ject is uniform Michaelis (Preface to Isaiah) has referred to the following places in proof on this point. Tract. Talmud. Jabhamoth, fol. 49; Sanhedrin, fol. 103; Jalkut, part ii. fol. 38; Schalscheleth Hakkab. fol. 19. Raschi and Abarbanel in their commentaries give the same statement. (3.) The testimony of the early Christian writers is the same. Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew (p. 349), speaking of Isaiah, says, or no̟lov (vho̟ ingloate, "whom ye sawed asunder with a wooden saw.' ."-Tertullian (de patientia, c. 14) says, His patientiae viribus secatur Esaias.-Lactantius (lib. iv. c. 2) says, Esais, quem ipsi Judaei serrâ consectum crudelissime necaverunt. Augustine (de Civit. Dei, lib. 18, c. 24) says, "the prophet Isaiah is reputed to have been slain by the impious King Manasseh." Jerome (on Isa. lvii. 1) says, that the prophet prophesied in that passage of his own death, for "it is an undisputed tradition among us, that he was sawn asunder by Manasseh, with a wooden saw." These passages and others from the Jewish writers, and from the fathers, are to be found in Michaelis' Preface to Isaiah; in Gesenius' Introduction; and in Carpzov. Crit. Sacr. In a matter of simple fact, there seems to be no reason to call this testimony in question. It is to be remembered that Jerome was well acquainted with Hebrew, that he dwelt in Palestine, and no doubt has given the prevalent opinion about the death of Isaiah. (4.) The character of Manasseh was such as to make it probable that if Isaiah lived at all during his reign, he would seek his death. In 2 Kings xxi. 16, it is said of him that he "shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another." This account is in entire accordance with that of Josephus, quoted above. In the early part of his reign, it is recorded that he did evil, and especially that he reared the high places and the altars of idolatry which Hezekiah had destroyed, and endeavoured to restore again the abominations which had existed in the time of Ahab. 2 Kings xxi. 2, 3. It is scarcely credible that such a man as Isaiah would see all this done without some effort to prevent it; and it is certain that such an effort would excite the indignation of Manasseh. If, however, he cut off the righteous men of Jerusalem, as Josephus testifies, and as the author of the books of Kings would lead us to believe, there is every probability that Isaiah would also fall a sacrifice to his indignation. It is not necessary in order to this to suppose that Isaiah appeared much in public; or that, being then an old man, he should take a prominent part in the transactions of that period. That we have no recorded prophecy of that time, as we have of the times of Uzziah, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, leaves it probable that Isaiah had withdrawn from the more public functions of the prophetic office, and probably (see § iv. of this Introduction) had given himself to the calm and holy contemplation of future and better times under the Messiah. But still his sentiments would be known to the monarch; and his influence while he lived among the people may have been materially in the way of the designs of Manasseh. Manasseh, therefore, may have regarded it as necessary to remove him, and in the slaughter of the good men and prophets of his time, there is every probability that Isaiah would be made a victim. (5.) It affords some

confirmation of this statement that Paul (Heb. xi. 37) affirms of some of the ancient saints, that they were "sawn asunder." There is not in the Old Testament any express mention of any one's being put to death in this manner; but it has been common with all expositors, from the earliest periods, to suppose that Paul had reference to Isaiah. The universal tradition on this subject among the Hebrews makes this morally certain. It is certain that Paul could not have made such an enumeration unless there was a well-established tradition of some one or more who had suffered in this manner; and all tradition concurs in assigning it to Isaiah. (6.) The character of the second part of the prophecies of Isaiah (chs. xl.-Ixvi.) accords with this supposition. They are mainly employed in depicting the glories of a future age; the blessedness of the times of the Messiah. They bespeak the feelings of a holy man who was heart-broken with the existing state of things; and who had retired from active life, and sought consolation in the contemplation of future blessings. No small part of those prophecies is employed in lamenting an existing state of idolatry (zee particularly chs. xl. xli. Ivi. lvii. lxv.), and the prevalence of general irreligion. Such a description does not accord with the reign of Hezekiah; and it is evidently the language of a man who was disheartened with prevailing abominations, and who, seeing little hope of immediate reform, cast his mind forward into future times, and sought repose in the contemplation of happier days. How long he lived under Manas. seh is unknown; and hence it is not possible to ascertain his age when he was put to death. We may reasonably suppose that he entered on his prophetic office as early as the age of twenty. From Jer. i. 6, we learn that an earlier call than this to the prophetic office sometimes occurred. On this supposition he would have been eighty-two years of age at the death of Hezekiah. There is no improbability, therefore, in the supposition that he might have lived ten or even fifteen years or more, under the long reign of Manasseh. The priest Jehoiada attained the great age of one hundred and thirty years. 2 Chron. xxiv. 15. Isaiah lived evidently a retired and a temperate life. It is the uniform tradition of the oriental Christians that he lived to the age of one hundred and twenty years. See Hengstenberg's Christol. vol. i. p. 278.

