« EelmineJätka »
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 was a 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 he concluded the sermon were, “ Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” The Editor justly observes,-—" It was a fitting close ; the epitome of all his preaching the great theme of his ministry through life.”
For some years before his decease the difficulty of breathing was very distressing, and for many days and nights prior to that event, he could not go up stairs, but was obliged to remain below in his library, surrounded by his loved books; and from a sofa on which he reclined he had a view of the garden, in which he delighted to the last. About five in the morning of the 18th August, 1863, he looked towards the bed on which his servant was sleeping, and his ever watchful attendant, Miss Snell, inquired if he wanted him. “No, I want Christ," and, “soon after, he was heard to murmur two lines of a favour. ite hymn, altering one word, Christ shall complete what Christ begins. This was his last utterance, and, at six o'clock, he calmly and peacefully expired.” Honoured and loved during his life, he was honoured and lamented when no more on earth. Devout men carried him to his burial; clergymen of the Church of England, pastors of various Nonconformist communions, members of the congregation over which he had so long presided, the Mayor of Liverpool, friends and fellowtownsmen, and some 50,000 people, who lined the route of the procession, at tested the respect and affection in which Dr. Raffles was held.
But it may asked what about his defects? This is never a pleasant subject on which to dwell. Truth and justice require that, in some cases, they should be pointed out, for the sake of the living, as well as for the lessons of admonition which they supply. But when they are few and comparatively harmless, when they lie upon the surface rather than go deep into the nature, are slight excrescences rather than radical evils, it is gracious to dwell upon them in the midst of so much that is high, and excellent, and good.
But wherein lay the secret of his
popularity and success? We believe the answer to be short and simple. Dr. Raffles was not a common man. He possessed some rare gifts as a preacher, and he honestly devoted them to the service of Christ. He made preaching the work of his life. It was not for the Lord's day alone. It was not the second thing in his esteem. It was the first, and the all absorbing thing. And he was ever a preacher of the Cross. He did not discourse about topics which have only some relation to Christianity, but always held up Christ and His work, and with the deepest fervour and solemnity. He did not preach before his people, but to them, and to them as sinners needing the great salvation, or as saints who were to shine as lights in the world. He may not have been a profound thinker, but he was a striking preacher. There may not have been great depth in his thoughts, but there was always what is better, a firm, decisive statement of gospel truth, clothed in language rich, ample and varied, and carried home to the heart and the conscience with singular feeling and force. His hearers felt that he was earnest and sincere, and one who believed the preach. ing of the Gospel to be the savour of life unto life, or of death unto death! Such preachers are needed now as much as ever. May the blessing of God so rest on our churches and colleges that they may send forth men baptized in the spirit of faith, and richly furnished to every work.
Daniel the Prophet. Nine Lectures delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford, with copious notes. By the Rev. E. B. PUSEY, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Canon of Christ Church. London: J. H. & J. Parker. 1864.
These lectures were planned as the author's“ contribution against that tide of scepticism which the publication of the Essays and Reviews' let loose upon the young and uninstructed."
Whilst “others,” says he, “who wrote in defence of the faith engaged in larger subjects, I took for my province one more confined but definite issue. I selected the Book of Daniel because un believing critics considered their attacks upon it to be one of their greatest triumphs. The exposure of the weak. ness of some ill-alleged point of evidence has often thrown suspicion on a whole faith. The exposure of the weakness of criticism, when it thought itself most triumphant, would, I hoped, shake the confidence of the young in their would-be misleaders. True! Disbelief of Daniel had become an axiom in the unbelieving critical school. Only they mistook the result of unbelief for the victory of criticism. They overlooked the historical fact that the disbelief had been antecedent to the criticism. Disbelief had been the parent, not the offspring of their criticism ; their startingpoint, not the winning-post of their course."
We think that Dr. Pusey made a wise selection. His position at Oxford almost compelled him to speak on the questions which had been so flippantly
vecu su "ppanuty discussed by the essayists, and especially on those which related to his own department of theological science, and which had been disposed of with seeming satisfaction. As every one who knows anything of the history of criticism. in relation to the Book of Daniel is aware, its authorship must either be assigned to Daniel—“the prophet,” as our Lord styles him—who lived in the time of the Babylonian empire, or to an unknown writer, who impudently assigned his forgery to Daniel in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes. The laborious attempts of German critics, such as Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Bleek, and their followers, to prove that it was not written by one person, are ostentatiously disavowed as uncritical, by the most advanced professors of the so-called “ higher criticism :" and Dr. Davidson, whose “ Introduction to the Old Testament” shows that he considers himself the judge from whose decision there can be no appeal, has declared that " the first part is so intimately con
nected with the second as to show unity of authorship.” It is well that we are agreed with the assailants of the Prophet upon one point, although the most cursory examination of the second part of the book shows that Daniel himself professes to be its writer. Dr. Davidson admits this, and proceeds to comment upon it as follows:
"If so, the whole work claims' to proceed from Daniel himself, who lived throughout the Babylonian captivity till the third year of Cyrus. But other considerations, internal and external, outweigh this testimony, bring. ing it down three centuries and a half later, and pointing to an author contemporary with Antiochus Epiphanes. What, then, is to be affirmed of its professing to be the work of Daniel ? Did the writer forge and falsify ? Can he be convicted of dishonesty and deceit ? Did he put on a mask to mislead his readers ? Was he a bad man by resorting to dissimula. tion ? By no means! It is wrong to view the matter in this light. He was no deceiver or dishonest man; his motive was good and right. To effect his purpose the more successfully, he chose a prophet renowned for wisdom in the traditions of his nation as the medium of communicating theocratic truths to his suffering countrymen. . . He chose the vehicle that seemed best, and who shall blame him for it? He should not be judged by a modern standard of casuistry, nor accused of doing what may appear problematical in the eyes of modern theologians. A harm. less envelope for his thoughts is not equivalent to falsehood or forgery."-Vol. üi, pp. 199, 200.
