These arguments, however, do not stand a strict scrutiny. The first can only prove that Isaiah sur. vived Hezekiah ; but even this does not follow with certainty, because in 2 Chron. xxxii. 32, where Isaiah's biography of Hezekiah is men tioned, the important words first and last' are 'omitted ; while in chap. x_xvi. 22, we read, NOW the rest of the acts of Uzziah, FIRST AND LAST, did Isaiah, the son of Amoz, write.' If we take into consideration this important omission, we can easily believe that Isaiah died before Hezekiah, although lie wrote his biography up to a certain point ; more especially if we bear in mind that, according to the books of Kings and Chronicles, the latter years of the reign. of Hezekiali were de void of important events. We certainly find, in all ages of literature, biographies of persons written during their life-time.
We may well suppose that the history of Heze kiah terminated with the glorious aid granted to him in his war with the Assyrians, and with the events immediately consequent upon that war.
In reply to the second argument, we observe, that it is not certain that the word irpiaOnaav, they were :WWII asunder, is used in Hebrews with refer ence to Isaiah. The statement in the Fathers, and in Oriental writers, is entirely deduced from the Jewish tradition, which is throughout of so doubt ful a character that no conclusive argument can be based upon it.
With regard to the third argument, we remark, that the difference discernible, if we compare the latter with the former portion of Isaiah, can and ought to be, differently accounted for. 'Such merely external attempts at explanation, when ap plied to Holy Writ, always appear unsatisfactory if closely examined. We invanably find that the real cause of the external appearance lies deeper, and in the nature of the subject itself. For instance, the peculiarity of Deuteronomy arises from the special bearing of that book upon the other books of the Pentateuch, and the peculiar style of the Apocalypse arises from its relation to the gospel of St. John. The appeal to such merely external arguments always proceeds from an inability to understand the essence of the mattet In reference to the censures occurring in the lattei portion of Isaiah, we observe, that they might also have a bearing upon the corruptions prevalent in former reigns, and that they were not necessarily confined to manifestations of wickedness occurring at the time when they were written down. These censures might also refer to the gross perversions under Ahaz ; and it is also unlikely that the per sonal piety of Hezekiah entirely extinguished all abuses among his people. We certainly do not
find that the persona] piety of King Josiah had that effect upon all his subjects.
Several other arguments adduced against the opinion that Isaiah died during the reign of Ma nasseh, are certainly of little weight. For instance, the arguinentunz e silentio, or the proof derived from the silence of the historical books respecting Isaiah during the reigm of Manasseh. This argu ment is of no importance at all, since, at any rate, the death of Isaiah is nowhere mentioned in the Bible ; from which circumstance we infer, that, on account of his advanced age, he had retired from active life.
Of somewhat more weight is the objection that, according to the supposition that Isaiah died under Manasseh, too great an age would be ascribed to the prophet. Although we were to suppose that Isaiah, as well as Jeremiah, was called to the pro phetic office at an early age—perhaps in his twen tieth year—he, nevertheless, in thc fifteenth year of Hezekiah, up to which date we can prove his ministrations by existing documents, would have reached quite or nearly to his seventieth year, which is the usual duration of human life ; conse quently, at the time of the accession of Manasseh he would have been about eighty-four years old ; and if, with the defenders of the tradition, we allow that he exercised the prophetic functions for about seven or eight years during the reign of Manasseh, he must at the period of his martyrdom have attained to the age of ninety-two. This, in deed, is quite possible. The example of the pro phet Hosea, who exercised his prophetic calling during sixty years, and that of the priest Jehoiada, who, according to 2 Chron. xxiv. 15, was a hun dred and thirty years old when he died, prove the possibility of the age ascribcd to Isaiah.
The chief argument against the tradition, how ever, is contained in the inscription of the book itself. According to this inscription all the pro phecies of Isaiah in our collection are included within the period from Uzziah to Hezekiah. Not one of the prophecies which are headed by an in scription of their own is placed after the fifteenth year of ,Hezekiah ; and the internal evidence leads us in none beyond this period. Hence we infer that the prophetic ministry of Isaiah terminated soon after its fullest development, to which it attained during the period of the Assyrian inva sion, in the reign of Hezekiah.