Where he lived is not certainly known; nor are many of the circumstances of his life known. His permanent residence, in the earlier part of his prophetic life, seems to have been at Jerusalem. During the reign of the ungodly Ahaz, he came forth boldly as the reprover of sin, and evidently spent a considerable part of his time near the court. Ch. vii. seq. His counsels and warnings were then derided and disregarded. Hezekiah was a pious prince, and admitted him as a counsellor, and was inclined to follow his advice. In his reign he was treated with respect, and he had an important part in directing the public counsels during the agitating occurrences of that reign. If he lived in the time of Manasseh, he probably retired from public life; his counsel was unsought, and if offered, was disregarded. It is evident that he did not entirely withdraw from his office as a reprovet (chs. lvi.―lviii.), but his main employment seems to have been to con

template the pure and splendid visions which relate to the happier times of the world, and which constitute the close of his prophecies, chs. xl.-lxvi.

Of the family of Isaiah little is known. The Jewish writers constantly affirm that he was of noble extraction, and was closely connected with the royal family. The name of his father was Amoz, or Amotz-i; not the prophet Amos, as some have supposed, for his name in Hebrew is ding, Amos. Amoz, or Amotz, the father of Isaiah, the Jews affirm to have been the brother of Amaziah the son of Joash, king of Judah. 2 Kings xiv. 1. Thus D. Kimchi on Isa. i. 1, writes, "We are ignorant of his family, from what tribe he was, except that our doctors have handed it down by tradition that Amotz and Amaziah were brothers." And thus R. Solomon says, "It is handed down to us from our ancestors that Amotz and Amaziah were brothers." The same is said also by R. Levi (in Megilla, c. i. fol. 10); and by Abarbanel Pref. fol. 1 (quoted by Michaelis, Pref. to Isai.). În this supposition there is nothing improbable; and the fact that he was admitted so freely to the counsels of Hezekiah, and that he went so boldly to Ahaz (ch. vii. 1, seq.), may seem to give some countenance to the idea that he was connected with the royal family. His father was evidently well known. See ch. i. 1, and elsewhere where his name is introduced. Indeed it is not improbable that most of the prophets were descended from families that were highly respectable, as they generally mention the name of their father as a name that is well known. Comp. Ezek. i. 3. Jer. i. 1. Hos. i. 1. Joel i. 1. Jonah i. 1. Zeph. i. 1. Zech. i. 1. In the other prophets the name of the father is omitted, probably because he was obscure and unknown. It is morally certain that Isaiah was not connected with the Levitical order, since if he had been, this would have been designated as in Jer. i. 1. Ezek. i. 3. The wife of Isaiah is called a prophetess (ch. viii. 3), and it is supposed by some that she had the spirit of prophecy; but the more probable opinion is, that the wives of the prophets were called prophetesses, as the wives of the priests were called priestesses. On the question whether he had more than one wife, see Notes on chs. vii. viii. Two sons of Isaiah are mentioned, both of whom had names fitted to awaken religious attention, and who were in some sense the pledges of the fulfilment of divine predictions. The name of the one was "SHEAR-JASHUB" (ch. vii. 3), the meaning of which is, the remainder shall return-designed undoubtedly to be a sign or pledge that the remnant of the Jews who should be carried away at any time would return; or that the whole nation would not be destroyed and become extinct. This was one of the axioms, or fundamental points in all the writings of this prophet; and whatever calamity or judgment he foretold, it was always terminated with the assurance that the nation should be still ultimately preserved, and greatly enlarged, and glorified. This idea he seems to have resolved to keep as much as possible before the minds of his countrymen, and to this end he gave his son a name that should be to them a pledge of his deep conviction of this truth. The name of the other is MAHER-SHALALHASH-BAZ (ch viii. 1), haste to the spoil; haste to the prey--a name

significant of the fact that the Assyrian (ch. vii.) would soon ravage and subdue the land, or would extensively plunder the kingdom of Judea. Tradition says that the death of Isaiah occurred in Jerusalem near the fountain of Siloam. Just below this fountain, and opposite to the point where Mount Ophel terminates, is a large mulberrytree, with a terrace of stones surrounding its trunk, where it is said Isaiah was sawn asunder. Robinson's Bib. Research. i. 342. The tradition further is, that his body was buried here, whence it was removed to Paneas near the sources of the Jordan, and from thence to Constantinople in the year of our Lord 442.

