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.). In 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 in some way with the royal family. His father was evidently well known. See ch. 1. 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 and well known, 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. 1. 1. Zech. 1. 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 ch. 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 an indication, a sign, or a pledge that the remnant of the Jews who should be carried away at any time should return; or that the whole nation should 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 not become extinct, but that it 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, and a constant remembrancer of this event. The name of the other is MAHERSHALAL-HASHBAZ. (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. Ch. viii. x. To this child, also, there seems to have been given the name of VOL. I.

3

Immanuel (ch. vii, 8.) as significant of the presence and protection of God and as emblematic also of the great Deliverer the Messiah, whom Isaiah had constantly in his eye. See Notes on ch. viii. 8. The tradition is, that the body of Isaiah was buried near Jerusalem, under the fuller's oak near the fountain of Siloam; whence it was removed to Paneas near the sources of the Jordan, and from thence to Constantinople in the year of our Lord 442 Rob. Cal. But this is mere tradition.

Great respect was paid to Isaiah and his writings after his death. It is evident that Jeremiah imitated him (comp. Notes on ch. 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 shewn in another part of this Introduction. See viii. Josephus (Ant. B. xi. ch. 1. 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 favor 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 fulfill 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" &c. 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 Whis ton's Note. It is justly remarked (see Jahn's observation, quoted by Hengstenberg, Christol. 1. 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." And in his Epistle ad Paulinum, he says “Isaiah seems to me not to have composed a prophecy, but the gospel;" and in his preface he says "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 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; that he seems to comfound and mingle not Greece as was formerly said of Pericles; not Judea, and the neighboring 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. Sirach ch. xlviii. 22.

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 boldest figures of rhetoric, and the most beautiful ornaments of poetry. Grotius compares him to Demosthetes. "In his writings we meet with the purity of the Hebrew tongue, as in the orator with the delicacy of the Attic taste. 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 odious. Isaiah was superior to Demosthenes in the honor of illustrious birth." Comm. on 2 Kings, xix. 2. It may be added here, that although his writings are not so ancient as those of Moses, or as those of Homer and Hesiod, yet they are more ancient than most of the admired classic productions of Greece, and are far more ancient than any of the Latin classics. He lived nearly four hundred years before Demosthenes, and nearly all that we admire in the classics was subsequent to his time. As an ancient writer he demands respect. And laying out of view altogether the idea of his inspiration, and his religious character, he has a claim as a poet, an orator, a writer of eminent beauty, and unrivalled sublimity to the attention of the learned; and of those who are seeking eminence in literature. No reason can be given why in a course of mental training, Isaiah, and the language in which he wrote, should be neglected, while Hesiod and Homer, with the language in which they wrote, should be the objects of admiration, and of diligent culture. In no book, perhaps, can the mere man of taste be more gratified than in the study of Isaiah; by no writings would the mind be more elevated in view of the beautiful and the sublime, or the heart be more refined by the contemplation of the pure. Few, very few of the Greek and Latin classic writers can be put into the hands of the young without endangering the purity of their morals; Isaiah may be studied in all the periods of youth, and manhood, and age, only to increase the virtue of the heart, and the purity of the imagination, at the same time that he enriches and expands the understanding. And while no one who has just views of the inestimable value of the Greek and Latin classics in most of the

respects contemplated in education, would wish to see them banished from the schools, or displaced from seminaries of learning, yet the lover of ancient writings; the lover of purity of thought and diction; the lover of sweet and captivating poetry; the lover of the beautiful and sublime in writing; the lover of perhaps the oldest language of the world, and the lover of the pure sentiments of revelation, may hope that the time will come when the Hebrew language shall be deemed worthy of culture in American schools and colleges as well as the Latin and the Greek; and that, as a part of the training of American youth, Isaiah may be allowed to take a place at least as honorable as Virgil or Homer; as Cicero or Demosthenes. It is indeed a melancholy reflection which ws are compelled to make on the seminaries of learning in our land-a Christian land-that the writings of the Hebrew prophets and poets have been compelled to give place to the poetry and the mythology of the Greeks; and that the books containing the only system of pure religion are required to defer to those which were written under the auspices of idolatry, and which often express sentiments, and inculcate feelings, which cannot be made to contribute to the purity of the heart, or be reconciled with the truth as revealed from heaven. As specimens of taste; as models of purity of thought, and beauty of diction; as well as for their being the vehicles in which the knowledge of the only true religion is conveyed to man, these writings have a claim on the attention of the young in this nation. Were the writings of Isaiah mere human compositions; had they come down to us as the writings of Demosthenes and Homer have done; had they not been connected with religion, we may be permitted to express the belief that the Jewish classics, with the classics of Greece and Rome would have been allowed an honorable place in all the seminaries of learning, and in all the public and private libraries of the land.

