that ho had como; 11nd both were taught by the Spirit, whose chiefest office in the past Rnd in tho present is to take of the things of Christ, and to show them to us. 'l'hus round him move all ages; to him tum all eyes; of him speaks all revelation; for man's salvation is the crowning work of God, and Christ effects man's salvation. Note, then, in this grand utterance four sets of persons, all concerned in that great work. I. THE rnoPIIET-HEnALDS, H bas become fashionable now to speak donbtfnlly of Messianic prophecy, But any ono who believes that Christ is what Pder knew him to be, the Son of God who died for all me □, will feel it fitting that he should he heraldeci by the long series of predictions, and that before the King's chariot sboul<l Le many outriders. Tho view of Old Testament prophecy given here is remarkable. Its main theme is declared to bo the sufferings which were destined for the Messiah, and his subsequent glories. Precisely that suJJering Messiah which had been such a difficulty to Peter himself and bas ever been so to his nation, and which so ma.ny scholars mw cannot see in the Old Testament, is here regarded as the centre of prophecy; not that the whole body of Jewish prophecy is concerned with him, but that "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." The stratum crops out at many points, hut is continuous, even where not exposed. The whole system has a forward look. Insti- tutions and persons, ritual and kings, the very nation itself in its high vocation and its many sorrows, witnessed of One to come, whose personality should be all and more than all which these shadowed. And all this light of prophecy is gathered into certain bright points, such as Isa. !iii. and Ps. xxii., in which that mystery finds speech, of the Messiah who suffers and then conquers and reigns. That thought is the centre of the O!d Testament. The criticism which does not group it all round the suffering Messiah bas missed the shaping principle which moulds it all, and in its perplexity has turned order into chaos. Again, the relation of the prophets to their message is taught here in a r~markable fashion. It is an axiom with some critics that prophecy must be interpreted in the sense in which the speaker and his hearers understood it.. But Peter thinks that the prophetic inspiration sometimes left the speaker ignorant of the full meaning of his own predictions, so distinctly was it the utterance of a higher power. The period of fulfilment, in its date ("what") and characteristics(" what manner of time"), were not necessarily known by the prophet. Another axiom of modern philosophizers upon prophecy is that predictions must have had a bearing, consolatory or menacing, upon their first hearers. But Peter thinks that a prophecy may have been spoken which was only to be fulfilled long centuries after, and could only have gladdened the hearers with a far-oIT hope. Yet the prophet was not a mere machine or pipe through which the breath of inspiration blew. His heart throbbed in sympathy with his message, and he pondered it with all his force of thought. l'cter's theory of prophetic inspiration is equally far from the naturalistic and from the mechanical tb<::ories. II. THE ANSWEnING cxom OF EVANGELISTS, 'l'he same truths were the theme of prophet and of preacher. The word "reported" and that rendered " preached tlie gospel" are both compounds of one root. 'J'o tell that message which prophets fore- told is to preach the glad tidings to the world; and the whole business of the Christian teacher is to proclain the joyful facts. So we have here: 1. The full identity rif the message of the prophet and the preacher. 'l'he main difference is in the tense of their verbs. 'J'he one speaks in the future; the other, in the present; but the verbs are the same and the nominative is the same. 'l'he bud and the flower are one. Prophecy is condeused, outlined gospel. Gospel is expanded, specialized prophecy. Ibys whicl1 were parted in the prophet's utterance are united in the evangelist's messa;::e. .Antici- 1iations are ever less definite than realities. But the therno is one, though prophecy touched with but a light hand the mysterious nature of the Messiah whom it pro- claimed. 2. 'l.'he essential substance of the go.spel is the proclamation of historical facts. It is not a. philosophy, nor directly a theology, still less is it a system of morality. It is the record of what has happened on this solid earth. Philosophy and theology and morality will all be evolved from these facts, but the first form of the p;ospcl is history. Only it is to be remembered that the fact that Jesus has lived and di d is not the gospel; b_ut the fact that Christ has died for our sins is. The more plainly 0
Cl11 i,Lian teachers deliver their mes8age, not as the product of their own thoughts, but as the message given to them, nnd the moro they c~ntrc their energy on setting forth 32 'l'HE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. [err. t, 1-25,