Such special pleading as this we leave to the reprobation of every moral man with but one word, St. Paul was “slanderously reported” to have said“Let us do evil that good may come,” and his indignant comment was the best refutation of the calumny,“ whose damnation is just.” But Dr. Davidson wants English Christians to believe that what would have been damnable in the case of St. Paul was justifiable in an anonymous forger, because "his motive was good and right!” May a man then “lie”-according to this would be “second Daniel come to judgment " if he do so only “ for God?”
The references so frequently made by our Lord to this book in relation to His own name and kingdom, and specifically to “ the abomination of desolation 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. , . Critical ques which implies ignorance of the elements of tions like the present did not need Christ's Hebrew. [In proof of which Dr. Pusey 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 authenticity 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
explanations of his book, partly Greek and So that we are to believe that Jesus
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 though He claimed to be the Son of u. Jaimed to be the son of only alleges a certain amount of agreement
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." “ He 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 avite 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 Antiochos,
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
days of His flesh), or no, yet there was one known as the Angel of the Lord, distinct from and above all the rest. He speaks with authority as the Lord; therefore the Lord, whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Ghost, was present with him, and spake by him. He is called, uot as a epithet, but as a description of his being the Angel of the Lord; therefore it seems to me most probable that he was a created Angel. It seems most probable that the word Angel describes his actual nature, not the higher nature which spoke or was adored in him.”
to this external authority, not history related in the form of prophecy, but actual predictions of things then future. And then, I will answer every objection alleged against the book, whether as to matters of doctrine or history, which shall not have received its answer in the course of the other inquiries." -p.8.
It is not more than justice to say that this scheme has been most conscientiously and fully developed in the present volume. He has examined anew the arguments which “ orthodox Christians” have been accustomed to use, and has in several cases set them in a new light. With pains-taking diligence, he has then followed the * rationalist' critics step by step, testing the value of their objections, and with equal courtesy and learning disposing of them. The result is that we have a book before us which will be a well-stored arsenal for the defenders of “ Daniel the Prophet' in all future times. It is a fitting, because complete, representation of the present results of Biblical criti. cism in this field of enquiry, and it deserves to be studied by all Christians, and especially by all Christian ministers, as the most compendious, exact, and thorough investigation of the subject on which it treats which has been published in England during this century.
But, whilst assiguing it so high a place amongst critical treatises on the Books of the Bible, we do not accept all the opinions which Dr. Pusey expresses on the various questions which pass under his review. Thus we are sorry to find him using language concerning “the Angel of the Lord,” which seems to us unsanctioned by the Scriptures. To say the least it is out of keeping with the general style of his writing on other topics, and ought to be, under any circumstances, recast, so as to state precisely what his theological conclusions are. Having shown that some distinction among the heavenly hosts was revealed from the first, he says:
" But, chiefly, there was one designated as the Angel of the Lord, in whom God accus. tomed his creatures to the thought of be. holding Himself in human form. Whether it were God the Son who so manifested Himself beforehand (his Godhead invisible as in the
We are well aware of the difficulties which surround all questions of the manifestation of the Godhead in the form of a created being, but we strongly object to the foregoing passage as incorrect. On what ground does Dr. Pusey presume to speak of God as accustoming His creatures to the thought of beholding Himself in human form? Is it certain that all angels have a human form ? And even if that were allowed, which we are by no means prepared for, did “THE Angel of the Lord" assume a human form whenever He manifested himself to men? The answer will soon be given by any one who will use his Hebrew concordance for a few minutes. Then, if God did not “accustom His creatures to the thought of beholding Himself in human form,” we have to discard that theory as a plausible explanation of the evidence before us in the Scriptures, for, as Dr. Pusey truly says, “ in Him were manifested the Divine attributes; he was the minister of God's justice, who would not pardon transgressions; to Him God required obedience to be paid ... And since He was not present [amongst the Israelites] by any visible presence, there was no way of obeying Him, except in obeying in what God commanded to Moses." It is strangely illogical to affirm that " He speaks with authority as the Lord," and to draw the conclusion from the title given Him, " that He was a created angel.” Indeed, Dr. Pusey cannot examine even a few of the passages in which the title occurs without involving himself in contradiction. Thus, in commenting on Job xxxiii., 23, he says, and we think justly, that what is there ascribed to the angel-interpreter" is the