the frequent repetitions. Comforting love has many words. Hence the addition of many epithets to the name of God, which are so many shields by which the strokes of despair are warded off, and so many bulwarks against the attacks of the visible world which was driving to despair. The sublimity, abruptness, and thunders of the first part find no place here, where the object of Isaiah is not to terrify and to shake stout-hearted sinners, but rather to bring glad tidings to the meek; not to quench the smoking flax, nor to break the bruised reed. But wherever there is a similarity of hearers and of subject, there we meet also a remarkable similarity of style, in both the first and second part; as, for example, in the description of the times of Messiah, and of the punishments, in which (lvi.-lix.) the prophet has the whole nation before his eyes, and in which he addresses the careless sinners by whom he is surrounded.

We attach no importance to the collections of isolated words and expressions which some critics have gleaned from the disputed parts of Isaiah, and which are not found in other portions that are deemed genuine. We might here well apply what Krüger wrote on a similar question in profane history (De authentia et integritate Anab. Xenophontis, Halle, 1824, p. 27): Hoc argumentandi genus perquam lubricum est. Si quid numerus valeret, urgeri posset, quod in his libris amplius quadraginta vocabula leguntur, quæ in reliquis Xenophontis operibus frustra quærantur. Si quis propter vocabula alibi ab hoc scriptore vel alia potestate, vel prorsus non usurpata, Anabasin ab eo profectam neget, hac ratione admissa quodvis aliud ejus opus injuria ei tribui, ostendi potest; that is, This is a very slippery mode of reasoning. If number were of importance, it might be urged that in these books occur more than forty words for which one searches in vain in the other works of Xenophon. But if it should be denied on account of those words which this author has either employed in a different sense, or has not made use of at all, that the Anabasis was written by him, it could, by the same reasoning, be shown that every other work was falsely attributed to him.'

7. We find a number of characteristic peculiarities of style which occur both in what is accounted genuine and what is styled spurious in Isaiah, and which indicate the identity of the author. Certain very peculiar idioms occur again and again in all parts of the book. Two of them are particularly striking. The appellation of God, the Holy One of Israel,' occurs with equal frequency in what has been ascribed to Isaiah and in what has been attributed to a pseudoIsaiah; it is found besides in two passages in which Isaiah imitates Jeremiah, and only three times in the whole of the remainder of the Old Testament. Another peculiar idiom is that 'to be called' stands constantly for 'to be.' These are phenomena of language which even our opponents do not consider casual; but they say that the later poet imitated Isaiah, or that they originated from the hand of a uniformising editor, who took an active part in modelling the whole. But there cannot be shown any motive for such interference; and we find nothing analogous to it in the whole of the Old Testament. Such a supposition cuts away the linguistic ground from

under the feet of higher criticism, and deprives it of all power of demonstration. In this mauner every linguistic phenomenon may easily be removed, when it is contrary to preconceived opinions. But everything in Isaiah appears so natural, bears so much the impress of originality, is so free from every vestige of patch-work, that no one can conscientiously maintain this hypothesis. We have still to consider the other conjecture of our opponents. If we had before us a prophet strongly leaning, like Jeremiah and Zechariah, upon preceding prophets, that conjecture might be deemed admissible, in case there were other arguments affording a probability for denying that Isaiah was the author of these portions-a supposition which can here have no place. But here we have a prophet whose independence and originality are acknowledged even by our opponents. In him we cannot think of imitation, especially if we consider his peculiarities in connection with the other peculiar characteristics of Isaiah, and of what has been said to belong to a pseudo-Isaiah; we refer here to the above-mentioned works of Molle and of Kleinert (p. 231, sq.). In both portions of Isaiah there occur a number of words which are scarcely to be found in other places; also a frequent repetition of the same word in the parallel members of a verse. This repetition very seldom occurs in other writers (compare the examples collected by Kleinert, p. 239). Other writers usually employ synonymes in the parallel members of verses. It further belongs to the characteristics of Isaiah to employ words in extraordinary acceptations; for instance, is used contemptuously for brood; D, for rabble; W, for a shoot. Isaiah also employs extraordinary constructions, and has the peculiar custom of explaining his figurative expressions by directly subjoining the prosaical equivalent. This custom has induced many interpreters to suppose that explanatory glosses have been inserted in Isaiah. Another peculiarity of Isaiah is that he intersperses his prophetic orations with hymns; that he seldom relates visions, strictly so-called, and seldom performs symbolic actions; and that he employs figurative expressions quite peculiar to himself, as, for example, pasted-up eyes, for spiritual darkness; morning-red, for approaching happiness; the remnant of olive-trees, vineyards, and orchards, for the remnant of the people which have been spared during the judgments of God; rejected tendrils or branches, for enemies which have been slain.