Great respect was paid to Isaiah and his writings after his death. It is evident that Jeremiah imitated him (comp. Notes on chs. xv. xvi.); and there is abundant evidence that he was studied by the other prophets. The estimate in which he was held by the Lord Jesus, and by the writers of the New Testament, will be shown in and ther part of this Introduction. See § viii. Josephus (Ant. B. xi. ch. i. § 2) says that Cyrus was moved by the reading of Isaiah to the acknowledgment of the God of Israel, and to the restoration of the Jews, and to the rebuilding of the temple. After stating (§ 1) the decree which Cyrus made in favour of the Jews, he adds, "This was known to Cyrus by his reading the book which Isaiah left behind him of his prophecies; for this prophet had said that God had spoken thus to him in a secret vision, 'My will is that Cyrus, whom I have appointed to be king over many and great nations, send back my people to their own land, and build my temple.' This was foretold by Isaiah one hundred and forty years before the temple was demolished. Accordingly when Cyrus read this, and admired the divine power, an earnest desire and ambition came upon him to fulfil what was so written; so he called for the most eminent Jews that were in Babylon, and said to them, that he gave them leave to go back to their own country, and to rebuild their city Jerusalem and the temple of their God." In this passage of Josephus there is an undoubted reference to Isa, xliv. 28: "That saith of Cyrus, He is my Shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure, even saying to Jerusalem. Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid." Comp. ch. xlv. 1 seq. On the genuineness of this passage of Josephus see Whiston's Note. It is justly remarked (see Jahn's observation, quoted by Hengstenberg, Christol. i. 279) that this statement of Josephus furnishes the only explanation of the conduct of Cyrus towards the Jews. It is only a commentary on Ezra i. 2, where Cyrus says, "JEHOVAH the God of heaven and earth hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem which is in Judah." It is incredible that Cyrus should not have seen the prophecy (Isa. xliv. 28) respecting himself before he made this proclamation.

The writings of the fathers are full of the praise of Isaiah. Jerome says of him that he is not so much to be esteemed a prophet as an Evangelist. And he adds, "he has so clearly explained the whole mystery of Christ and the church, that you will regard him not as predicting future events, but as composing a history of the past." In his Epistle ad Paulinum he says, "Isaiah seems to me not to have

INTRODUCTION.

composed a prophecy, but the gospel." And in his preface he "that in his discourse he is so eloquent, and is a man of so noble and refined elocution, without any mixture of rusticity, that it is impossible says to preserve or transfuse the beauty of his style in a translation." Comp. the Confess. of Augus. ix. 5; De Civita. Dei. lib. viii. c. 29. Moses Amyraldus said of Isaiah that he “seems to thunder and lighten; he seems to confound and mingle not Greece, as was formerly said of Pericles; not Judea, and the neighbouring regions, but heaven and earth and all the elements." See Michaelis Pref. to Isa. p. 8. 9, 10. Comp. Joseph. Ant. B. x. c. 3. Sırach ch. xlviii. 22. "The style of Isaiah," says Hengstenberg, Christol. vol. i. p. 281, 'is in general characterized by simplicity and sublimity; in the use of imagery, he holds an intermediate place between the poverty of Jeremiah and the exuberance of Ezekiel. In other respects his style is suited to the subject, and changes with it. In his denunciations and threatenings he is earnest and vehement; in his consolations and instructions, on the contrary, he is mild and insinuating; in the strictly poetic passages, full of impetuosity and fire. He so lives in the events he describes, that the future becomes to him as the past and the present."

It is now generally conceded that a considerable portion of Isaiah, like the other prophets, is poetry. For the establishment of this opinon, we are indebted mainly to Bishop Lowth. "It has," says he, (Prelim. Diss. to Isaiah,) "I think, been universally understood that the prophecies of Isaiah were written in prose. the images, the expressions, have been allowed to be poetical, and The style, the thoughts, that in the highest degree; but that they were written in verse, in measure, in rhythm, or whatever it is that distinguishes as poetry the composition of those books of the Old Testament which are allowed to be poetical, such as Job, the Psalms, and the Proverbs, from the historical books, as mere prose, this has never been supposed, at least has not been at any time the prevailing feeling."

The main object of Lowth, in his Preliminary Dissertation, was to demonstrate that the prophecies of Isaiah have all the characteristics of Hebrew poetry; a position which he has abundantly established, and which is admitted now by all to be correct. Accordingly, in imitation of Lowth and of the best critics, the "New Translation" in this work is, for the most part, exhibited in the usual poetic form of the Hebrew parallelism. For a more extended view of the nature of Hebrew poetry, the reader may consult my Introduction to the Book of Job, pp. xxxix.-liv.

In all ages Isaiah has been regarded as the most sublime of all writers. He is simple, bold, rapid, elevated; he abounds in metaphor, and in rapid transitions; his writings are full of the sublimest figures of rhetoric, and the most beautiful ornaments of poetry. Grotius compares him to Demosthenes. "In his writings we meet with the purity of the Hebrew tongue, as in the orator with the delicacy of the Attic Both are sublime and magnificent in their style; vehement in their emotions; copious in their figures; and very impetuous when they describe things of an enormous nature, or that are grievous and

faste.