NYDIA'S SONG.

The Wind and the Beam loved the Rose,
And the Rose loved one;

For who seeks the wind where it blows?
Or loves not the sun?

None knew whence the humble wind stole,
For sport of the skies:

None dreamed that the wind had a soul,
In its mournful sighs.

Oh! happy Beam-how canst thou prove,
That bright love of thine?

In thy light is the proof of thy love,

Thou hast but- -to shine.

How its love can the wind reveal?
Unwelcome its sigh:

Mute-mute to its Rose let it steal-
Its proof is

to die! "

Have we duly expressed what we wished? Impossible: for in the chapter of this single mind, is text for a commentary of many volumes on itself, and that spirit of the age with which it has been nurtured. But if we have excited a few to sympathy, or suggested any new idea to others, it is sufficient.

LETTERS ON THE DEITY OF CHRIST.-NO. II.

ART. V.-To the Rev. Nathaniel West, Pastor of the Presbyterian Society in Meadville, Pa.

REV. AND DEAR SIR:-I shall now proceed to examine in what character our Saviour offered himself to the Jews, and was rejected by them; and shall endeavor to shew, that it was not as God, but as the Messiah, or Christ. But before I enter on this examination, I wish to inquire first, into the true meaning of the term Christ, and Son of God, as I suspect that, from the popular theology of the day, certain ideas of a proper Deity have come to be connected with them, which do not belong to them, and serve to mislead the multitude when reading the scriptures.

The name Christ, is derived from the Greek, and is the same as the Hebrew term Messiah. Its meaning in English, is, anointed. Its origin is to be found in the custom, which

prevailed among the Jews, of consecrating or setting apart persons to certain offices, by the ceremony of pouring oil on their heads, which was called, anointing them; and the persons who had been thus set apart, were called, the anointed. By an easy transition, rulers and others in office, came to be called anointed, although they had not actually undergone the ceremony of anointing; and in the same manner, this title came to be applied to persons, whom God had, in a particular manner, set apart, to be his Agents in bringing about great events. It is thus that Cyrus, though a heathen, was called the anointed (Messiah or Christ) of the Lord;(a) and it is by this name, that the Jews designated that great prophet and deliverer, whom they expected.

It is plain from this, that the term anointed, or Christ, does not involve the idea of proper Deity. On. the contrary, it excludes the idea, as the term anointing, clearly includes, a delegation of office, or power, not possessed before. It is equally plain, whether we consult the Scriptures, or other Jewish writings, that the Jews did not expect their Messiah, to be the Supreme God, but merely God's Messenger, and a descendant of their king, David. Hence it follows, that when in the Scriptures we meet with the terms, Messiah or Christ, we must not associate with them any idea of proper Deity.

With the name of Son of God, many persons associate the idea of proper Deity; and yet the very name excludes this idea, for it would be absurd to say of God, that he was his own son. The term Son of God, is frequently used in the Scriptures; but there, it is applied to dependent beings. Thus in the book of Job, it is applied to the angels.(b) In the Psalms, it is applied to the princes of Israel;(c) and by the prophet Hosea, it is applied to the Jews themselves.(d)

In the New Testament,(e) the title Sons of God, is frequently given to such Christians, as formed their characters after the example and precepts of our Saviour; and it appears to me, that the idea of the inheritance of eternal life, was in some measure, connected with it. But although this title be thus frequently applied to men, and it be thus conclusively shewn, that no ideas of proper Deity belong to it; yet. it was in a peculiar manner, applied to the Messiah or Christ, as the Son of God, by preeminence. What led the Jews to apply this name, or title, thus particularly to their expected Messiah, cannot now be known with certainty; but the fact is incontrovertible, that the titles, Messiah, Christ, Son of God, Son of

a Isa xlvi. 1, b Job, 1, 6, 11, 1. xxxviii. 7. c Ps. lxxxii. 6. d Hos. 1. 10. e John 1. 12. Rom. viii. 14 and 19. Phil. ii. 15. 1 John, iii. 1. 2.

David, and King of Israel, were all indiscriminately used by the Jews, to designate their long-expected Deliverer, and are therefore to be considered as controvertible, wherever we 'meet with them in the New Testament. I shall here refer, only to a few passages, from which this will plainly appear.

In the 1st chapter of John's gospel, from the 40th to the 49th verse, we read as follows:-"One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him-"We have found the Messiah;" (which is, being interpreted the Christ.) And he brought him to Jesus."-"Philip findeth Nathaniel, and saith unto him-"We have found him of whom Moses, in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Joseph."-"Nathaniel answered, and saith unto him;" Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel.". In this passage, the terms Messiah, Christ, Son of God, and King of Israel, are evidently used as convertible. In the 1st Epistle of John, the convertibility of the terms Christ, and Son of God, is established in a syllogistic manner. In the 5th chapter we read: "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God. Whatsoever is born of God, overcometh the world. Who is he, that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God." John x, 24: Jesus acknowledges himself to be the Christ; and in the 36th verse he says, that he has 'avowed himself the Son of God. In the memorable confession of Peter, he addresses our Saviour, according to Matthew,(a) as "the Christ, the Son of the living God." According to Luke,(b) he called him, "the Christ of God;" and according to Mark,(c) simply, "the Christ." What renders it still more evident, that the two titles, by which Peter addressed our Saviour, according to Matthew, were considered as perfectly sinonymous, is, that in the 20th verse, he enjoins on his disciples, that they should tell no one, that he was the Christ; without giving them any injunction of secrecy with respect to his being the Son of God, an injunction, which would have been indispensable, if this latter appellation had been in its meaning, different from, and expressive of a still higher dignity than the former. In Luke, 1. 15, the angel says, that Jesus shall be called, the Son of God, on account of his miraculous birth, or as deriving his being immediately from God. In this sense, too, Adam is called the Son of God, Luke iii. 38. It appears to me, however, that, indepen

