« PreviousContinue »
he was seventy-two! The history of through the influence of his Royal the years which filled up the interval Highness the Duke of Sussex and the between these two extremes, is one Duke of Somerset; the latter at the unceasing round of preaching engage suggestion of Dr. Sprague, of New ments. In England, Scotland, Wales, York, between whom and Dr. Raffles Ireland, Paris, Hamburgh, and the there had long existed a warm attachChannel Islands, he is seen advocating ment. He was quite worthy of these the claims of religious societies, and distinctions, and he wore them meekly. preaching, with energy and life, to vast If Dr. Raffles was thus eminent and assemblies, the Gospel of the Kingdom. useful as a preacher, he was equally disWe confess to something like a feeling tinguished as a man. Of a fine comof wonder at his activity and zeal ; for manding person, affable manners, pleaduring all this period of service from sant voice, having a countenance beamhome, he is equally active when at home, ing with good nature, frank and hosand devoting himself with all the ardour pitable, of varied tastes, and considerable of his nature to the promotion of the culture, of large experience, and some County Union and the Lancashire In- poetic talent; a keen observer, fond of dependent College. Of the former he art, intensely enjoying fine scenery ; of was the able secretary to the end of his great conversational power, and gifted life, and of the latter, chairman of com- with a measure of wit and abundant mittee, where his tact, urbanity, good humour; of unfailing kindness, and sense, and thorough business habits, spotless reputation; it is no marvel that were eminently useful, and contributed he won all hearts. His attachments largely to the success of those efforts were lively and strong, discriminating which have resulted in the existing in- and lasting. He adorned every relation stitution. This is no exaggerated picture, of life, was equally at home with the and we take at random, as a sample, a great and the lowly; but while his life holiday of six weeks in 1851, during
prosperous one, he had his share which he preached twice at Lancaster, of affliction and sorrow. The esteem in two consecutive Sundays at Wrexham and which he was held in Liverpool was Welshpool, going thence to London to sufficiently attested by the numerous visit the Great Exhibition, returning to honorary distinctions and memorials Rhyl to preach twice there at the presented to him, in which, on more opening of the new chapel; thence to than one occasion, the mayor and other Kingstown, to preach twice for Mr. members of the corporation united. Denham Smith -on to Sligo, and The religious denomination of which he preaching at the opening of a chapel was so conspicuous a member, and there, and twice the following Sunday, which he had served so faithfully, did reaching home by the end of the month. themselves and him equal honour by No man would thus spend a holiday, raising funds to found the Raffles who was not fired with an intense and Library and Scholarship in the Lana quenchless desire to do good. Having cashire Independent College. attained to a position of great influence, The close of this long and useful life he diversified his ordinary pursuits by was in perfect harmony with it. His repeated visits to the Continent and a last sermon in Great George-street was journey to Egypt, which would have preached on Sunday December 28th, extended to Palestine but for the too 1862, from Gen. xlvii. 9; and he had advanced season of the year. Having the satisfaction of seeing the church given considerable proof of literary happily settled with a successor, the ability, he received the degree of LL.D. Rev. E. Mellor. On Sunday April 26th, from the University of Aberdeen, and 1863, he was at his old chapel for the D.D. from Union College, Connecticut. last time, and on the following Sunday He accepted these literary honours the he preached his last sermon at Norwood more readily because of the manner in Chapel, from these words :-"And of which they were bestowed; the former His fulness have all we received and
grace for grace ;” and his last words as popularity and success ? We believe he concluded the sermon were, “ Believe the answer to be short and simple. on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt Dr. Raffles was not a common man. be saved.” The Editor justly ob- He possessed some rare gifts as a serves, -" It was a fitting close; the preacher, and he honestly devoted them epitome of all his preaching--the great to the service of Christ. He made theme of his ministry through life.” preaching the work of his life. It was For some
before his decease the not for the Lord's day alone. It was difficulty of breathing was very dis- not the second thing in his esteem. It tressing, and for many days and nights was the first, and the all absorbing prior to that event, he could not go thing. And he was ever a preacher of up stairs, but was obliged to remain the Cross. He did not discourse about below in his library, surrounded by his topics .which have only some relation loved books; and from a sofa on which to Christianity, but always held up he reclined he had a view of the garden, Christ and His work, and with the in which he delighted to the last. deepest fervour and solemnity. He About five in the morning of the 18th did not preach before his people, but to August, 1863, he looked towards the bed them, and to them as sinners needing on which his servant was sleeping, and the great salvation, or as saints who his ever watchful attendant, Miss Snell, were to shine as lights in the world. inquired if he wanted him. “No, I He may not have been a profound want Christ," and, “ soon after, he was thinker, but he was a striking preacher. hcard to murmur two lines of a favour- There may not have been great depth ite hymn, altering one word, Christ in his thoughts, but there was always shall complete what Christ begins. what is better, a îrm, decisive stateThis was his last utterance, and, at six ment of gospel truth, clothed in lano'clock, he calmly and peacefully ex- guage rich, ample and varied, and carpired.” Hon red and loved during ried home to the heart and the conscience his life, he was honoured and lamented with singular feeling and force. His when no more on earth. Devout men hearers felt that he was earnest and carried him to his burial; clergymen of sincere, and one who believed the preach. the Church of England, pastors of ing of the Gospel to be the savour of life various Nonconformist communions, unto life, or of death unto death! members of the congregation over Such preachers are needed now as much which he had so long presided, the as ever. May the blessing of God so Mayor of Liverpool, friends and fellow
rest on our churches and colleges that townsmen, and some 50,000 people, who they may send forth men baptized in lined the route of the procession, at- the spirit of faith, and richly furnished tested the respect and affection in which
work. Dr. Raffles was held.