In addition to this we find an almost verbal harmony between entire passages; for instance, the Messianic description commencing xi. 6, compared with lxv. 25.

IV. The origin of the present Collection, and its arrangement.—Ño definite account respecting the method pursued in collecting into books the utterances of the Prophets has been handed down to us. Concerning Isaiah, as well as the rest, these accounts are wanting. We do not even know whether he collected his prophecies himself. But we have no decisive argument against this opinion. The argument of Kleinert, in his above-mentioned work (p. 112), is of slight importance. He says, If Isaiah himself had collected his prophecies, there would not be wanting some which are not to be found in the existing book. To this we

reply, that it can by no means be proved with any degree of probability that a single prophecy of Isaiah has been lost, the preservation of which would have been of importance to posterity, and which Isaiah himself would have deemed it necessary to preserve. Kleinert appeals to the fact, that there is no prophecy in our collection which can with certainty be ascribed to the days of Jotham; and he thinks it incredible that the prophet, soon after having been consecrated to his office, should have passed full sixteen years without any revelation from God. This, certainly, is unlikely; but it is by no means unlikely that during this time he uttered no prophecy which he thought proper to preserve. Nay, it appears very probable, if we compare the rather general character of chapters i.-v., the contents of which would apply to the days of Jotham also, since during his reign no considerable changes took place; consequently the prophetic utterances moved in the same sphere with those preserved to us from the reign of Uzziah. Hence it was natural that Isaiah should confine himself to the communication of some important prophetic addresses, which might as well represent the days of Jotham as those of the preceding reign. We must not too closely identify the utterances of the prophets with their writings. Many prophets have oken much and written nothing. The minor prophets were generally content to write down the quintessence alone of their numerous utterances. Jeremiah likewise, of his numerous addresses under Josiah, gives us only what was most essential.

The critics who suppose that the present book of Isaiah was collected a considerable time after the death of the prophet, and perhaps after the exile, lay especial stress upon the assertion that the historical section in the 26th and following chapters was transcribed from 2 Kings xviii.-xx. This supposition, however, is perfectly unfounded. According to Ewald (p. 39), the hand of a later compiler betrays itself in the headings. Ewald has not, however, adduced any argument sufficient to prove that Isaiah was not the author of these headings, the enigmatic character of which seems more to befit the author himself than a compiler. The only semblance of an argument is that the beading Oracle (better translated burden) concerning Damascus' (xvii. 1), does not agree with the prophecy that follows, which refers rather to Samaria. But we should consider that the headings of prophecies against foreign nations are always expressed as concisely as possible, and that it was incompatible with the usual brevity more fully to describe the subject of this prophecy. We should further consider that this prophecy refers to the connection of Damascus with Samaria, in which alliance Damascus was, according to chap. vii, the prevailing power, with which Ephraim stood and fell. If all this is taken into account, the above heading will be found to agree with the prophecy. According to the Talmudists, the book of Isaiah was collected by the men of Hezekiah. But this assertion rests merely upon Prov. xxv. 1, where the men of Hezekiah are said to have compiled the Proverbs. The Talmudists do not sufficiently distinguish between what might be and what is. They habitually state bare possibilities as historical facts.