a' Matt. xvi. 16. b Luke ix. 20. c Mark ix. 29.

dent of this, the Jews were in the habit of designating by this title, their expected Messiah.

Having thus endeavored to shew, that no ideas of proper Deity are connected with the terms Christ, and Son of God, I shall now pass to my main inquiry, namely; In what character our Saviour was announced to the Jews, and rejected by

them.

About 1500 years before Christ, Moses predicted his advent in these words: "The Lord thy God, will raise up unto thee a prophet, from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken."(a)

On this passage, I would remark, that in it the personage promised to the Israelites, is designated, not as the supreme God, but as "a prophet like unto Moses," and to be taken from among themselves. If it be objected to this passage, that the prophecy contained in it, did not in its original acceptation, refer to Christ, but to Joshua, I admit the fact. But it was by the apostle Peter, applied to Christ,(b) and must therefore have been deemed by him perfectly applicable.

When the angel foretells to Mary, the approaching birth of the Saviour,(c) he announces him, not as God, but as the Messiah, who should be called "the Son of the Highest," and to whom the Lord God should give the throne of his father David. When the angel announces his birth to the shepherds of Bethlehem,(d) he announces him, not as God, but as Christ the Lord.

To Simon, the Holy Spirit revealed him as the Lord's Christ, or Messiah;(e) and it was in the same character, that he was revealed at his baptism,(f) when there came a voice from Heaven, saying: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

We have here, four different instances, in which our Saviour is revealed, not through the fallible instrumentality of men, but through the immediate agency of God himself; and I now ask you, sir, whether there is any thing in the attending circumstances, as we find them revealed, which can lead us to suppose, that any of those, to whom these revelations were made, considered Jesus to be the Supreme Ruler of the Universe? Was it his mother, who nursed him? who saw him increase in wisdom and stature?(g) who tenderly chid him?(h) or who saw him expiring in agony on the cross?(i) Was it Simon, who took him in his arms?(j) Was it the shepherds,

a Deut. xvii. 15. b Acts iii. 22. Luke i. 31, 32. d Luke ii. 10. 11. e Luke ii. 26.f Matt. iii. 17. g Luke ii. 52. h Luke ii., 48. i John xix. 25. jLuke ii. 28. k Luke ii.

16.

who saw him lying a helpless babe, in a manger?(a) Or was it the multitude present at his baptism, who saw him ascending out of the water? With respect to these latter, particularly, I would ask you, sir, whether it is possible, that they could believe, that the God, whose voice they heard from Heaven, and the man, they saw standing among them, were one and the same identical deing?

If we pass to the declarations of the Saviour himself, we shall find, that he never, in express terms, and, as I believe,. never, by fair implication, announced himself to the Jews as God. But we find him constantly offering himself to them, as the Messiah, Christ, or Son of God, and claiming to be received by them, in that character. From among many, I shall only select a few texts, to establish this point. Matt. xxv. 63, 64, we read: "And the high priest said unto him-"I adjure thee, by the living God, that thou tell us, whether thou be the Christ,the Son of God." Jesus saith unto him, "thou hast said." John iv. 25, 26. When the woman of Samaria tells our Saviour, "I know that Messiah cometh, (which is called Christ;) when he is come, he will tell us all things;" he answered her, "I that speak unto thee am he."

Jesus asks the man whom he had cured of his blindness, John ix. 15, 37: "Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said: "Who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him?" And Jesus said unto him; "thou hastboth seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee." John viii. 24, we read: "If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." John viii. 28: "Then said Jesus unto them-When ye have lift up the son of man, then shall ye know that I am he." And John xiii. 19: Jasus tells his disciples-"Now I tell you before it come, that when it come to pass, ye may believe that I am he."

In the last three texts, the Messiah or Christ, is designated by the personal pronoun, he. It is supposed, that this mode of mentioning the Messiah, had its origin in the fear of arousing the jealousy of the Romans. Judea was at this time a Roman province. In the minds of the Jews, the advent of the Messiah was connected with ideas of deliverance from this foreign yoke; and consequently, with ideas of revolt against the Roman power; and hence, probably, arose this covered mode of referring to this expected Deliverer.

The last passage I shall cite under this head, is taken from the affecting intercessory prayer, which our Saviour made, just previous to his last sufferings; and is recorded in the sev

a Matt, iii. 17.