But it may asked what about his defects ? This is never a pleasant sub- Daniel the Prophet. Nine Lectures ject on which to dwell. Truth and delivered in the Divinity School of justice require that, in some cases, they the University of Oxford, with should be pointed out, for the sake of copious notes. By the Rev. E. B. the living, as well as for the lessons of PUSEY, D.D., Regius Professor of admonition which they supply. But Hebrew, and Canon of Christ when they are few and comparatively Church. London: J. H. & J. Parharmless, when they lie upon the sur- ker. 1864. face rather than go deep into the nature, are slight excrescences rather than These lectures were planned as the radical evils, it is gracious to dwell author's “contribution against that tide upon them in the midst of so much of scepticism which the publication of that is high, and excellent, and good. the 'Essays and Reviews' let loose
But wherein lay the secret of his upon the young and uninstructed."
Whilst “others," says he, "who wrote nected with the second as to show in defence of the faith engaged in larger unity of authorship.” It is well that subjects, I took for my province one we are agreed with the assailants of the more confined but definite issue. I se- Prophet upon one point, although the lected the Book of Daniel because un- most cursory examination of the second believing critics considered their attacks part of the book shows that Daniel upon it to be one of their greatest himself professes to be its writer. Dr. triumphs. The exposure of the weak- Davidson admits this, and proceeds to ness of some ill-alleged point of evi- comment upon it as follows :dence has often thrown suspicion on a whole faith. The exposure of the weak
“If so, the whole work claims to proceed
from Daniel himself, who lived throughout ness of criticism, when it thought itself
the Babylonian captivity till the third year of most triumphant, would, I hoped, shake Cyrus. But other considerations, internal the confidence of the young in their and external, outweigh this testimony, bringwould-be misleaders. True! Disbelief ing it down three centuries and a half later, of Daniel had become an axiom in the
and pointing to an author contemporary with
Antiochus Epiphanes. What, then, is to be unbelieving critical school. Only they
affirmed of its professing to be the work of mistook the result of unbelief for the Daniel ? Did the writer forge and falsify ? victory of criticism. They overlooked Can he be convicted of dishonesty and deceit ? the historical fact that the disbelief had
Did he put on a mask to mislead his readers ? been antecedent to the criticism. Dis.
Was he a bad man by resorting to dissimula.
tion ? By no means! It is wrong to view belief had been the parent, not the off- the matter in this light. He was no deceiver spring of their criticism; their starting
or dishonest man; his motive was good and point, not the winning-post of their
right. To effect his purpose the more suc.
cessfully, he chose a prophet renowned for course."
wisdom in the traditions of his nation as the We think that Dr. Pusey made a wise medium of communicating theocratic truths selection. His position at Oxford al- to his suffering countrymen. He chose most compelled him to speak on the the vehicle that seemed best, and who shall questions which had been so flippantly by a modern standard of casnistry, nor ac
blame him for it? He should not be judged discussed by the essayists, and espe- cused of doing what may appear problematical cially on those which related to his own in the eyes of modern theologians. A harm. department of theological science, and less envelope for his thoughts is not equivawhich had been disposed of with seeming
lent to falsehood or forgery.”– Vol. üi., pp.
