this from the necessity of the case, in highest wisdom, in greatest mercy, and in the interest of the truth

itself. The principle: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I unders tood as a child, I thought as a child,"

applies to the relation between the Old and the New Testament standpoint, as well as to all spiritual and

even intellectual progress. The child is ignorant of all the bearings of what he learns; the beginner of the full

meaning and application of the axioms and propositions which he is taught. Had it been otherwise in

spiritual knowledge, its acquisition would have been simply impossible.

Here also we have to distinguish between what God sanctioned and that with which He bore on account of

the hardness of the heart of those who had not yet been spiritually trained in that "time of ignorance,"

which "God overlooked." To come to the particular question in hand. Nothing could be more clear in the Old

Testament than the Divine insistence on truthfulness. He Himself condescends to be His people's example

in this. The command not to lie one to another (Leviticus 19:11) is enforced by the consideration, "I am

Jehovah," and springs as a necessary sequence from the principle: "Be ye holy, for I Jehovah your God am

holy." It is scarcely requisite to add, that in no other part of Holy Scripture is this more fully or frequently

enforced than in the Book of Psalms. And yet, when occasion arose, David himself seems not to have

scrupled to seek safety through falsehood, though with what little success appears in his history. It appears

as if to his mind untruth had seemed only that which was false in the intention or in its object, not that

which was simply untrue in itself, however g ood the intention might be, or however desirable the object

thereby sought.184 And in this connection it deserves notice, how among the few express moral precepts

which the New Testament gives - for it deals in principles rather than in details; it gives life, not law, -this

about lying recurs with emphatic distinctness and frequency.185

As might almost have been anticipated, David's destination in his flight was Ramah. To tell Samuel, who had

anointed him, all that had happened; to ask his guidance, and seek refreshment in his company, would

obviously suggest itself first to his mind. For greater safety, the two withdrew from the city, to "Naioth,"

"the dwellings," which seems to have been a block of dwellings within a compound, occupied by an order of

prophets, of which Samuel was the "president,"  186 and, we may add, the founder. Not that "prophetism" (if

the term may be used) commenced with Samuel.

In the sense of being the bearers of God's message, the patriarchs are called "prophets" (Genesis 20:7; Psalm

105:15). But in its strict sense the term first applied to Moses (Numbers 11:25; Deuteronomy 34:10; Hosea

12:13). Miriam was a prophetess (Exodus 15:20; comp. Numbers 12:2). In the days of the Judges there were

prophets (Judges 4:4; 6:8). At the time of Eli, prophetic warning came through a "man of God" (1 Samuel

2:27); and although "the word of God" (or prophecy) "was rare" in those days (1 Samuel 3:1), yet it came not

upon the people as a strange and unknown manifestation (comp. also 1 Samuel 9:9). Here, however, we must

make distinction between the prophetic gift and the prophetic office. The latter, so far as appears, began

with Samuel. A further stage is marked in the days of Elijah and Elisha. Then they were no longer designated

"prophets," as at the time of Samuel, but "sons of the prophets," or "disciples" (1 Kings 20:35; 2 Kings 4:38;

6:1). Lastly, whereas we read of only one prophetic community, Naioth, in the time of Samuel, and that close

to his residence at Ramah, there were several such in the d ays of Elisha, in different parts of the country - as

at Gilgal, Bethel, and Jericho. Whether there was a continuous succession in this from Samuel to Elijah can

scarcely be determined, though the probability seems in its favor (comp. 1 Kings 18:13).

It is of more importance to understand the difference between "prophets" and "sons of the prophets," the

circumstances under which these orders or unions originated, and the peculiar meaning attached to this

prophetic calling. The first point seems sufficiently clear. The "sons of the prophets" were those who of set

purpose devoted themselves to this work, and were, on the one hand, disciples of prophets, and on the

other, the messengers or ministers to carry out their behests. Dedication and separation to the work

(symbolized even by a common abode, and by a distinctive appearance and dress), religious instruction,

and, above all, implicit obedience, are the historical features of those "sons of the prophets." Quite other

was the "union," "company," or rather "congregation 187 of prophets" (1 Samuel 19:20) near Ramah.