To us it seems impossible that Isaiah left it to others to collect his prophecies into a volume,

because we know that he was the author of historical works; and it is not likely that a man accustomed to literary occupation would have left to others to do what he could do much better himself.

Hitzig has of late recognised Isaiah as the collector and arranger of his own prophecies. But he supposes that a number of pieces were inserted at a later period. The chronological arrangement of these prophecies is a strong argument in favour of the opinion that Isaiah himself formed them into a volume. There is no deviation from this arrangement, except in a few instances where prophecies of similar contents are placed together; but there is no interruption which might appear attributable to either accident or ignorance. There is not a single piece in this collection which can satisfactorily be shown to belong to another place. All the portions, the date of which can be ascertained either by external or internal reasons, stand in the right place. This is generally granted with respect to the first twelve chapters, although many persons erroneously maintain that ch. vi. should stand at the beginning.

Chaps. i.-v. belong to the later years of Uzziah; chap. vi. to the year of his death. What follows next, up to chap. x. 4, belongs to the reign of Ahaz. Chaps. x.-xii. is the first portion appertaining to the reign of Hezekiah. Then follows a series of prophecies against foreign nations, in which, according to the opinions of many, the chronological arrangement has been departed from, and, instead of it, an arrangement according to contents has been adopted. But this is not the case. The predictions against foreign nations are also in their right chronological place. They all belong to the reign of Hezekiah, and are placed together because, according to their dates, they belong to the same period. In the days of Hezekiah the nations of Western Asia, dwelling on the banks of the Euphrates and Tigris, more and more resembled a threatening tempest. That the prophecies against foreign nations belong to this period is indicated by the home-prophecy in ch. xxii., which stands among the foreign prophecies. The assertion that the first twelve chapters are a collection of home-prophecies is likewise refuted by the fact that there occur in these chapters two foreign prophecies. The prophetic gift of Isaiah was more fully unfolded in sight of the Assyrian invasion under the reign of Hezekiah. Isaiah, in a series of visions, describes what Assyria would do, as a chastising rod in the hand of the Lord, and what the successors of the Assyrians, the Chaldees, would perform, according to the decree of God, in order to realise divine justice on earth, as well among Israel as among the heathen. The prophet shows that mercy is hidden behind the clouds of wrath. There is no argument to prove that the great prophetic picture in chaps. xxiv.-xxvii. was not depicted under Hezekiah. Chaps. xxviii.-xxxiii. manifestly belong to the same reign, but somewhat later than the time in which chaps. x., xi., and xii. were written. They were composed about the time when the result of the war against the Assyrians was decided. With the termination of this war terminated also the public life of Isaiah, who added an historical section in chaps. xxxvi.-xxxix., in order to facilitate the right understanding of the prophecies uttered by him during the most fertile period of his prophetic ministry. Then follows the conclusion

V. Contents, Character, and Authority of the Book of Isaiah. It was not the vocation of the prophets to change anything in the religious constitution of Moses, which had been introduced by divine authority; and they were not called upon to substitute anything new in its place. They had only to point out the new covenant to be introduced by the Redeemer, and to prepare the minds of men for the reception of it. They themselves in all their doings were subject to the law of Moses. They were destined to be extraordinary ambassadors of God, whose reign in Israel was not a mere name, not a mere shadow of earthly royalty, but rather its substance and essence. They were to maintain the government of God, by punishing all, both high and low, who manifested contempt of the Lawgiver by offending against his laws. It was especially their vocation to counteract the very ancient delusion, according to which an external observance of rites was deemed sufficient to satisfy God. This opinion is contrary to many passages of the law itself, which admonish men to circumcise the heart, and describe the sum of the entire law to consist in loving God with the whole heart; which make salvation to depend upon being internally turned towards God, and which condemn not only the evil deed, but also the wicked desire. The law had, however, at the first assumed a form corresponding to the wants of the Israelites, and in accordance with the symbolical spirit of antiquity. But when this form, which was destined to be the living organ of the Spirit, was changed into a corpse by those who were themselves spiritually dead, it offered a point of coalescence for the error of those who contented themselves with external observances.