3. THE TIMES OF ISAIAH.

Isaiah, as we have seen, lived for the greater part of a century, and possibly even more than a century. It is probable also that for a period of more than seventy years he exercised the prophetic office. During that long period, it is manifest that important changes must have occurred; and it is equally manifest that a knowledge of some of the leading events of his time is necessary to understand his prophecies. Indeed a simple knowledge of historical facts will often make portions of his prophecies clear which would be otherwise entirely unintelligible.

The kingdom of Israel, which during the reigns of David and Solomon had been extended so far, and which had been so mighty and so magnificent, had been divided into two separate kingdoms 990 years before Christ, or two hundred and forty years before Isaiah entered on his prophetic office. The glory of these kingdoms had departed; and they had been greatly

weakened by contentions with each other, and by conflicts with surrounding nations. In a particular manner, the kingdom of Israel, or Samaria, or Ephraim, or the ten tribes, as it was indiscriminately called, had sunk into deep depravity; had been governed by a succession of wicked princes; had become deeply imbued with idolatry, and had so far provoked God as to make it necessary to remove them to a foreign land. It was during the time in which Isaiah discharged the duties of the prophetic office that that kingdom was utterly overturned, and the inhabitants transplanted to a distant country. In the year 736 before Christ, or not far from twenty years after Isaiah entered on his work, Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria slew Rezin king of Damascus, the ally of Pekah the king of Samaria; and he entered the land of Israel, and took many cities and captives, chiefly in Gilead and Galilee, and carried many of the inhabitants to Assyria. 2 Kings xvi. 5-9, Amos i. 5, 2 Kings xv. 29, 1 Chron. v. 26. This was the first captivity of the kingdom of Israel. Shalmaneser succeeded Tiglath-Pileser as king of Assyria B. C. 724. In the year 721 B. C. he besieged Samaria, and after three years siege he took it. He carried beyond the Euphrates the inhabitants which Tiglath-Pilesr had not removed; and placed them in cities there, and they are supposed to have returned no more. 2 Kings xvii. 3—18, Hos. xiii. 16, 1 Chron. v. 26. This was the end of the kingdom of Israel, after it had subsisted two hundred and fifty-four years. Isaiah exercised the prophetic office during about thirty of the last years of the kingdom of Israel. But his residence was principally at Jerusalem; and not many of his predictions have reference to the kingdom of Israel. Most of his prophecies which have reference to the Jews relate to the kingdom of Judah, and to Jerusalem.

The kingdom of Judah, whose capital was Jerusalem, and in reference to which most of the prophecies of Isaiah were delivered, had greatly declined from the splendor and magnificence which had existed under David and Solomon. It had been greatly weakened by the revolt of the ten tribes, and by the wars in which it had been engaged with the kingdom of Samaria, as well as with surrounding nations. Though its kings were superior in virtue and piety to the kings of Israel, yet many of them had been unworthy to be the descendants of David, and their conduct had exposed them greatly to the divine displeasure.

When Isaiah entered on his prophetic office the throne was occupied by Uzziah; or as he is elsewhere called Azariah. He succeeded his father Amaziah, and was sixteen years old when he came to the throne, and reigned fifty-two years. He began his reign in the year 809 B. C. and of course his reign extended to the year 757 B. C. His general character was that of integrity and piety. He was a worshipper of the true God, yet he did not remove the groves and high places which had been established in the land for idolatrous worship. He greatly strengthened Jerusalem; was