Monday, May 6, 2019

Why the spirit is sometimes personified


By James Yates 1850

The supernatural influence of God is sometimes personified; that is, it is spoken of, as if it were a person or intelligent being.

Personification is a common figure in all languages, but is in none so frequent as in those of the East. Hence almost all the common events and conditions of human life, and almost every power and disposition of the human mind is personified in the holy Scriptures. Considering therefore the very frequent mention of the Influence of God in the writings of the New Testament, it would have been truly surprising, if this influence had not been occasionally described as possessing personal properties: and, if we examine the passages, in which it is so represented, the figure will probably appear in no instance forced and unnatural even to the ears of those, who are accustomed to the plainer diction of western countries.

Acts v. 32. The Apostle Peter, after speaking before the Jewish council of the death, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus, states in the following terms the evidence, by which the reality of these facts was established. “We are his witnesses of these things, and so is also the holy spirit, which God hath given to them that obey him;” that is, The Apostles were witnesses of facts, which they knew in consequence of their attendance upon Jesus during his ministry, and also the miracles, which God enabled them to perform, were witnesses of the truth of their assertions. That, in this passage, “the holy spirit” does not mean God, is evident, because it is described as given by God. The way, in which the miraculous endowments of the Apostles bore witness to their doctrine, is illustrated by the following assertions of Jesus Christ himself: “The works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me;” John v. 36. “The works, that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me;” John x. 25. “If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; but, if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works;” ver. 37, 38. In these passages, as well as in the address of Peter, miracles are personified, and appealed to as the witnesses of certain facts. The only difference is, that in these passages they are called “works;” by Peter they are denominated “the holy spirit.”

Another passage, which represents the spirit as bearing witness, is Rom. viii. 16. “The spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God;” which signifies, “Our persuasion of the peculiar favour of God towards us is assured by the testimony of his gracious aid, direction, and consolation.”

Other natural and appropriate personifications of the Divine influence we find in our Saviour’s directions to his Apostles concerning the propagation of his gospel through the world. See Mat. x. 20. Mark xiii. 11. Luke xii. 12. He exhorts them to plead his cause with boldness and fortitude, when brought before kings and councils, and not to be anxious about what they should speak, since the holy spirit would teach them what to say, and in fact not they would speak, but rather the spirit of their heavenly Father would speak in them. What language could be more animating or encouraging? What assurance could better support their resolution in every critical situation? When placed at the bar of justice as criminals, the present aid of God would guide their utterance; Divine Inspiration would speak through their lips, humbling the pride of the great and confounding the wisdom of the wise.

But by far the most remarkable example of the personification of the holy spirit occurs in the affectionate address of Jesus to his Apostles before his crucifixion. I shall produce the portions of the address, in which this personification occurs.

John xiv. 16, 17. “I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another comforter, that he may abide with you for ever, even the spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him; but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless; I will come to you.”
 
Ver. 25, 26. “These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the comforter, which is the holy spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he  shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”
 
If these words were taken out of their connection, and interpreted without any reference to the general doctrine of the Scriptures, they would teach the real personality of the holy spirit. But it must be observed, that even here the comforter is said to be sent by the Father, which would prove, that, if a person, he is inferior to the Father.
 
Chap. xv. 26, 27. “But, when the comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me; and ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.”

If this passage proves the personality of the spirit, or comforter, it also proves him to be subordinate to Jesus Christ; for Jesus is represented as sending him to the Apostles, and the person, who sends, is necessarily greater than the person sent. Those, who consider this passage as an instance of personification, will perceive in it a close resemblance to the first passage quoted under this head. Peter there asserts in the name of the Apostles, “We are his witnesses of these things, and so is also the holy spirit.” But in the speech of Peter the spirit was proved to signify miraculous gifts; consequently it ought to be so understood in the parallel speech of Christ.
 
Ch. xvi. 6-15. In this passage, (which I omit quoting on account of its length,) not only is the comforter said to be sent by Christ, but it is also asserted, that he would not speak of himself, and would speak whatsoever he should hear.