The prophets had also to oppose the delusion of those who looked upon the election of the people of God as a preservative against the divine judgments; who supposed that their descent from the patriarchs, with whom God had made a covenant, was an equivalent for the sanctification which they wanted. Even Moses had strongly opposed this delusion; for instance, in Lev. xxvi. and Deut. xxxii. David also, in the Psalms, as in xv. and xxiv., endeavours to counteract this error, which again and again sprang up. It was the vocation of the prophets to insist upon genuine piety, and to show that a true attachment to the Lord necessarily manifests itself by obedience to his precepts; that this obedience would lead to happiness, and disobedience to misfortune and distress. The prophets were appointed to comfort the faint-hearted, by announcing to them the succour of God, and to bring glad tidings to the faithful, in order to strengthen their fidelity. They were commissioned to invite the rebellious to return, by pointing out to them future salvation, and by teaching them that without conversion they could not be partakers of salvation; and in order that their admonitions and rebukes, their consolations and awakenings, might gain more attention, it was granted

to them to behold futurity, and to foresee the blessings and judgments which would ultimately find their full accomplishment in the days of Messiah. The Hebrew appellation nebiim is by far more expressive than the Greek #popýrns, which denotes only a part of their office, and The word (from the root 2, which occurs in Arabic in the signification of to inform, to explain, to speak) means, according to the usual signification of the form p, a person into whom God has spoken; that is, a person who communicates to the people what God has given to him. The Hebrew word indicates divine inspiration. What is most essential in the prophets is their speaking ev TVEÚμATI; consequently they were as much in their vocation when they rebuked and admonished as when they predicted future events. The correctness of our explanation may be seen in the definition contained in Deut. xviii. 18, where the Lord says, I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.'

The prophet here mentioned is an ideal person. It is prophetism itself personified. It is a characteristic mark that God gives his word into the mouth of the prophet, by means of which he is placed on an equality with the priest, who is likewise a bearer of the word of God. The prophet is at the same time distinguished from the priest, who receives the word of God from the Scriptures, while the prophet receives it without an intervening medium. The internal communications of God to the prophets are given to them only as being messengers to his people. By this circumstance the prophets are distinguished from mystics and theosophers, who lay claim to divine communications especially for themselves. Prophetism has an entirely practical and truly ecclesiastical character, remote from all idle contemplativeness, all fantastic trances, and all anchoretism.

In this description of the prophetical calling there is also contained a statement of the contents of the prophecies of Isaiah. He refers expressly in many places to the basis of the ancient covenant, that is, to the law of Moses; for instance, in viii. 16, 20, and xxx. 9, 10. In many other passages his utterance rests on the same basis, although he does not expressly state it. All his utterances are interwoven with references to the law. It is of importance to examine at least one chapter closely, in order to understand how prophecies are related to the law. Let us take as an example the first. The beginning Hear, O heavens, and give ear O earth,' is taken from Deut. xxxii. Thus the prophet points out that his prophecies are a commentary upon the Magna Charta of prophetism contained in the books of Moses. During the prosperous condition of the state under Uzziah and Jotham, luxury and immorality had sprung up. The impiety of Ahaz had exercised the worst influence upon the whole people. Great part of the nation had forsaken the religion of their fathers and embraced gross idolatry; and a great number of those who worshipped God externally had forsaken Him in their hearts. The divine judgments were approaching. The rising power of Assyria was appointed to be the instrument of divine justice.

some fathers of the church were inclined to style him rather evangelist than prophet. Ewald pointedly describes (p. 169) the human basis of Messianic expectations in general, and of those of Isaiah in particular:-"He who experienced in his own royal soul what infinite power could be granted to an individual spirit in order to influence and animate many, he who daily observed in Jerusalem the external vestiges of a spirit like that of David, could not imagine that the future new congregation of the Lord should ori

He inculcates again and again not to rely upon the creature, but upon the Creator, from whom all temporal and spiritual help proceeds; that in order to attain salvation, we should despair of our own and all human power, and rely upon God. He opposes those who expected help through foreign alliances with powerful neighbouring nations against foreign enemies of the state.