199, 200. satisfaction. As every one who knows anything of the history of criticism in Such special pleading as this we leave relation to the Book of Daniel is aware, to the reprobation of every moral man its authorship must either be assigned with but one word, St. Paul was to Daniel -—" the prophet,” as our Lord “slanderously reported” to have said, styles him--who lived in the time of “Let us do evil that good may come,” the Babylonian empire, or to an un- and his indignant comment was the best known writer, who impudently assigned refutation of the calumny,“ whose damhis forgery to Daniel in the days of nation is just.” But Dr. Davidson Antiochus Epiphanes. The laborious wants English Christians to believe that attempts of German critics, such as what would have been damnable in the Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Bleek, and their case of St. Paul was justifiable in an followers, to prove that it was not anonymous forger, because “ his motive written by one person, are ostentatiously was good and right!” May a man disavowed as uncritical, by the most then lie"---according to this would be advanced professors of the so-called “second Daniel come to judgment “ higher criticism :” and Dr. Davidson, if he do so only “for God?” whose “ Introduction to the Old Testa- The references so frequently made by ment” shows that he considers himself our Lord to this book in relation to His the judge from whose decision there own name and kingdom, and specifically can be no appeal, has declared that to “ the abomination of desolation " the first part is so intimately con- spoken of by Daniel the Prophet,"
might have been expected to settle the Not only the plan of these lectures point, for all who acknowledge Him to was determined upon, but the first four be their Lord and their God. But, no! of them had been delivered, and were in we are told that
print before the appearance of Dr. “He spoke after the manner of his contem.
Davidson's volume above quoted. It is poraries in Palestine, in all cases except when
worth while to transcribe the opinion it was of importance to correct their ideas. which Dr. Pusey has formed of its Hence he could readily term Daniel a value. prophet, and refer to the writings called after him as prophecies, because such was the “ Dr. Davidson's work is only a reprocurrent view. The book was accepted as a duction of the rationalist German works, prophetic work by the Jews, and a certain which he either epitomises or translates. I interpretation was assigned to its contents. have not met with any new argument or Christ did not assume to be a critical autho- even an old argument more forcibly put in it. rity, because certain words were doctrinally The Hebrew criticisms are transferred from harmless, having no proper connection with the German writers, sometimes in a way His religious teaching.
which implies ignorance of the elements of tions, like the present did not need Christ's Hebrew. [In proof of which Dr. Pasey cites judgment respecting them. His argumenta. some curious illustrations, and then passes on tion was sufficiently valid to the Jews without to show what reliance is to be placed on it. As a Jew, he spoke to the Jews after Davidson's quotations from the writers whom their own manner, and about their own he refers to.] As matter of history,' Dr. Scriptures, without pronouncing on points Davidson tells us, It is incorrect to say, as foreign to the nature of His mission.
Hengstenberg and many others have done, To say that the question of the genuineness that the series of opponents to the authenticity and anthenticity of Daniel cannot be sepa. of the book of Daniel was opened by Porphyry rated from that of the fallibility or infallibility in the third century. Porphyry was not the first of the Saviour is to assert what is false. The impugner of Daniel. Hippolytus, a Roman two things can and ought to be separated. bishop and orthodox Christian writer, also reTheir connection is not necessary." - Vol. iii. ferred the work to the Maccabæan period, and 168—9.
Antiochus Epiphanes, as we know from his So that we are to believe that Jesus
explanations of his book, partly Greek and
partly Syriac. And for this he refers us to did not know what He was speaking Ewald, in the Gött. gell . Anz, 1859, pp. about! It might be true, or it might 270–1. St. Hippolytus an 'impugner of be false ; it mattered not: because,
Daniel!” Ewald says nothing of this, but
only alleges a certain amount of agreement though He claimed to be the Son of
of exposition as to the Seleucidæ and Ptole. God, and said, “He that sent me is true,
mies. Yet St. Hippolytus believed that the and I speak to the world those things prophecy of the seventy weeks related to Jesus which I have heard of Him."