If therefore our Lord’s consoling promises of the comforter be considered apart from the rest of the Scriptures, they disprove the Divinity of the holy spirit, and afford very dubious evidence even of his personality. But, considered in connection with the general doctrines of Scripture upon this subject, they appear only as an instance of personification. In this case indeed, the figure seems to be remarkably easy, appropriate, and natural. Whilst Jesus remained with his Apostles, he was their comforter; but, as he was about to depart from them, and saw that sorrow had filled their hearts, he tells them, that he would send to them in his own stead another comforter, who would never leave them, even the directing and preserving Influence of God upon their minds. The argument, which he employs to console them may be thus exprest; “A little while I have been with you; I have been your comforter; I have guided, instructed, and defended you. Now I go to him, that sent me, and ye shall see me no more. But I will send you instead of myself another comforter, who will remain with you as long as you live. Of his instruction, support, and consolation, you shall never be deprived.”

We find another singular example of the personification of the holy spirit in the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, ch. viii. 26, 27, “Likewise the spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.”

If this passage proves the personality of the holy spirit, it also proves his subjection to God. For, if intercession be the employment of a person, it is also the employment of an inferior. But the true meaning of the writer is, that, as we know not what we ought to pray for, the Divine Influence, which lends assistance to all our infirmities, suggests to our minds the proper subjects of petition, and prompts us to address ourselves to God with a right disposition of mind, thus praying on our behalf, and making intercession for us.

On similar principles we may explain the exhortation, several times repeated in the book of Revelation, (See Rev. ii. 7. 11. 17. 29. iii. 6. 13. 22,) “He, that hath an ear, let him hear, what the spirit saith unto the churches.” John was writing an account of what he saw and heard in vision, that is, by extraordinary operations of God upon his mind. He therefore calls on Christians to listen attentively to what was dictated by Divine Inspiration.

The only other passage of the New Testament, in which I find the Divine influence personified, is Rev. xiv. 13. “And I heard a voice from heaven, saying, “Write, Blessed are the dead, which die in the Lord from henceforth;’ ‘Yea, saith the spirit, (that is, The Divine Influence suggests to me this response,) “Yea, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.’”

I have to add under this division of the subject, that some persons may be disposed to consider as personifications of the Divine influence several of those passages, which were formerly explained as referring to the One True God, the Father. Although it appears to me, that, by interpreting the phrases “holy spirit” and “spirit of God” in those passages as other names of the Father, we adopt an explanation extremely easy and natural, and free from every objection, yet I allow, that most of them may be explained as personifications of the Divine influence without doing any violence to the rules of criticism. The reader is therefore left at liberty to reduce them to this 3rd head, if he sees fit.

Nor ought I to omit mentioning, that some very excellent persons have been induced by those passages, which speak of the holy spirit as a person, to believe in a created and subordinate holy spirit, directed and empowered by God to afford all necessary aid, comfort, and illumination to his creatures. Those, who think there is sufficient ground for this opinion, may hold it without infringing the great article of the Unity of God. For evidence might be collected to prove the inferiority of such a being to the Father almost as copious and overwhelming as that, which proves the subordination of Jesus Christ.

But, whatever differences of opinion may exist on these minor questions, one thing is clear; that the Scriptures attribute to God the Father, as their original author, all those blessings of wisdom, consolation, and spiritual aid, which are supplied through the medium of Jesus Christ, or of the holy spirit. For examples of what I here assert, the reader is referred to the following passages; 2 Cor. i. 3, 4. Phil. ii. 13. 1 Thes. v. 23. 2 Thes. ii. 16, 17. Heb. xiii. 20, 21. 1 Peter v. 10. He will find, that “the God of all comfort, who comforteth us in all our tribulation,” and who “worketh in us that which is well pleasing in his sight through Jesus Christ,” is “our God and Father,” “the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” “the Father of mercies,” and “the very God of peace, who brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus”.”

Sunday, May 5, 2019

The New World Translation and "Play False" at Acts 5:3


From: http://www.kevinquick.com/kkministries/books/reasoning/nwt.html
Q4. Are there other verses in which the New World Translation disagrees with the original Greek and with the standard independent translations of the Bible?
Acts 5:3-But Peter said: "Ananias, why has Satan emboldened you to play false [Gr. lie] to the holy spirit and to hold back secretly some of the price of the field?"

