Contemplation, quietism, the endeavor after a complete absorption by, or identification with God-such is the résumé of M. de Saint Martin's code of ethics, a code which he holds in common with all the Mystics. As a consequence of his doctrine that the nature of man is exclusively and entirely spiritual, he considers the body as being, so to say, foreign from ourselves, and something quite distinct, quite independent, but to which we are fettered for a time. "Death!" exclaims the philosopher, "is there such a thing as death? Has not death been destroyed? The fight has been fought, the victory won; we have now only to receive the conqueror's laurelbranch from the hands of the last enemy, Death! Is it the death of the body which the wise man reckons as something? But this is only an occurrence in time. What relation can there be between an occurrence which takes place in time and the man created for eternity?" This is a noble thought nobly expressed; but here again M. de Saint Martin soon splits against the rock; the worship of the present life is the folly of materialism; we may say, on the other hand, that an undue contempt for it is the fault of Mystic metaphysicians. They not only despise riches, dignities, honors, all the vanities which Christians are taught to consider as little worth; they also trample under foot the noblest effusions of the heart, and by sacrificing them to their fond dream of a transfusion of themselves into the Supreme Being, they create a kind of stoicism which, although not devoid of grandeur, is, at the same time, fraught with dangerous consequences.

We come to M. de St. Martin's sociology, to his doctrines on government and on politics. We might expect to find them resolving themselves into a system of theocracy, founded upon the great substratum upon which he erects the whole of his theory, namely, the emanation of the creature from the Creator, constituting the atoneness of the one with the other. Count Joseph de Maistre, we have already seen elsewhere, had also dreamed of the regenerating of modern society by means of a theocratic government; but between the systems developed by the two thinkers there are many differences which must strike even the casual observer.

The publicists of the eighteenth century had endeavored to substitute for the account given in the book of Genesis a sort of romance, according to which mankind lived in a state of nature anterior to the organization of society. They framed fanciful accounts of a wild man wandering amid primeval forests, then associating with another individual as wild as himself. How will society spring from this association? Shall we say, with Hobbes, that it resulted from the subjection of the weak to the strong? Is violence, is phys

ical force the principle of society? But what force has produced force can also destroy, and the system falls immediately to the ground. Or rather do we admit, with Rosseau, the mutual compact as the primary law of society? Then, in the first place, the voluntary association agreed upon by a whole nation is an impossibility, because there can be no unanimity in the manner of considering the motives and conditions of the new compact. It is perfectly absurd to expect to find something fixed in a world where everything is transitory. In the next place, let us suppose that a unanimous consent can be arrived at, we would ask whether man is at liberty, whether he has a right to make such a compact? Decidedly not; he cannot dispose of his rights. His rights, did we say? They are not his, since there is not one of them which he can alter at his will. If, therefore, he makes over to another man a right which he has not, namely, that of disposing of himself, he frames a compact which is void, and which binds neither chiefs nor subjects.

From what we have just been saying, it follows that M. de Saint Martin will have nothing to do with a republican government; the sovereignty of the people, the authority of a law proceeding from the vote of an assembly, the delegation of the national will to a few individuals-all these several points he firmly repudiates. As religion is the principle of all society, so pure theocracy, according to the philosophe inconnu, is the exclusive form of true government. The Word is the only true legislator. In Him is the basis of every species of property, the sanction of every law. Every government which does not bear the sign of the Word is illegitimate and false. An hereditary monarchy, consequently, is quite as unsound as a republic, because if the latter is derived from the idea of a compact, the former proceeds from that of physical force, of compulsion. Founded upon the idea of man's return to a state of absolute holiness, M. de St. Martin's government scheme is a complete chimera as applied to the politics of this sublunary world; but it contains, nevertheless, many just ideas; and certainly when the Saviour comes to be recognized as "King of kings and Lord of lords," theocracy will then be the only possible form of government. So far then are the most striking analogies between the political systems of Count de Maistre and of M. de Saint Martin; but here the similarity ceases. The Mystic gives shape to a dream which cannot be realized; the Ultramontanist finds God's representative in the pope-the supreme type of sovereignty, the sole power from whom all powers on earth are derived. M. de Saint Martin's εç Kopavoç is at the same time both a priest and a king. M. de Maistre places the king under the direct dependence of the Vatican, and establishes

between the temporal and the spiritual powers that relation which Pope Gregory VII. longed to inaugurate. Our readers can see now how deeply tinged with Mysticism was Count de Maistre; let them examine successively the Considerations sur la Révolution Française by the same author, and our philosopher's Lettre sur la Révolution, they will then be convinced, we trust, that if M. de Saint Martin has not obtained, as a writer and a thinker, the world-wide reputation which the author of the Soireés de St. Petersbourg still enjoys, it is only because there is about his systems a want of practicability which prevents them from being applied to the actual state of society.

