means of a tempest he aided David to overcome his enemies. In Is. xli. he is said to have come, when his power was manifested through human instrumentality, viz. by raising up Cyrus for the deliverance of his people.

"Who hath raised up from the region of the East

Him, whom victory meeteth in his march?

Who hath subdued nations before him,

And given him dominion over kings?
Who made their swords like dust,

And their bows like driven stubble ?

He pursued them, and passed in safety,

By a path, which his foot had never trodden.
Who hath wrought and done it?

I Jehovah, I, the first;

I, the last."

In the same way, if this chapter refer to the times when Jesus appeared, Jehovah came to his people and his temple, when he raised up a "Saviour, who was Christ the Lord," "the Mediator of the new covenant," imparting to him the spirit without measure, so that he spake as never man spake, and performed miracles, which no one could have performed, unless God were with him.

If, then, the Messiah be denoted by "the Lord, whom ye seek," there is no evidence, and no probability, that the prophet conceived of him, as identical with Jehovah.

But, secondly, if we admit what is, perhaps, most probable, that by the Lord, whom ye seek," is intended Jehovah, manifesting himself, in the temple recently built, as the ruler and judge of his people, as he did in the days of old, a manifestation, which the prophet and his contemporaries might be looking for with great anxiety, then the Messiah is not denoted by the expression under consideration. The change of person from the first to the third, although there is no change of the subject, is very common in Hebrew poetry. If, as Hengstenberg himself maintains, the name is a term applied to designate Jehovah alone, and if the mention of his "coming to his temple," proves that the term is applied to him, then where is the proof, that the Messiah is designated by the term? I know of no argument, unless it can be shown, that the conjunction in the following line, must necessarily be translated Even, as in the Common Version, instead of And, as we have

translated it, and as it is translated in all the ancient versions. We hope it is not necessary to prove that the conjunction may be translated and. Perhaps some may suppose that the parallelism requires, that "the messenger of the covenant," should be regarded as the same person as "the Lord, whom ye seek." But whoever will read the book of Malachi will perceive, that the parallelism is very little regarded by him, and that no argument can be drawn from it in this case. When it is said, then, "And the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, and the messenger of the covenant whom ye desire," we may understand the Supreme Being to be denoted by "the Lord, whom ye seek," and the Messiah by the messenger of the covenant." Thus in Titus ii. 13, we read of" the glorious appearing of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ.

There is yet another explanation of the passage in question. It has been supposed, that by "messenger, or angel, of the covenant," is meant the Supreme Being, and that there is no express mention of the Messiah in the chapter. In this case, "angel" is supposed to denote some manifestation of the divine presence, by which the covenant had been, or would be, giv

en.

The usage of the term in Gen. xlviii. 16, is adduced in favor of this explanation. "May God, before whom my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, did walk, the God, which led me all my life long unto this day, the angel, which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads!" See also Zech. xii. 8.

We have now gone through the weary labor of remarking upon all of one class of texts, adduced by Hengstenberg, and published under the authority of the learned in this country, for the purpose of proving the Deity of the Messiah from the Old Testament; the weary labor we say, because the subject presents so little difficulty to our minds, that we have felt as if we were explaining what was plain without explanation, and arguing where no argument was needed. But knowing that what is plain to us, is not so to a very large portion of the Christian community, we have endeavoured to give our reasons for the rejection of what we regard as a very great error. We have said nothing of the inconsistency with reason of the doctrine we have opposed, or even of its inconsistency with the emphatic declarations and the general tenor of the Old Testament concerning the unity of Jehovah; but have purposely based our arguments on the plainest principles of interpretation.

We regard the subject as important, not only as relating to a class of passages of Scripture, which are extensively misunderstood, but because, as has been hinted before, the manner in which the doctrine of the Deity of the Messiah, or the doctrine of the Trinity, might be expected to be taught by Jesus and his Apostles, depends much upon the question, whether it were taught by them as a new doctrine, or merely alluded. to by them as one already existing and established. Any one who is, after careful examination, convinced that these doctrines are not to be found in the Old Testament, will hardly be able to satisfy himself that they are revealed in the New.

In some future number we propose to examine another class of passages adduced by Hengstenberg, viz. those, in which mention is made of the "angel of Jehovah," who is supposed by our author to be identical with the Messiah.

G. R. N.

ART. II. Observations on the Influence of Religion upon the Health and Physical Welfare of Mankind. By AMARIAH BRIGHAM, M. D. Boston: Marsh, Capen, & Lyon. 1835. 12mo. pp. 331.