Reply: It should be noted that the newer edition of the NWT uses the word "lie" here. However, the greek word here PSEUDOMAI (Strong's 5574) is explained as "attempt to decieve by falsehood" (Strong's). Thayer's has "to speak deliberate falsehoods." (see also BDAG Lexicon). Rotherham has "deal falsely". Weymouth's New Testament has "deceived," (see also Eonian Life Bible New Testament). Phillips and Nicholas King have "cheat" and Knox has "defraud."

Friday, May 3, 2019

But the NWT Translates Differently than the Kingdom Interlinear.


But the NWT Translates Differently than the Kingdom Interlinear.

This is a video (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-gQxCDkWZA )trying to make the point that the New World Translation translates differently than an Interlinear. I don't really understand the logic here. Bibles are not supposed to translate as an interlinear. The NWT translators understood this and that is why they had no problem publishing the Kingdom Interlinear to show this. I can take any Bible translation and show discrepancies between the translated text and an interlinear.

The Greek New Testament has between 138,000 to 140,000 words, depending on which Greek text one is using (TR, UBS, Nestle-Aland). But no English translation has this few. The RSV has 173,293 words, the NRSV has 176,417, the REB has 176,705 and the Good News Bible has 192,784 words. Also, translating strictly word-for-word misses out on specific idioms and does not always convey the true meaning. Greek is Greek, Hebrew is Hebrew and English is English. They are all very different languages. There is one example where the phrase: "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak" was translated into Russian and then back to English, the result was "The vodka is good, but the meat is rotten."

The video gives many Christological examples where the New World Translation has supposedly "altered" the translation, but many other translations have done similarly as the NWT. For instance, underneath this video, the producer, truthoutmedia pointed out that the word "other" was added to John 3:31 in the NWT. So I checked the two greatest Bible translators of all time, James Moffatt and Edgar Goodspeed, and they did the same thing in their translations (Charles B. Williams, the New English Bible and the Revised English Bible did likewise). Why? Because the word "other" is a legitimate part of the Greek word PAS (all). Much of what is pointed here is also translated similarly in other Bibles. This reminds me of something the great John Locke once wrote: "There is scarcely one text alleged by the Trinitarians which is not otherwise expounded by their own writers".

Wednesday, May 1, 2019

The New World Translation and the Memorial Tombs (Matt 27:52, 53)


From http://www.kevinquick.com/kkministries/books/reasoning/nwt.html

Matt 27:52-53-And the memorial tombs were opened and many bodies of the holy ones that had fallen asleep were raised up, (and persons, coming out from among the memorial tombs after his being raised up, entered into the holy city,) and they became visible to many people. [Gr. and the tombs were opened and many bodies of the having fallen asleep saints were raised; and coming forth out of the tombs after the rising of him entered into the holy city and appeared to many.]

Answer: I think the above example shows a good example of how faithfully the NWT renders this passage, especially after reading the NIV, Good News Bible and others that insert words like "raised TO LIFE". I wonder if Mr Quick objects to these interpolations? Protestant Bible Commentator, Adam Clarke, states: "It is difficult to account for the transaction mentioned in Mt 27 verses 52 and 53. Some have thought that these two verses have been introduced into the text of Matthew from the gospel of the Nazarenes, others think the simple meaning is this:—by the earthquake several bodies that had been buried were thrown up and exposed to view, and continued above ground till after Christ's resurrection, and were seen by many persons in the city. Why the graves should be opened on Friday, and the bodies not raised to life till the following Sunday, is difficult to be conceived. The place is extremely obscure." Jesus mentioned a resurrection of life or judgement at John 5:28, 29, but this account states that neither happened.

Thursday, April 25, 2019

The New World Translation and the Words Sharing/Fellowship


From http://www.kevinquick.com/kkministries/books/reasoning/nwt.html

Does the New World Translation give accurate translations of Bible verses pertaining to the Christian's personal relationship with Jesus Christ?

1 Cor 1:9-God is faithful, by whom you were called into a sharing [Gr. fellowship] with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

2 Cor 11:3-But I am afraid that somehow, as the serpent seduced Eve by its cunning, your minds might be corrupted away from the sincerity and the chastity that are due the Christ [Gr. the simplicity and the purity in Christ].

