he was seventy-two! The history of the years which filled up the interval between these two extremes, is one unceasing round of preaching engagements. In England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Paris, Hamburgh, and the Channel Islands, he is seen advocating the claims of religious societies, and preaching, with energy and life, to vast assemblies, the Gospel of the Kingdom. We confess to something like a feeling of wonder at his activity and zeal; for during all this period of service from home, he is equally active when at home, and devoting himself with all the ardour of his nature to the promotion of the County Union and the Lancashire Independent College. Of the former he was the able secretary to the end of his life, and of the latter, chairman of committee, where his tact, urbanity, good sense, and thorough business habits, were eminently useful, and contributed largely to the success of those efforts which have resulted in the existing institution. This is no exaggerated picture, and we take at random, as a sample, a holiday of six weeks in 1851, during which he preached twice at Lancaster, two consecutive Sundays at Wrexham and Welshpool, going thence to London to visit the Great Exhibition, returning to Rhyl to preach twice there at the opening of the new chapel; thence to Kingstown, to preach twice for Mr. Denham Smith on to Sligo, and preaching at the opening of a chapel there, and twice the following Sunday, reaching home by the end of the month. No man would thus spend a holiday, who was not fired with an intense and a quenchless desire to do good. Having attained to a position of great influence, he diversified his ordinary pursuits by repeated visits to the Continent and a journey to Egypt, which would have extended to Palestine but for the too advanced season of the year. Having given considerable proof of literary ability, he received the degree of LL.D. from the University of Aberdeen, and D.D. from Union College, Connecticut. He accepted these literary honours the more readily because of the manner in which they were bestowed; the former

through the influence of his Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex and the Duke of Somerset; the latter at the suggestion of Dr. Sprague, of New York, between whom and Dr. Raffles there had long existed a warm attachment. He was quite worthy of these distinctions, and he wore them meekly. If Dr. Raffles was thus eminent and useful as a preacher, he was equally distinguished as a man. Of a fine commanding person, affable manners, pleasant voice, having a countenance beaming with good nature, frank and hospitable, of varied tastes, and considerable culture, of large experience, and some poetic talent; a keen observer, fond of art, intensely enjoying fine scenery; of great conversational power, and gifted with a measure of wit and abundant humour; of unfailing kindness, and spotless reputation; it is no marvel that he won all hearts. His attachments were lively and strong, discriminating and lasting. He adorned every relation of life, was equally at home with the great and the lowly; but while his life was a prosperous one, he had his share of affliction and sorrow. The esteem in which he was held in Liverpool was sufficiently attested by the numerous honorary distinctions and memorials presented to him, in which, on more than one occasion, the mayor and other members of the corporation united. The religious denomination of which he was so conspicuous a member, and which he had served so faithfully, did themselves and him equal honour by raising funds to found the Raffles Library and Scholarship in the Lancashire Independent College.

The close of this long and useful life was in perfect harmony with it. His last sermon in Great George-street was preached on Sunday December 28th, 1862, from Gen. xlvii. 9; and he had the satisfaction of seeing the church happily settled with a successor, the Rev. E. Mellor. On Sunday April 26th, 1863, he was at his old chapel for the last time, and on the following Sunday he preached his last sermon at Norwood Chapel, from these words :-" And of His fulness have all we received and

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 favourite 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, attested the respect and affection in which Dr. Raffles was held.

But

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. 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

He

popularity and success? We believe the answer to be short and simple. Dr. Raffles was not a common mean. 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. 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. hearers felt that he was earnest and sincere, and one who believed the preaching 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.

His

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 unbelieving critics considered their attacks upon it to be one of their greatest triumphs. The exposure of the weakness 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. belief had been the parent, not the offspring of their criticism; their startingpoint, not the winning-post of their

course."

Dis

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 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 harmless envelope for his thoughts is not equivalent to falsehood or forgery."-Vol. iii., pp. 199, 200.