A FORMER work by Dr. Brigham on a kindred subject, "Remarks on the Influence of Mental Cultivation upon Health," was favorably noticed in this Journal,* soon after its appearance. The present publication bears marks, on almost every page, of having proceeded from the same pen, — curious, versatile, and satiric, not always equally profound or discreet, but still generally both amusing and instructive, and, even when in error, not often offensive. Writing as he does in the very heart of Connecticut, (for he is a physician in extensive practice at Hartford, in that State,) we should indeed think, that the freedoms taken by him with some of the great Orthodox movements of the day would not be likely to win for him in that quarter canonization. Perhaps, however, as he writes with the air of one who has no particular point to carry, nor any

* Christian Examiner for March, 1833. Vol. XIV. p. 129.

party to serve, and as if prescribing to a patient rather than arguing with an opponent, his strictures, caustic as many of them are, may be taken in good part, even by those on whom they bear most heavily. At any rate, we suspect that in the most Orthodox communities, and even in Orthodox churches, among intelligent laymen, there are many who will feel the truth and force of most of his allegations, and be glad to find that one of their own number has had the courage and independence to publish them to the world. Besides, whatever Dr. Brigham may think of particular dogmas, or of particular manifestations of the religious sentiment, there can be no doubt in any fair mind, that he recognises and venerates the sentiment itself, and would not knowingly do any thing to hinder its cultivation and developement, or its legitimate influences, either in individuals, or in society at large.

In order to give greater completeness to the work considered as a general survey of "the influence of religion upon the health and physical welfare of mankind," the author is led in the first three chapters to allow more space, than was, we think, required, to accounts of such abuses and enormities, practised under the name of religion, as human sacrifices, mutilations of the body, and other like austerities. Popular discussions of such topics are not, as it seems to us, to be encouraged any further than is absolutely necessary from their bearing on existing evils; as their obvious tendency, at least in regard to the uninformed or the ill-informed, is to induce, not merely a salutary distrust, but a general and heartless skepticism. The statements contained in these chapters are shown, however, to be applicable in various ways to modern times, and to the condi-, tion of things in our own country. Thus, in speaking of the Flagellants of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, Dr. Brigham says:

"Something of this practice has lately been revived in the State of New York, and, for aught we know, may be continued at the present time; though it was there resorted to for a different purpose. The people did not flagellate themselves, in this case, but parents practised whipping their children, as a religious duty, to make them, (as they termed it,) 'submit themselves to God.' It prevailed in Oneida county, in that State, in 1832, though I cannot believe to any considerable extent. It was several times alluded to about that period, in the Journal and Telegraph,' a Calvinistic religious paper published at Albany, the editors of which

paper, state that 'the fact is susceptible of ample proof.' The chief details I have seen respecting the practice, are contained in a letter from the venerable and Rev. Henry Davis, D. D., late President of Hamilton College, in the western part of the State of New York. The letter was published in the Journal and Telegraph' of June 1st, 1833.

་

"Dr. Davis states, that it is true that such a practice has prevailed in Oneida county. He refers to a pious lady who said 'she had used this method (whipping) with all (or some) of her own children, and had brought them in,'-(meaning hereby that she had converted them,) and that one of them she whipped three times before she succeeded in doing it.' One other pious lady stated that she whipped her daughter, then thirteen years of age, with a corset-board, for this purpose; and that to this course she was urged by another pious woman, who lent her the instrument of flagellation. It should be added in justice to these pious women, that according to Dr. Davis, their efforts were successful, and the girl, after this treatment, promised to submit to God.'

"Dr. Davis says further in his letter, that a Reverend clergyman of the Oneida Presbytery' a man who has been regarded as possessing more than ordinary talents with unquestionable piety and discretion, and whose praise is in all the churches, was asked by a lady, in his presence, "What do you think, Sir, of the practice of whipping children, to induce them to promise to give themselves to God?" He replied, "I think there is much to be said in favor of it. We whip our children to induce them to submit to our authority. They are rendered kind, affectionate, and obedient by it. Submission to God, is the same in kind. Both are of a moral nature. Why not use the same means in both cases to produce the same effect? Solomon says 'foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.'"'

"How considerable may have been the influence and effect of such arguments and observations, from clergymen of 'unquestionable piety and discretion,' in continuing and extending the very reprehensible practice of whipping children until they promise to submit to God,' I do not know. I am pleased, however, to see from Dr. Davis's account, that some women hesitate about resorting to it. He mentions one woman, who, on being urged to adopt this new process of conversion, replied that she must have more light before she could do so."- pp. 61-63.

Much of the next chapter is given to a consideration of the history and scriptural authority of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, in regard to both of which our author takes Quaker ground. So far as these are purely theological questions, they