2 Cor 13:5-Or do you not recognize that Jesus Christ is in union with you [Gr. Jesus Christ is in you]?

1 John 1:3-Furthermore, this sharing [Gr. fellowship] of ours is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.

Reply: 1 Corinthians 1:9 the latest edition of the NWT does use the word "fellowship" with the word "sharing" in the footnote. A quick check at Vine's Expository Dictionary will let you know that the Greek word used here, KOINONIA can mean "sharing in common" as well as "fellowship". The Bible in Basic English, Revised English Bible, Simple English Bible, Moffatt's Bible, and the New English Bible read similarly to the older NWT.

As far as 2 Cor 11:3, few Bibles read exactly like you state, the American Standard Version being one I could find. The newer NWT uses the word "purity" in the footnotes. Many others use the word "sincerity" or "sincere" just like the NWT (see NIV, RSV, Amplified, NAB) and as for chastity/purity, see CHASTE in Vine's Dictionary and also Weymouth, Smith&Goodspeed (fidelity) and Rotherham (chasteness).

As far as using the words "in union with" see my post on this at: The New World Translation Bible and the Words "In Union With" and you will see that this has great support.

The Revised English has a nice comment on this: The phrase “in union with” is the translation of the Greek word en...We agree with Lenski (The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, and Philippians), that the en in this verse is used in its “static” sense, indicating a relationship: a union with, or a connection with, and that it is not an “instrumental use of en,” meaning “through” or “by way of” (see also W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary and Hawthorne and Martin, Word Biblical Commentary). We are “in Christ,” that is, “in union with Christ,” or “connected to” Christ, by virtue of being a member of his Body and identified with him. We feel that the verse is saying that we are strong by virtue of being in union with Christ rather than we are strong “through” Christ.
The static sense of en (“in”) is important in the New Testament but not well understood by most English readers. We understand the normal sense of “in,” and know what it is to be “in” a boat, “in” a house, or even “in the night” (Matt. 4:21; 5:15; John 11:10). But what does it mean to be “in Christ,” “in the Lord,” or “in him?” It means to be in connection with, in relationship with, or in union with. We feel “in union with” is the best English translation in this context because of its other uses in the New Testament.
https://www.revisedenglishversion.com/Philippians/chapter4/13

The PDF at https://www.wenstrom.org/downloads/written/word_studies/greek/en.pdf states that "in union with (association), (is) a marker of close personal association."

As far as 1 John 1:3, the latest edition of the NWT does use the word "fellowship" here.

Wednesday, April 24, 2019

The New World Translation and John 17:3



Q2. Does the New World Translation give accurate translations of Bible verses which explain the requirements for salvation?
John 17:3-"This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you [Gr. that they may know you], the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ."

Answer: Is "that they may know you" really that different from "their taking in knowledge of you"? No!
A quick look at Strong's numbers will clear this up(1097 GINOSKO) = "to know, in a great variety of applications and with many implications(as follow, with others not thus clearly expressed): -allow, be aware(of) feel, (have) know(ledge), perceive, be resolved, can speak, be sure, understand". In fact, Vine's Expository Dictionary gives "to be taking in knowledge" as the first definition of GINOSKO.
Expository Dictionary of Bible Words by Stephen D. Renn uses the word "knowledge" five times under GINOSKO (see also Abingdon New Testament Commentaries; 1, 2, and 3 John By Karen H. Jobes)

"The prophet envisioned the day when 'the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea' (Isaiah 11:9); and Jesus said that knowledge of God is eternal life John 17:3)."
The Faith of the Church: A Reformed Perspective on Its Historical Development By Maurice Eugene Osterhaven, p. 3

Albert Barnes links John 17:3 to 2 Peter 1:3 in his Notes: "According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue."

"Is not the knowledge of God a great privilege? Yes: for this is life eternal, to know thee the only truc God, John xvii. 3. Is it not the best knowledge? Yes: for the knowledge of the Holy is understanding, Prov. ix. 10." Matthew Henry [The Miscellaneous Works of the Rev. Matthew Henry, Volume 2, p.868]

However, the newer edition of the New World Translation now translates GINOSKO as "their coming to know you" with the older reading as a footnote.