and ended in Him; that the fourth empire spoke,” according to this critic, who is was the Roman, that it would last to the end,
that Antichrist was yet to come. I see not quite sure that he at least cannot be
what point of contact there is between his mistaken as to the fact, “after the
expositions and Porphyry's, save those which manner of his
contemporaries in Pales- are common to Porphyry with all Christians, tine!” Dr. Davidson is quite content
all but the unbelief that they were' vaticinia to lower the “critical authority” of post eventum.'— Pref. pp. 13–14. our Lord that he may display his own ; The task which Dr. Pusey proposed but we, on the contrary, believe that to himself was to meet the rationalists “He whom God had sent speaketh the on their own ground, and to shewwords of God.” Could the learned
"1. That even if, per impossibile, the book men of earth do nothing to silence the
of Daniel had been written at the latest date objections which have been paraded at which these men venture to place it, there with all but infinite elaboration against would still remain clear and unquestionable the authorship of Daniel, we should bow prophecies. 2. That those definite prophecies
which were earlier fulfilled are not out of, but without a moment's misgiving to Him
in harmony with the rest of the Old Testawho spake “as never man spake,” be- ment. 3. That even apart from the authority cause we receive his testimony con- of our Lord, the history of the closing of the cerning the peculiarities of his teaching canon, as also the citation of Daniel in books --"I do nothing of myself: but as my
prior to or contemporary with Antiochus,
establish the fact that the book was anterior Father hath taught me I speak these to the date of Antiochus Epiphanes, and so things."
that those definite prophecies are according
to this external authority, not history related days of His flesh), or no, yet there was in the form of prophecy, but actual predic- one known as the Angel of the Lord, tions of things then future. And then, I will distinct from and above all the rest. He answer every objection alleged against the speaks with authority as the Lord; therefore book, whether as to matters of doctrine or the Lord, whether the Father, or the Son, or history, which shall not have received its the Holy Ghost, was present with him, and answer in the course of the other inquiries." spake by him. He is called, not as a epithet,
but as a description of his being the Angel of
the LORD; therefore it seems to me most proIt is not more than justice to say bable that he was a created Angel. It seems that this scheme has been most con- most probable that the word Angel describes scientiously and fully developed in the
his actual nature, not the higher nature which present volume. He has examined
spoke or was adored in him." anew the arguments which “orthodox
We are well aware of the difficulties Christians" have been accustomed to
which surround all questions of the use, and has in several cases set them
manifestation of the Godhead in the in a new light. With pains-taking form of a created being, but we strongly diligence, he has then followed the * rationalist critics step by step, testing object to the foregoing passage as in
correct. the value of their objections, and with
On what ground does Dr. equal courtesy and learning disposing of Pusey presume to speak of God as acthem. The result is that we have a book
customing His creatures to the thought before us which will be a well-stored
of beholding Himself in human form ? arsenal for the defenders of “ Daniel the
Is it certain that all angels have a human form?
And even if that were Prophet' in all future times. It is a fitting, because complete, representation allowed, which we are by no means pre
pared for, did “THE Angel of the Lord" of the present results of Biblical criti.
a human form whenever He cism in this field of enquiry, and it
manifested himself to men ? The deserves to be studied by all Christians, and especially by all Christian ministers,
answer will soon be given by any one
who will use his Hebrew concordance as the most compendious, exact, and
for a few minutes. Then, if God did thorough investigation of the subject
not on which it treats which has been pub- thought of beholding Himself in human
accustom His creatures to the lished in England during this century. But, whilst assigning it so high a
form,” we have to discard that theory place amongst critical treatises on the
as a plausible explanation of the evidence Books of the Bible, we do not accept Pusey truly says, “ in Him were mani
before us in the Scriptures, for, as Dr. all the opinions which Dr. Pusey ex
fested the Divine attributes; he was presses on the various questions which
the minister of God's justice, who pass under his review.
Thus we are sorry to find him using language con
would not pardon transgressions ; to
Him God required obedience to be cerning "the Angel of the Lord," which
And since He was not seems to us unsanctioned by the Scriptures. To say the least it is out of present [amongst the Israelites] by any keeping with the general style of his
visible presence, there was no way of writing on other topics, and ought to be, obeying Him, except in obeying in
It under any circumstances, recast, so as to state precisely what his theological is strangely illogical to affirm that “ He conclusions are. Having shown that speaks with authority as the Lord," and
to draw the conclusion from the title some distinction among the heavenly hosts was revealed from the first,
given Him, “that He was a created angel.” Indeed, Dr. Pusey cannot
examine even a few of the passages in “But, chiefly, there was one designated as which the title occurs without involving the Angel of the Lord, in whom God accus. himself in contradiction. Thus, in tomed his creatures to the thought of beholding Himself in human form. Whether it
commenting on Job xxxiii., 23, he says, were God the Son who so manifested Himself and we think justly, that what is there beforehand (his Godhead invisible as in the ascribed to the angel-interpreter “is the