_Third_--On the ground that Cyrus is mentioned by name, in the
forty-fourth and forty-fifth chapters of the book, as the restorer of
Jerusalem. Hence, our critics conclude that this part of the book must
have been written after the event, as the prophet (it is assumed) could
not name Cyrus before his birth.

_Fourth_--The critics assume that the prophet must prophesy out of his
immediate surroundings, whatever that may mean. They furnish their
troubled disciples the comforting assurance that these discoveries do
not diminish the value of the book, but render it more accurate and
interesting as a literary work. The professor already quoted, a fair
representative of the critical school, in his recent lectures, referred
to on a preceding page, distinguished the authors of the book as "Isaiah
and the Great Unknown Prophet." Other critics multiply, somewhat
indefinitely, the number of "The Unknowns." Our critic regards the
change in _style and theme_ from the thirty-ninth chapter to the end of
the book as valid proof of at least the dual authorship of the book.

This assumption instantly raises the question as to who is the author of
prophetic themes. Is it the prophet himself or the Holy Spirit? Does the
prophet himself bring forth the prophecy of his own foreknowledge? Or,
is the Holy Spirit the inspirer of themes new and old? Happily God has
settled the question for us. He declares by his Apostle Peter "that no
prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation"; that is, of the
prophet's own disclosure. "For prophecy came not of old time by the will
of man; but _holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy
Spirit_." (2 Peter i. 20, 21.) It is, therefore, bold assumption to
affirm that God could not give to the same prophet new and more exalted
themes in his progressive revelation of truth. It is a limitation of God
himself to the critic's notion of what should, or should not be. This