Rom 10:9-10-For if you publicly declare [Gr. confess] that word in your own mouth, that Jesus
is Lord, and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved.
For with the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration [Gr. one confesses] for salvation.

Answer: The Same Greek word for confess(HOMOLOGEO) is also used at Matt 7:23 as declare. NKJV
Vine's Expository Dictionary gives "to declare openly by way of speaking out freely, such confession
being the effect of deep conviction of facts" as one definition. Smith&Goodspeed, Schonfield, 20th
Century NT, J.B. Phillips, Jewish NT, Living Bible, New Life NT, CEV, Williams NT, etc also do not
use "confesses" and read similarly to the NWT.

John Brown's An Exposition of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (1766) on page 408 uses "openly declare."

"'that, if thou shalt confess, with thy mouth, the Lord Jesus,'—if thou openly and publicly declare" [Lectures doctrinal and practical on the Epistle of Paul to the Romans 1838 https://tinyurl.com/yymkmvuj [See also Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans By Frédéric Louis Godet, page 383]

Tuesday, April 23, 2019

The Doctrine of the Trinity Irrational and Unscriptural by William Ellery Channing


The Doctrine of the Trinity Irrational and Unscriptural by William Ellery Channing

 We object to the doctrine of the Trinity, that, whilst acknowledging in words, it subverts in effect, the unity of God. According to this doctrine, there are three infinite and equal persons, possessing supreme divinity, called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Each of these persons, as described by theologians, has his own particular consciousness, will, and perceptions. They love each other, converse with each other, and delight in each other’s society. They perform different parts in man’s redemption, each having his appropriate office, and neither doing the work of the other. The Son is mediator and not the Father. The Father sends the Son, and is not himself sent; nor is he conscious, like the Son, of taking flesh. Here, then, we have three intelligent agents, possessed of different consciousnesses, different wills, and different perceptions, performing different acts, and sustaining different relations; and if these things do not imply and constitute three minds or beings, we are utterly at a loss to know how three minds or beings are to be formed. It is difference of properties, and acts, and consciousness, which leads us to the belief of different intelligent beings, and, if this mark sails us, our whole knowledge falls; we have no proof, that all the agents and persons in the universe are not one and the same mind. When we attempt to conceive of three Gods, we can do nothing more than represent to ourselves three agents, distinguished from each other by similar marks and peculiarities to those which separate the persons of the Trinity; and when common Christians hear these persons spoken of as conversing with each other, loving each other, and performing different acts, how can they help regarding them as different beings, different minds?

We do, then, with all earnestness, though without reproaching our brethren, protest against the irrational and unscriptural doctrine of the Trinity. “To us,” as to the Apostle and the primitive Christians, “there is one God, even the Father.” With Jesus, we worship the Father, as the only living and true God. We are astonished, that any man can read the New Testament, and avoid the conviction, that the Father alone is God. We hear our Saviour continually appropriating this character to the Father. We find the Father continually distinguished from Jesus by this title. “God sent his Son.” “God anointed Jesus.” Now, how singular and inexplicable is this phraseology, which fills the New Testament, if this title belong equally to Jesus, and if a principal object of this book is to reveal him as God, as partaking equally with the Father in supreme divinity! We challenge our opponents to adduce one passage in the New Testament, where the word God means three persons, where it is not limited to one person, and where, unless turned from its usual sense by the connexion, it does not mean the Father. Can stronger proof be given, that the doctrine of three persons in the Godhead is not a fundamental doctrine of Christianity?

This doctrine, were it true, must, from its difficulty, singularity, and importance, have been laid down with great clearness, guarded with great care, and stated with all possible precision. But where does this statement appear? From the many passages which treat of God, we ask for one, one only, in which we are told, that he is a threefold being, or that he is three persons, or that he is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. On the contrary, in the New Testament, where, at least, we might expect many express assertions of this nature, God is declared to be one, without the least attempt to prevent the acceptation of the words in their common sense; and he is always spoken of and addressed in the singular number, that is, in language which was universally understood to intend a single person, and to which no other idea could have been attached, without an express admonition. So entirely do the Scriptures abstain from stating the Trinity, that when our opponents would insert it into their creeds and doxologies, they are compelled to leave the Bible, and to invent forms of words altogether unsanctioned by Scriptural phraseology. That a doctrine so strange, so liable to misapprehension, so fundamental as this is said to be, and requiring such careful exposition, should be left so undefined and unprotected, to be made out by inference, and to be hunted through distant and detached parts of Scripture, this is a difficulty, which, we think, no ingenuity can explain.

