1. In a general way, we may indicate that the sphere of action of the prophets was" absolutely limited to Is- raelites, and there is only one case of a prophet going to the heathen to preach among them— that of Jonah sent to Nineveh. He goes, however, to Nineveh to shame the Hebrews by the reception which he meets with there, and acting upon his own nation was thus even in this case the prophet's ultimate object. Many predictions of the Old Test, concern, indeed, the events of foreign nations, but they are always uttered and writ- ten with reference to Israel, and the prophets thought not of publishing them among the heathens themselves. The conversion of the pagans to the worship of the true God was indeed a favorite idea of the prophets; but the Divine Spirit told them that it was not to be ef- fected by their exertions, as it was connected with ex- tensive future changes, which they might not forestall.
That the Lord would send such prophets was prom- ised to the people by Moses, who by a special law (Deut. xviii, 1) secured them authority and safety. As his or- dinary servants and teachers, God appointed the priests: the characteristic mark which distinguished the proph- ets from them was inspiration ; and this explains the circumstance that, in times of great moral and religious corruption, when the ordinary means no longer sufficed to reclaim the people, the number of prophets increased. The regular religious instruction of the people was no part of the business of the prophets : their proper duty was only to rouse and excite. The contrary— viz. that "a part of the regular duty of the prophets was to instruct the people — is often argued from 2 Kings iv, 23, where it is said that the Shunamitess on the sabbaths and days of new moon used to go to the prophet Elisha; but this passage applies only to the kingdom of Israel, and ad- mits of no inference with respect to the kingdom of Judah. As regards the latter, there is no proof that prophets held meetings for instruction and edification on sacred days. Their position was here quite differ- ent from that of the prophets in the kingdom of Israel. The agency of the prophets in the kingdom of Judah was only of a subsidiary kind. These extraordinary mes- sengers of the Lord only filled there the gaps left by the regular servants of God, the priests and the Levites: the priesthood never became there utterly degenerate, and each lapse was followed by a revival of which the prophets were the vigorous agents. The divine election always vindicated itself, and in the purity of the origin of the priesthood lay the certainty of its continued re- newal. On the contrary, the priesthood in the king- dom of Israel had no divine sanction, no promise ; it was corrupt in its very source: to reform itself would have been to dissolve itself. The priests there were the mer- cenary servants of the king, and had a brand upon their own consciences. Hence in the kingdom of Israel the prophets were the regular ministers of God : with their office all stood or fell, and hence they were required to do many things besides what the original conception of the office of a prophet implied — a circumstance from the oversight of which many erroneous notions on the nature of prophecy have sprung. This led to another difference, to which Ave shall revert below, viz. that in the kingdom of Judah the prophetic office did not, as in Israel, possess a fixed organization and complete con- struction.
In their labors, as respected their own times, the prophets were strictly bound to the Mosaic law, and not allowed to add to it or to diminish aught from it. What was said in this respect to the whole people (Deut. iv, 2; xiii, 1) applied also to them. We find, therefore, prophecy always takes its ground on the Mosaic law,
PR0P1IKT
042
PROPHET
to which it refers, from which it derives its sanction, and with which it is fully impressed and saturated. There is no chapter in the prophets in which there are nol several references t" the law-. The business of the
prophets was to explain it. to lay it to the hearts of the people, and to preserve vital its spirit. It was. indeed, also their duty to point to future reforms, when the ever-living spirit, of the law would break its hitherto imperfect form, and make tor itself another : thus ■'■ n - miah i in. 16) foretells days when the ark of the cove- nant shall he no more, and i xxxi. Ill i days when a new
covenant will be made with the house of Israel and with tie- house of Judah. I!ut lor their own times they never once dreamed of altering any, even the minutest anl least essential precept, even as to iis form; how much less as to its spirit, which even the Lord himself declares (Mattv, 18) to he immutable and eternal! The passages which some interpreters have alleged as op- posed t<> sacriGces as instituted by the .Mosaic law have been misunderstood; they do not denounce sacrifices generally, hut only those of the Canaanites, with whom sacrifice was not even a form of true worship, but op- posed to the genuine ami spiritual service of God.