The people of God have only one enemy, and one ally, that is, God. It is foolish to seek for aid on earth against the power of heaven, and to fear man if God is our friend. The panacea against all distress and danger is true conversion. The politics of the prophets consist only in pointing out this remedy. The prophet connects with bis rebuke and with his admonition, his threatenings of divine judgment upon the stiff-necked. These judgments are to be executed by the invasion of the Syrians, the oppression of the Assyrians, the Babylonian exile, and by the great final separation in the times of the Messiah. The idea which is the basis of all these threatenings, is pronounced even in the Pentateuch (Lev. x. 3), 'I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified;' and also in the words of Amos (iii. 2), You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.' That is, if the people do not voluntarily glorify God, He glorifies Himself against them. Partly in order to recal the rebellious to obedience, partly to comfort the faithful, the prophet opens a prospect of those blessings which the faithful portion of the covenant-people shall inherit. In almost all prophetic utterances, we find in regular inccession three elements-rebuke, threatening, and promise. The prophecies concerning the destruction of powerful neighbouring states, partly belong, as we have shown, to the promises, because they are intended to prevent despair, which, as well as false security, is a most dangerous bindrance to conversion.

In the direct promises of deliverance the purpose to comfort is still more evident. This deliverance refers either to burdens which pressed upon the people in the days of the prophet, or to burdens to come, which were already announced by the prophet; such, for instance, were the oppressions of the Syrians, the Assyrians, and finally, of the Chaldæans.

The proclamation of the Messiah is the inexhaustible source of consolation among the prophets. In Isaiah this consolation is so clear that

VOL. 11.

than that of David, and that it should be maintained and supported by any other ruler than a divine ruler. Indeed every spiritual revival must proceed from the clearness and firmness of an elevated mind; and this especially applies to that most sublime revival for which ancient Israel longed and strove. This longing attained to clearness, and was preserved from losing itself in indefiniteness, by the certainty that such an elevated mind was to be expected.'

Isaiah, however, was not the first who attained to a knowledge of the personality of Messiah. Isaiah's vocation was to render the knowledge of this personality clearer and more definite, and to render it more efficacious upon the souls of the elect by giving it a greater individuality. The person of the Redeemer is mentioned even in Gen. xlix. 10, The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh (the tranquilliser) come; and unto Him shall the gathering of the people be' (i. e. Him shall the nations obey). The personality of Messiah occurs also in several psalms which were written before the times of Isaiah; for instance, in the 2nd and 110th, by David; in the 45th, by the sons of Korah; in the 72nd, by Solomon. Isaiah has especially developed the perception of the prophetic and the priestly office of the Redeemer, while in the earlier annunciations of the Messiah the royal office is more prominent; although in Psalm cx. the priestly office also is pointed out. Of the two states of Christ, Isaiah has expressly described that of the exinanition of the suffering Christ, while, before him, his state of glory was made more prominent. In the Psalms the inseparable connection between justice and suffering, from which the doctrine of a suffering Messiah necessarily results, is not expressly applied to the Messiah. We must not say that Isaiah first perceived that the Messiah was to suffer, but we must grant that this knowledge was in him more vivid than in any earlier writer; and that this knowledge was first shown by Isaiah to be an integral portion of Old Testament doctrine.

The following are the outlines of Messianic prophecies in the book of Isaiah:-A scion of David, springing from his family, after it has fallen into a very low estate, but being also of divine nature, shall, at first in lowliness, but as a prophet filled with the spirit of God, proclaim the divine doctrine, develope the law in truth, and render it the animating principle of national life; he shall, as high priest, by his vicarious suffering and his death, remove the guilt of his nation, and that of other nations, and finally rule as a mighty king, not only over the covenant-people, but over all nations of the earth who will subject themselves to his peaceful

E