We have another difficulty. Christianity, it must be remembered, was planted and grew up amidst sharp-sighted enemies, who overlooked no objectionable part of the system, and who must have fastened with great earnestness on a doctrine involving such apparent contradictions as the Trinity. We cannot conceive an opinion, against which the Jews, who prided themselves on an adherence to God's unity, would have raised an equal clamor. Now, how happens it, that in the apostolic writings, which relate so much to objections against Christianity, and to the controversies which grew out of this religion, not one word is said, implying that objections were brought against the Gospel from the doctrine of the Trinity, not one word is uttered in its defence and explanation, not a word to rescue it from reproach and mistake? This argument has almost the force of demonstration. We are persuaded, that had three divine persons been announced by the first preachers of Christianity, all equal, and all infinite, one of whom was the very Jesus who had lately died on a cross, this peculiarity of Christianity would have almost absorbed every other, and the great labor of the Apostles would have been to repel the continual assaults, which it would have awakened. But the fact is, that not a whisper of objection to Christianity, on that account, reaches our ears from the apostolic age. In the Epistles we see not a trace of controversy called forth by the Trinity.

We have further objections to this doctrine, drawn from its practical influence. We regard it as unfavorable to devotion, by dividing and distracting the mind in its communion with God. It is a great excellence of the doctrine of God’s unity, that it offers to us one object of supreme homage, adoration, and love, One Infinite Father, one Being of beings, one original and fountain, to whom we may refer all good, in whom all our powers and affections may be concentrated, and whose lovely and venerable nature may pervade all our thoughts. True piety, when directed to an undivided Deity, has a chasteness, a singleness, most favorable to religious awe and love. Now, the Trinity sets before us three distinct objects of supreme adoration; three infinite persons, having equal claims on our hearts; three divine agents, performing different offices, and to be acknowledged and worshipped in different relations. And is it possible, we ask, that the weak and limited mind of man can attach itself to these with the same power and joy, as to One Infinite Father, the only First Cause, in whom all the blessings of nature and redemption meet as their centre and source? Must not devotion be distracted by the equal and rival claims of three equal persons, and must not the worship of the conscientious, consistent Christian, be disturbed by an apprehension, lest he withhold from one or another of these, his due proportion of homage?

We also think, that the doctrine of the Trinity injures devotion, not only by joining to the Father other objects of worship, but by taking from the Father the supreme affection, which is his due, and transferring it to the Son. This is a most important view. That Jesus Christ, if exalted into the infinite Divinity, should be more interesting than the Father, is precisely what might be expected from history, and from the principles of human nature. Men want an object of worship like themselves, and the great secret of idolatry lies in this propensity. A God, clothed in our form, and feeling our wants and sorrows, speaks to our weak nature more strongly, than a Father in heaven, a pure spirit, invisible and unapproachable, save by the reflecting and purified mind. We think, too, that the peculiar offices ascribed to Jesus by the popular theology, make him the most attractive person in the Godhead. The Father is the depositary of the justice, the vindicator of the rights, the avenger of the laws of the Divinity. On the other hand, the Son, the brightness of the divine mercy, stands between the incensed Deity and guilty humanity, exposes his meek head to the storms, and his compassionate breast to the sword of the divine justice, bears our whole load of punishment, and purchases with his blood every blessing which descends from heaven. Need we state the effect of these representations, especially on common minds, for whom Christianity was chiefly designed, and whom it seeks to bring to the Father as the loveliest being? We do believe, that the worship of a bleeding, suffering God, tends strongly to absorb the mind, and to draw it from other objects, just as the human tenderness of the Virgin Mary has given her so conspicuous a place in the devotions of the Church of Rome. We believe, too, that this worship, though attractive, is not most fitted to spiritualize the mind, that it awakens human transport, rather than that deep veneration of the moral persections of God, which is the essence of piety.