XXIII.

SIMON PETER A SERVANT AND AN APOSTLE OF CHRIST.

2 PETER i., I.

HE study of a single biography, especially if it be that of a distinguished and earnest man, is apt to beget in us the disposition to imitate it. We are prone to make it the mold into which we determine to run ourselves; and character in us, instead of being developed from within, is repressed and regulated from without. We cut and shape it after the style of our model, as the old-fashioned gardener used to do with his trees and shrubs, instead of allowing it to spread out into its own individuality and pruning off mere excrescences, as the skilled botanist does with each plant under his care. That which ought to be natural is made artificial; the spontaneousness goes out of it, and character degenerates into caricature. Thus hero-worship becomes positively injurious; and, strange as it may seem, it tends, by the exclusiveness of its homage, to overlay and destroy the very things by which it was first evoked.

The echo is always more indistinct and shadowy than the voice; and he who tries to make himself into another man only mars himself, while he falls very far short of reaching the other's excellence. The highest merit of character, next after its moral and spiritual excellence, is individuality. This is true in all departments; but it is too often forgotten in the religious life. The poet, or painter, or philosopher

who is simply and only an imitator has not risen to the highest greatness.

We crave in literature and art for originality. But in religious things men are apt to imagine that they must keep down their individuality, and squeeze themselves into the shape and pattern of certain excellent ones with whose histories they have become 'enamored. It is not enough that they come to Christ, but they must get up the same precise experiences in coming to him that their model passed through. It is not sufficient that they should serve Christ; but their service, no matter what the times require of them, must take the same form as that of their models. What was proper and noble in the one becomes thus forced and exotic in the other; and so too frequently the happiness of the heart and the usefulness of the life are impaired.

Now, it seems to me that there is no better corrective to this evil than the analysis of the characters of the good men whose lives are given in the Word of God. In the great inner principles of faith in God and loyalty to him they were all alike; but in their individual features there is as much diversity among them as there is in the countenances of this audience. The heart-beat in man is the same in all races; but there is still a marked difference between the European and the red man; and so, though they are all alike in the great heart-throb of faith, there are yet clear distinctions between those whose histories are recorded here. Isaac, with his meditative and pensive spirit, is in many respects a contrast to the active and energetic Abraham. Moses, the man of God, is easily distinguishable even from one so nearly related to him as Aaron; and though, in many respects, they remind us of each other, Nehemiah had not the mystic fervor and keen-eyed insight of Daniel. So among the apostles; there were no two alike. John was the man of intuition, who took in things more by absorption than by rea

soning. Thomas was the representative of independence, who would be satisfied on all subjects for himself. Philip was the plain matter-of-fact one, who never thought of a figurative sense in which words were to be understood, so long as he could cling to a literal one. Andrew was the usher among the twelve, finding his delight in leading friends and strangers alike to Jesus. And Peter was the outspoken, impulsive, irrepressible, who was first and fieriest in every thing. They were all different; and yet the Holy Ghost, working in them all, turned their idiosyncrasies to good account in the service of their Master. He did not make each the fac-simile of the other, but he developed each into himself, only that self purified, sublimated, and ennobled.

Now, the lesson of all this for us is, that we should not seek to repeat another in ourselves, but rather should endeavor, like all the twelve, to reduce the principles on which they acted to such practice as is demanded by our circumstances and our age. There is only one whom it is safe for us exclusively to imitate, and he was more than man. Yet, even in regard to him, we shall make egregious mistakes if we attempt to repeat his actions from without, instead of imbibing his spirit, and leaving that to manifest itself through us as occasion requires. Naturalness is indispensable to sincerity; and the development of principle from within is indispensable to naturalness. There ought to be no fashion in piety. In the matter of character as well as of party, no one should say, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Cephas;" but each should say, "I am of Christ:" meaning by that that he has adopted the principles of Christ, and is seeking to apply them every day to his circumstances and responsibilities.

When, therefore, we proceed, in this concluding discourse, to point out the distinctive features of Peter's disposition, you will understand that we are using him only as an aid in

self-formation, and that we do not seek to induce you to merge your individuality in his. He was himself only saved and sanctified by Christ; and the great lesson of his career is that we should be ourselves only saved, and, if possible, still more highly sanctified than he was.

In analyzing the character of Peter, I place first his transparent sincerity. You could read him at a glance. His heart was always in his countenance and on his lips. He could not be a hypocrite; and the only time he attempted to deceive, he made such bungling work of it that no one would believe his lie. What was in him was sure, in some way or other, to come out. He had no diplomacy about him, and was as far as possible from believing that language was designed to conceal thought. Nay, rather, he thought aloud; and the result was, that while men sometimes admired him, and sometimes laughed at him, and sometimes blamed him, they always loved him. He always believed in taking the straight line. There was no cunning or duplicity about him. He could not have gone about like Judas, nourishing secret enmity in his heart, and seeking a favorable opportunity for its gratification. Neither did he seek honor by roundabout ways. In this respect he was superior even to James and John, who schemed, through their mother, for the highest places in the kingdom. He did nothing underhand. All about him was open and above board; and when he had heard about himself, he was eager also to know what should come to his friend.

Now, in all this there was much to admire, and not a little to desire; for, sooth to say, this simplicity of sincerity has gone largely out of fashion among us. Men isolate themselves by their reticence, and repel all advances by their reserve; they count it a merit to be inscrutable, and a silliness to be open and ingenuous. Scheming is the order of the day, and life is regarded as a game of whist, in which

each one keeps his hand hidden from his neighbor. Frankness is the mark of inexperience, and the wearing of a mask is not by any means confined to the ball-room, but may be seen, perhaps more frequently, in the exchanges, and even in the Church.

Now, I am aware that frankness may be carried, as it was occasionally in Peter, too far. We can not but blame him for his words to the Lord regarding his death, or his answer to Jesus about the washing of his feet; while his language on the Mount of Transfiguration was strangely out of place. But still he was genuine; and I have no hesitation in saying that the mistake of an honest man is better than the hypocrisy of a dishonest one. The openness of Peter, though it was now and then foolish, and even sinful, was a far higher thing than the cautious and apparently blameless demeanor of Judas; though, of course, better than either is the wellbalanced self-control of him who has learned that there is a time to speak and a time to be silent.

We need not, perhaps, like Peter, utter all we think or feel on every occasion; for not to say that we may often be wrong, there are many seasons and many subjects on which we are not called to speak at all. But it ought to be an invariable rule with us not to say any thing which we do not think or feel. No matter what it may cost us; though we may lose profits by it; though for the moment we may lose friends, and forfeit the good opinion of those we love; though it may threaten to bring ruin upon us, yet it is above and beyond all things needful that we be sincere. The only disgraces that came on Peter were the results of his attempting a dishonest course; and we may be sure that how great soever the calamity may be with which our honesty threatens us, the degradation of insincerity will be lower and more debasing than any suffering. There is no ruin possible to a man save that of character, and insincerity always scuttles