death of Christ, by which
sinners may escape condemnation, and be
restored to a blessed Immortality. This
atonement or Precipitation was made, when
Christ was made a curse for u.s." as he
hung upon the "tree" If these passages
prove any thing, l am fully satisfied that
they provethe proposition, that Ihave laid
down, that Christ literally made an atone
ment for sin by his own blood upon the
cross in the character of suffering VIC
tim. There are many other passages Of
Scripture, which go to establish the truth
of this proposition. Vide Rom. iii: rs,
26. John il: 2, a, 10 Heb. X: ii, l2
Heb. tx: %. Col. ii IA. Eph. ii
l6, etc.
Having made these remarks by way of
establishing the scri plural doctrine ofthe
atonement, We are now prepared to enter
more fully into the examination Of our au-
thor's sentiments and mode of reasoning.
; The great princi pie that pervades the en-
tire essay, and gives character to it, is
founded on the typical sacrifices of the old
dispensation. The writer lays down this
principle in the following language: 1t
is an acknowled ged point that there must
be something in the antitype answering to
every part of the type. Hence, if we as
certain what was represented, and what
was ceremonialIy effected by the types in
the Old Testament, we shall be prepared
TO understand what is effected by the anti
type, and how it IS done under the new
dispenSation. This principle is true,
when properly defined and limited Be-
cause, an antitype is nothing more nor
less than one thing formed after the man
. ner ofanother, called type, or pattern
Wherein, therefore, one object is formed
like another, as its pattern, so Jar the OBJ
jet, so formed, may be said to be the an
! tltype ofthe other. But, itmay so happen,
that one object may be formed like anoth-
er, as its pattern, IN some respects and IN
other respects it may be unlike its type, or
pattern. Yet there may be condolences
IN both, to that extent, as to justifythe mode
Of expression, that is used, when we say
that one object is the antique of another
| 1t is not safe, therefore, to reason, from the
type to the antique, expecting exact coin
cidences IN both, IN erery respect, or ex-
pecting to find something in the anti
type answering to erery part Of the type"
For example, the brazen figure of the fly
ing fiery serpent, prepared by Moses, for
the Israelites in the wilderness, is suppos-
ed to be a type of Christ. "As Moses
lifted up the serpent in the wilderness
even so must the Son of man be lifted up y
Without cnumerating the points of sym
boical agreement between the brazen fig
urc of the flying fiery serpent, and Jesus
Christ, 1t is on Y necessary, to our present
purpose, to show wherein they disagree.
In the first place, then, the brazen fig
ure itself had no power to cure diseases
In this respect, therefore, the brazen figure
was not type of Christ; because Jesus
Christ had power on earth" to heal the
sick, restore sig hit to the blind, cause the
lame to walk, and make the deaf hear
In the second place, the brazen figure, haC
no power to forgive sins, But Christ hac
"powcr on earth to forgive sins" Come
unto me all ye that labor, and are heavy
? laden and Twill give you rest" Would
it have been safe for one Of the Israelite
s to reason from the brazen figure to its &C
f kno"}edged antitype, and to make use o
the unqualified language of our author
J. THAT there must be something in the anti
, type answering to erery part ofthe type.
] No course, in our apprehension, could b
; pursued, that would lead one farther fror
2 the truth, than this very course w
It therefore object, to the very principle, O.
o which the doctrine under cons liberation
e based Nor can we accountfor his Pec1ti
S lar views, in any other way, than that h
n has adopted an erroneous principle at tn
r onset of his discussion The reader ma
~ not be surprised, therefore, if in the cours
e of our remarks we should attempt to sho,
r. that some passages Of Scriptur have bee
- explained by our author, in very errone
.r Gus and fanciful manner, in order TO al
e swer the demands of that sweeping ape
s. thegm, on which he has based all his pt
l. culiarity ofsentiment In reasoning froI
i the type to the antitype he has laid dow
ID three things as preparatory to the atom
g ment under the Jewish ritual, and has e
es deavorcd to prove that these three thinE
= apply equally to the atonement made
is Christ. These preparatory things, a
ee l, an officiating high priest; 2, a suitab
he victim slain; s, confession of sin on Il
|" part of those for whom it was to be mad
er These were preparatory to the atoneme
er in the sacrifices made by the priests; b
will the antltype of these sacrifices afo
- circumstances, answering to erery pa