66

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 point, for all who acknowledge Him to be their Lord and their God. But, no! we are told that

"He spoke after the manner of his contemporaries in Palestine, in all cases except when it was of importance to correct their ideas. Hence he could readily term Daniel a prophet, and refer to the writings called after him as prophecies, because such was the current view. The book was accepted as a prophetic work by the Jews, and a certain interpretation was assigned to its contents. Christ did not assume to be a critical authority, because certain words were doctrinally harmless, having no proper connection with His religious teaching. Critical questions, like the present did not need Christ's judgment respecting them. His argumentation was sufficiently valid to the Jews without it. As a Jew, he spoke to the Jews after their own manner, and about their own Scriptures, without pronouncing on points foreign to the nature of His mission.

To say that the question of the genuineness and authenticity of Daniel cannot be sepa. rated from that of the fallibility or infallibility of the Saviour is to assert what is false. The two things can and ought to be separated. Their connection is not necessary."-Vol. iii. 168-9.

"He

So that we are to believe that Jesus did not know what He was speaking about! It might be true, or it might be false; it mattered not: because, though He claimed to be the Son of God, and said, "He that sent me is true, and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of Him." spoke," according to this critic, who is quite sure that he at least cannot be mistaken as to the fact, "after the manner of his contemporaries in Palestine!" Dr. Davidson is quite content to lower the "critical authority" of our Lord that he may display his own; but we, on the contrary, believe that "He whom God had sent speaketh the words of God." Could the learned men of earth do nothing to silence the objections which have been paraded with all but infinite elaboration against the authorship of Daniel, we should bow without a moment's misgiving to Him who spake "as never man spake," because we receive his testimony concerning the peculiarities of his teaching "I do nothing of myself: but as my Father hath taught me I speak these things."

Not only the plan of these lectures was determined upon, but the first four of them had been delivered, and were in print before the appearance of Dr. Davidson's volume above quoted. It is worth while to transcribe the opinion which Dr. Pusey has formed of its value.

"Dr. Davidson's work is only a reproduction of the rationalist German works, which he either epitomises or translates. I have not met with any new argument or even an old argument more forcibly put in it. The Hebrew criticisms are transferred from the German writers, sometimes in a way which implies ignorance of the elements of Hebrew. [In proof of which Dr. Pusey cites some curious illustrations, and then passes on to show what reliance is to be placed on Davidson's quotations from the writers whom he refers to.] As matter of history,' Dr. Davidson tells us, 'It is incorrect to say, as Hengstenberg and many others have done, that the series of opponents to the authenticity of the book of Daniel was opened by Porphyry in the third century. Porphyry was not the first impugner of Daniel. Hippolytus, a Roman bishop and orthodox Christian writer, also referred the work to the Maccaboan period, and Antiochus Epiphanes, as we know from his explanations of his book, partly Greek and partly Syriac. And for this he refers us to Ewald, in the Gött. gell. Anz, 1859, pp. 270-1. St. Hippolytus an 'impugner of Daniel!" Ewald says nothing of this, but only alleges a certain amount of agreement of exposition as to the Seleucidæ and Ptolemies. Yet St. Hippolytus believed that the prophecy of the seventy weeks related to Jesus and ended in Him; that the fourth empire was the Roman, that it would last to the end, that Antichrist was yet to come. I see not what point of contact there is between his expositions and Porphyry's, save those which are common to Porphyry with all Christians, all but the unbelief that they were vaticinia post eventum.'-Pref. pp. 13-14.

The task which Dr. Pusey proposed to himself was to meet the rationalists on their own ground, and to shew—

"1. That even if, per impossibile, the book of Daniel had been written at the latest date at which these men venture to place it, there would still remain clear and unquestionable prophecies. 2. That those definite prophecies which were earlier fulfilled are not out of, but in harmony with the rest of the Old Testament. 3. That even apart from the authority of our Lord, the history of the closing of the canon, as also the citation of Daniel in books prior to or contemporary with Antiochus, establish the fact that the book was anterior to the date of Antiochus Epiphanes, and so that those definite prophecies are according

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 criticism 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 assigning 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 accustomed his creatures to the thought of beholding Himself in human form. Whether it were God the Son who so manifested Himself beforehand (his Godhead invisible as in the

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, not 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,"

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 speaks with authority as the Lord," and is strangely illogical to affirm that "He

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