With respect to the nature of the inspiration under which these prophets spoke and acted, there can be no doubt that the Bible itself represents it as plenary, or fully adequate to the attainment of its end. (2 Tim. 3: 16. 2 Pet. 1: 21.) Where this end was external action, it was sufficiently secured by the gift of courage, strength, or practical wisdom. Where the instruction of God's people was the object, whether in reference to the past, the present, or the future; whether in word, in writing, or in both; whether for temporary ends, or with a view. to perpetual preservation; the prophets are clearly represented as infallible, that is, incapable of erring or deceiving, with respect to the matter of their revelation. How far this object was secured by direct suggestion, by negative control, or by an elevating influence upon the native powers, is a question of no practical importance to those who hold the essential doctrine that the inspiration was in all cases such as to render those who were inspired infallible. Between this supposition and the opposite extreme, which denies inspiration altogether, or resolves it into mere excitement of the imagination and the sensibilities, like the afflatus of a poet or an orator, there seems to be no definite and safe position. Either the prophets were not inspired at all in any proper sense, or they were so inspired as to be infallible.

As to the mode in which the required impression was made, it seems both vain and needless to attempt any definite description of it. The ultimate effect would be the same in any case, if not upon the prophet, upon those who heard or read his prophecies. So far as anything can be inferred from incidental or explicit statements of the Scripture, the most usual method of communication would appear to have been that of immediate vision, that is, the presentation of the thing to be revealed as if it were an object of sight. Thus Micaiah saw Israel scattered on the hills like sheep without a shepherd (1 Kings 22 : 17), and Isaiah saw Jehovah sitting on a lofty throne (Isai. 6:1). That

this was the most usual mode of presentation, is probable not only from occasional expressions such as those just quoted, but from the fact, that a very large proportion of the prophetic revelations are precisely such as might be painted and subjected to the sense of sight. The same conclusion is confirmed by the use of the words seer and vision as essentially equivalent to prophet and prophecy. There is no need, however, of supposing that this method of communication, even if it were the common one, was used invariably. Some things in the prophecies require us to suppose that they were made known to the prophet just as he made them known to others, to wit, by the simple suggestion of appropriate words. But this whole question is rather one of curiosity than use. It has been disputed whether the prophets of the old dispensation had any training for their work, at all analogous to what we call a professional education. Some have supposed the sons of the prophets, frequently mentioned in the books of Kings, to have been young men in a course of preparation for the prophetic ministry. To this it has been objected, that their ministry depended on the gift of inspiration, for which no human training could compensate or prepare them. But although they could not act as prophets without inspiration, they might be prepared for those parts of the work which depended upon culture, such as a correct mode of expression, just as men may now be trained by education for the work of the ministry, although convinced that its success depends entirely on the divine blessing. It is not to be forgotten that the inspiration under which the prophets acted left them in full possession of their faculties, native and acquired, and with all their peculiarities of thought and feeling unimpaired. The whole subject of prophetic education is, however, one of surmise and conjecture, rather than of definite knowledge or of practical utility.

To the government the prophets do not seem to have sustained any definite or fixed relation, as component parts of a

political system. The extent and manner of their influence, in this respect, depended on the character of the rulers, the state of affairs, and the nature of the messages which they were commissioned to deliver. As a class, the prophets influenced the government, not by official formal action, but as special messengers from God, by whom he was represented in particular emergencies, and whose authority could neither be disputed nor resisted by any magistrate without abjuring the fundamental principles of the theocracy. Even the apostate kings of Israel acknowledged the divine legation of the prophets of Jehovah.

With respect to the promulgation and preservation of the prophecies, there have been various opinions and many fanciful conjectures. Some suppose the prophets to have been a kind of demagogues or popular orators, whose speeches, if not previously prepared, were afterwards recorded by themselves or others. Another supposition is that the prophets were inspired writers, and that their prophecies were published only as written compositions. A distinction as to this point has by some been drawn between the earlier and the later prophets. From the death of Moses to the accession of Uzziah, a period of nearly seven hundred years, a large proportion of the prophets are supposed to have performed their functions orally and without leaving anything on record; whereas after that period they were led to act not only for the present but the future. We have no cause to doubt, however, that we now have in possession all that was "written aforetime for our learning." And in the case of any prophecy, the question whether it was orally delivered before it was written is comparatively unimportant, as our only concern with it is in its written form. The idea that the prophecies now extant are mere summaries of long discourses is ingenious and plausible in certain cases, but admits of no historical or certain demonstration.

A question of more moment is that with respect to the way

in which the writings were preserved, whether by private circulation as detached compositions, or by solemn enrolment and deposit in the sanctuary. The modern critics who dispute the integrity and genuineness of many passages lean to the former supposition; but the latter is unquestionably favoured by the whole drift of Scripture and the current of ancient usage, sacred and profane, with respect to writings which were looked upon as sacred. It may well be doubted whether among the ancient Hebrews there was any extensive circulation of books at all, and it seems to me to be as hard to disprove as to prove the position, that the only literature of the nation was THE BOOK or SCRIPTURE (1907), which from the time of Moses was kept open, and in which the writings of the prophets may have been recorded as they were produced. At all events, it seems unreasonable and at variance with the tenor of Scripture to suppose, that writings held to be inspired were left to circulate at random and to share the fate of other compositions, without any effort to attest their genuineness or to secure their preservation.

The uniform tradition of the Jews is, that the sacred books were finally collected and arranged by Ezra under the guidance of divine inspiration, and that among them a prominent place, and for the most part the first place, has been always held, by a book bearing the name of Isaiah.

The name Isaiah is a compound word denoting the Salvation of Jehovah, to which some imagine that the Prophet himself alludes in ch. 8: 18. The abbreviated form () is never applied in Scripture to the Prophet, though the rabbins employ it in titles and inscriptions. Both forms of the name are applied in the Old Testament to other persons, in all which cases the English Version employs a different orthography, viz. Jeshaiah or Jesaiah. In the New Testament our Version writes the name Esaias, after the example of the Vulgate, varying slightly from the Greek 'Hoatas, used both in the Septuagint

and the New Testament. To the name of the Prophet we find several times added that of his father Amoz. Of his domestic circumstances we know merely, that his wife and two of his sons are mentioned by himself (ch. 7:3; 8: 3, 4) to which some add a third, as we shall see below.

The only historical account of this Prophet is contained in the book which bears his name, and in the parallel passages of Second Kings, which exhibit unequivocal signs of being from the hand of the same writer. The first sentence of Isaiah's own book, assigns as the period of his ministry the four successive reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, one of the most eventful periods in the history of Judah. The two first reigns here mentioned were exceedingly prosperous, although a change for the worse appears to have commenced before the death of Jotham, and continued through the reign of Ahaz, bringing the state to the very verge of ruin, from which it was not restored to a prosperous condition until long after the accession of Hezekiah. During this period the kingdom of the ten tribes, which had flourished greatly under Jeroboam II, for many years contemporary with Uzziah, passed through the hands of a succession of usurpers, and was at length overthrown by the Assyrians, in the sixth year of Hezekiah's reign over Judah.

Among the neighbouring powers, with whom Israel was more or less engaged in conflict during these four reigns, the most important were Damascene Syria, Moab, Edom, and the Philistines, who although resident within the allotted bounds of Judah, still endeavoured to maintain their position as an independent and a hostile nation. But the foreign powers which chiefly influenced the condition of south-western Asia during this period, were the two great empires of Assyria in the east, and Egypt in the south-west. By a rapid succession of important conquests, the former had suddenly acquired a magnitude and strength which it had not possessed for ages, if at all.