as the finery of women (iii. L6 sq.). Fries!-, princes, kings, all must hear them must, however reluctantly, allow them to perform their calling as long as they spoke in the name of the true God, ami as long as the result did not disprove their pretensions to be the ser- vants of the invisible bang of Israel (Jer. sxxvii, 15- 21).
As seen above, there were institutions lor training prophets; the senior members instructed a number of pupils and directed them. These schools had been tir.-t established by Samuel (1 Sam. x. 8; xix. 19); and at a later time there were Buch institutions iii different places, as Bethel and Gilgal (2 Kings ii. ■'•: iv,88; ri, l ). 'The pupils of the prophets lived in fellowship
united, and were called •■sons of the prophets;'' while the senior or experienced prophets were considered as their spiritual parents, and were styled lathers (comp,
2 Kings ii. 12; vi, 21). Samuel. Elijah, and Elisha are
PROPHET
641
PROPHET
mentioned as principals of such institutions. From them the Lord generally chose his instruments. Amos relates of himself (vii, 14, 15), as a thing uncommon, that he had been trained in no school of prophets, but was a herdsman, when the Lord took him to prophesy unto the people of Israel. At the same time, this ex- ample shows that the bestowal of prophetic gifts was not limited to the school of the prophets. Women also might come forward as prophetesses, as instanced in Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah, though such cases are of comparatively rare occurrence. We should also ob- serve that only as regards the kingdom of Israel we have express accounts of the continuance of the schools of prophets. What is recorded of them is not directly applicable to the kingdom of Judah, especially since, as stated above, prophecy had in it an essentially different position. We cannot assume that the organization and regulations of the schools of the prophets in the king- dom of Judah were as settled and established as in the kingdom of Israel. In the latter, the schools of the prophets had a kind of monastic constitution : they were not institutions of general education, but mission- ary stations; which explains the circumstance that they were established exactly in places which were the chief seats of superstition. The spiritual fathers travelled about to visit the training-schools ; the pupils had their common board and dwelling, and those who married and left ceased not on that account to be con- nected with their colleges, but remained members of them. The widow of such a pupil of the schools of prophets who is mentioned in 2 Kings iv, 1 sq., consid- ered Elisha as the person bound to care for her. The offerings which, by the Mosaic law, were to be given to the Levites were by the pious of the kingdom of Israel brought to the schools of the prophets (iv, 42). The prophets of the kingdom of Israel thus in some sort stood in a hostile position to the priests. These points of difference in the situation of the prophets of the two kingdoms must not be lost sight of; and we further add that prophecy in the kingdom of Israel was much more connected with extraordinary events than in the king- dom of Judah : the history of the latter offers no pro- phetical deeds equalling those of Elijah and Elisha. Prophecy in the kingdom of Israel not being grounded on a hierarchy venerable for its antiquity, consecrated by divine miracles, and constantly flavored with divine protection, it needed to be supported more powerfully, and to be legitimized more evidently. In conclusion, it may be observed that the expression " schools of the prophets" is not exactly suited to their nature, as gen- eral instruction was not their object. The so-called prophets' schools were associations of men endowed with the spirit of God, for the purpose of carrying on their work, the feeble powers of junior members being directed and strengthened by those of a higher class. To those who entered these unions the Divine Spirit had already been imparted, which was the imperative condition of their reception. See Prophets, Sons of. III. The Prophetic Functions. — These have already been in part glanced at, but the importance of the sub- ject demands a fuller exposition. To belong to the prophetic order and to possess the prophetic gift are not convertible terms. There might be members of the prophetic order to whom the gift of prophecy was not vouchsafed. There might be inspired prophets who did not belong to the prophetic order. As we have seen above, the inspired prophet generally came from the college of the prophets, and belonged to the prophet- ic order; but this was not always the case. In the in- stance of the prophet Amos, the rule and the exception are both manifested. When Amaziah, the idolatrous Israelitish priest, threatens the prophet and desires him to "flee away into the land of Judah, and there eat bread and prophesy there, but not to prophesy again any more at Bethel," Amos in reply says. "I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet's son ; but I was an herdsman, and a gatherer of sveamore fruit : and the VIII.— Ss
Lord took me as I followed the flock, and the Lord said unto me, Go prophesy unto my people Israel" (Amos vii, 14). That is, though called to the prophetic office he did not belong to the prophetic order, and had not been trained in the prophetical colleges; and this, he indicates, was an unusual occurrence (see J. Smith On Prophecy, ch. ix).