In the remarks we have now brought to a conclusion, it has not been our object either to rehabilitate Mysticism or to write a panegyric of M. de Saint Martin; but it often happens that philosophical theories containing large portions of error have also an element of truth, which ought to be impartially stated whenever we meet it. Such is the case, we firmly believe, with that excellent man, le philosophe inconnu. There is nothing to astonish us in the fact that, in an age like ours, when the Christian religion seems to be passing through one of the severest ordeals it has ever been tried with; there is nothing extraordinary, we say, in the fact that some sensitive minds, weary with logomachies and endless discussions, are once more attracted by the tenets of Mysticism. But for this very reason it is imperative upon us to let those persons know what Mysticism really is. Compared with the words of unerring wisdom, how unsatisfactory are the theories of illuminism and the dreams of theosophy!

ART. VII.-EXPOSITION OF ISAIAH LII, 13-LIII.

INTRODUCTION.

THE Prophet Isaiah holds a very prominent place among the writers of the Old Testament. By the Jews he was counted one of the greatest of the prophets, and the estimation in which he was held by the immediate disciples of Jesus Christ is shown by their frequent quotations from his prophecies.

All through the history of the Christian Church this prophet has been viewed as most clearly announcing the Messiah in the form and under the circumstances in which he appeared, and as declaring the great doctrine of an atonement through vicarious suffering.

Augustine* tells us, that when after his conversion he applied to Ambrose to know which of the sacred books he should read in preferance to all others, Ambrose replied Isaiah, because it was he who had more openly declared the Gospel and the calling of the Gentiles.† And in his City of God, speaking of Isaiah, he says: "In his precepts against sin, and his prophecies of tribulation for offending, he forgets not to proclaim Christ and his Church more fully than any other, so that some call him an evangelist rather than a prophet."

The Hebrew name of the prophet () denotes the help or salvation of Jehovah, a name suggestive of the comforting words he uttered, and the glorious visions he saw in the future of the Church of God.

We know but little of the times in which this prophet lived, except what we can gather from his own writings. The title of his prophecies speaks of him as the son of Amoz, and he tells us that he saw his prophetic visions in the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. He lived during a most eventful period of his nation's history, and seems at times to have acted a prominent part in the direction of public affairs. He probably held the prophetic office for a term of more than sixty years.

The book of Isaiah is divided by critics into different sections. In the first six chapters we have an account of the prophet's ministry under Uzziah and Jotham. That portion from the seventh chapter to the fourth verse of the tenth belongs to the time of Ahaz. During the reign of this ungodly king Isaiah was the bold denouncer of sin, although his reproofs and warnings were unheeded. From the tenth chapter to the close of the thirty-fifth, the prophecies relate to the Assyrian invasion in the time of Hezekiah. During the reign of the good Hezekiah the prophet was treated with great respect, and took an important part in directing public counsels.

The section from the thirty-sixth chapter to the thirty-ninth, is a narrative of the Assyrian invasion. In this the prophet gives an account of the destruction of the Assyrian army and the death of Sennacherib. Here too the sickness and recovery of Hezekiah are told.

The prophecies which commence at the fortieth chapter are to be regarded as the most interesting and important in the Old Testament. The section commencing with this and closing with the sixty-sixth constitutes the second part of the book.

In this section we have the most full and satisfactory references to the promised Messiah, sometimes described in his humiliation, and again as crowned with the glory of his spiritual kingdom. So Aug. Con. ix, 15. †De Civitate Dei, xvii, 29.

fully are many of the circumstances in the life and death of Christ foretold in this portion of the prophecy, that rationalistic criticism has attempted to disprove its genuineness. *

Lowth thinks this was written in the latter part of the reign of Hezekiah. We are more inclined to agree with Hengstenberg, that it was written in the reign of the wicked Manasseh. At that time Isaiah, far advanced in life and taking no part in public affairs, seeing his country almost wholly given over to idolatry, in his inspired vision is told both of a temporal and spiritual deliverance. And he passes from the local and temporary things that affect his own nation and times to such as are to pertain to the whole race. The promised Deliverer is not alone for the Jew, but the kings of the nations are to do him reverence. He is to be the deliverer of the

race from the bondage of sin.

This is the proper Messianic portion of Isaiah. True, in several of the preceding chapters there are predictions of a coming Messiah. but nearly all that is related in the first thirty-nine chapters has reference to the times in which the prophet lived.

In our exposition of the passage we have placed at the head of this article, it is our design to give the results of the latest criticism, though we shall probably notice the views of some of the earlier

commentators.

This passage is almost complete in itself. We have set before us the humiliation and the exaltation of the servant of God. In chapter lii, 13-15, the prophet represents Jehovah as speaking; and these verses form a brief outline of what is more fully expressed in the next chapter.

EXPOSITION.

LII, 13. Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.

3p the imperfect Hiphil of, is rendered by Hengstenberg very much the same as in our version. He says this form always means, to act wisely, never to be successful. But Gesenius gives the latter meaning. Compare its use in Joshua, i, 7, 8; 2 Kings, xviii, 7; Jer. x, 21; Prov. xvii, 8. Lowth renders it, shall pros per. The parallelism, which is in the form of a climax, sustains his translation.

14. As many were astonied at thee, (his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men.) The primary idea of is that of silence. Hence, to be struck ·

• This point is fully discussed by Hengstenberg,

Christology, vol. 2.