THE REV. J. J. LIAS, M.A., ON THE UNITY OP ISAIAH. 67 



Another alleged " scientific " ground for laying down the prin- 

 ciples mentioned above is the following. The narratives in ques- 

 tion presuppose a revelation attested by miracles and supported 

 by prophecy. 1 hit science has shown that miracles and prophecy 

 are impossible ; therefore the narratives cannot have been 

 authentic. The miracles related could never have occurred, and 

 the prophecies must have been uttered after the event. Here 

 is the real reason for repudiating the histories and splitting up 

 the prophecies, as we shall see they have been split up. There 

 is, however, no justification for this attitude. Men of science 

 do not nowadays, as a rule, pronounce miracles and prophecy to 

 be impossible, and the bitter antagonism between religion and 

 science which existed fifty or sixty years ago no longer 

 prevails. 



The Unity of Isaiah was not denied at first altogether on 

 account of the supposed opposition between religion and science. 



It was largely due to the distinction in character between the 

 former part of the writings of the prophet and the last twenty- 

 seven chapters, which are separated from the former part by 

 four chapters purely historical. Not only is the earlier portion 

 of Isaiah for the most part a vision of calamity and ruin, and 

 the latter a glowing one of prosperity and hope, but the latter 

 seems to have a Babylonian atmosphere about it — or so at least 

 the German school of critics among us believed until the 

 present Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge expressed the opinion 

 that its atmosphere was Maccabaean. The earlier portion 

 of the prophet's writings contained prophecies which, if they 

 were his, were beyond the capacity of man's unassisted ideas. 

 The later critics have therefore split up this portion into nearly 

 a dozen parts, since they must, of course, have been written 

 after the event. Why they should have been written in the 

 prophetic, and not in the historic, form, the critics do not think 

 it necessary to explain. 



There are, indeed, many points in the critical theories which 

 seem to need explanation, but for which explanation is seldom 

 given. Professor Sir George Adam Smith, in his fascinating 

 volume on Isaiah, has given the most intelligible account of the 

 principles upon which the investigation is grounded. " Our 

 study," he says, " completely dispels, on the authority of the 

 Bible itself, that view of inspiration and prediction so long held 

 in the Church." He then describes what the " view " is in 

 language which certainly does not describe it accurately; 

 indeed, I may venture to say that nothing like it has ever been 

 seen in any treatise on prophecy. The view of the believer may 



