Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1836-09-01

the subject sufficiently for his purpose
lie informs US that the Hebrew word
which is translated into the English Ian
guage by the word atonement is Gopher
Had Daleth read the Heb. with poin,s for
himself, he probabl y would have written
1t hGPh0r, which is used technically, in
the following places, not as the noun atone
me"t but as verb, signifving to make
atonement, Elk XXX: Is, and xxi: 80,
Lev. ": 20, IS, and V: IS, and xvi: 6,
II, II, "a, SO; Mum. vi: II. 1t also
occurs in Eek. xiv: II, where it is trans
lated reconciliation.
He informs US that this Heb. word
gopher, as he writes it, was translated into
the septuaglnt BY the Greek word iIasm0s.
In this NJ. thinks he is mistaken-for in
all the passages above referred to it IS
translated by the Greek verb iLask0mai,
and not by the noun ltaSmOS. The word
'IaSmoS, as used in the septua gint, means
Vlctlm-the animal which was produced
and slain and with whose blood atonement
was made. 1t is so used in Mum. V: s.
and Eek. Xiv: 27. In these passages
1t means the victim which was. or was to
be offered as propitiatory sacrifice. 1t
! is found on y twice in the FIESTA
ment, viz: John il: 2, and iv: 10, IN
both Of which places it means the same
thing. | do not find that it is any where
used to signify cover or a covering.
There are two words which by the 70
were used to express that idea The first
is HdSterlO@ and is used technically in ref
erence to the mercy-seat, as may be seen in
Ex XIV: II, 20, and XII: 20; Lev. xvi :
2, IS, and probably came to be rendered
covering from the fact that the mercy-s2at
was the cover for the ark of the testimony
The second is A0t0pet0Sn a, which COM
monty signifies veil, but in Elk. XVI: 81,
and xxxvii 6, it is used by motonymy
! fol IastCri0n-marcy-sca1. And | do not
! find that either Of these words or llasm0S
are any where used for aonement, or are
so rendered IN our English Bib!e, fact
which Da}cth probahl y overlooked. Da-
! Ieth quotes a variety Of passages to show
that Christ made atonement on calvary in
the capacity Of suffering victim but un-
fortunately for his position the word
atonement does not occur in either Of the
passages to which he refers. He seems
to have been led into an error by con-
! founding two things in his own mind,
which the writers both Of the Old and
New Testament, kept distinct, viz: atone
ment and Precipitation. These are never
used INTERCHANGEABLE by the writers of the
Bible The Greek word iIash0m0j, by
which the Heb word kaphor, sigrifying
to make atonement, is uniforml y translat-
ed in the septuagint, is found only once in
the New Testament, and in that place it
shows plainly that it is in the capacity of
an officiating high priest, and not that of a
suffering victim, that Christ makes atone
mcnt 1t is found in Heb. ii: RI, "where-
fore in all things it bchoovcd him TO be
made like unto his brethren; that he
might be a mercitul and faithful high
priest in things pertaining to God to make
reconciliation for the sins of the people, "
i. e. to make atonement for the sins of the
people, as it should have been translated.
Daleth quotes Is. lii: 5, But he was
wounded &c. and Pet ii "A, "Who
his own self bare our sins &c. to prove
that the atonement was made on Calvary,
but NJ. cannot see that these passages are at
all to his purpose. In the typical sacrif-
ces the sins of those for whom atonement
was to be made were hguratively laid up
on the head of the victim. They laid
their hands upon its head and confessed
over it their sins and the victim was said
to bear their sins but the atonement did
not consist in this act nor In the death O.
the victim but in the sprinklng of Its
blood upon the mercy-seat. The hguta'
. tive bearing Of our sins and making O
atoncment are two things
Daleth has undertaken to disprove the
following principle laid down by NJ L
= is an acknowledged point that there nus
be something in the antique answering te
every part of the type For this pur
pose he has selected John iii: IA, Is
LAS Moses lifted up the serpent" &c.
and endeavored to show disslmiIarity II
$ some points between the brazen serpen
d and Christ. Now if there were hun
J. dred points of dissm1arity between tn
: object selected for type, and the antltyP
; it would not at all affect the principle Ia'
a down. When an object is selected as
1t ty pc, it is not necessarily implied that ev
d, cry part of that object is typical, but i
v those particulars, and so far as it is atyP
l. there must be something in the antltyp
10 answering to every part of it. Ernes
laws down the only safe rule by which
n ascertain what are types. 1t is in sui
is, stance this : That zoe can only kmo'c the
T.? ann thing IS type, By its being declare
c. to be so By the Holy Ghost: Whatever
Sc the old dispensation, is represented {
N. Christ or the writers of the New Test
- ment to be typical may be safely relied
se as such. 1t is not points of supposed
of semblance which makes one thing tyI
gs and another its antique, but the fact tn