THE CHARACTER OF PETER.

We think that there has been, and still is, a great misconception of the character of Peter. He has been regarded as preeminently courageous — the boldest apostle, and even the boldest disciple of the age in in which he lived. Da Vinci, in his picture of the Last Supper, gave Peter a lion-like aspect, resolute yet calm, firm yet quiet, in the consciousness of power and courage. West has made a similar portrait, in his Christ Healing The Sick. How strange it is, that such a representation should be made of the most nervous and excitable of men. From the notion about his valour, has arisen that other notion about his bellicose propensities. Dr. J. M. Mason once said, that " the grace which would make John look like an angel, would be scarcely sufficient to keep Peter from knocking down the next passer-by." What an opinion to entertain of a man, the whole of whose warlike exploits, so far as we know, consisted in striking a servant, and then running away!

The Scriptures describe men just as they are, with all their blemishes and imperfections. They depict no mythical heroes, no sinless saints. If we turn to them for the portrait of Peter, we will find it very different from that which fancy has limned. He is represented as ardent in his temperament, yet singularly cautious; excitable and impetuous, yet timid and wary; prompt to declare the truth, yet fickle and inconstant in maintaining it; warmly attached to his Master, but still more regardful of self; deeply penitent for his faults, yet ever prone to relapse into sin; full of reverential feeling, yet savouring the things that be of men, more than the things that be of God. His character was made up of the most opposite elements of strength and weakness, courage and cowardice, fiery zeal and womanish prudence, love to Christ and pitiful selfishness. The first account that we have of him, is from the pen of Luke, and it is just as characteristic of the writer as of him he describes. Peter and his partners, after toiling all night, and catching no fish, were induced by our Saviour to let down their nets for another trial. "And when they had this clone, they inclosed a great multitude of fishes: and their net brake. And they beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink. When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, Lord." This extract clearly manifests the excitable nature of Peter. Astonishment at the miraculous draught of fishes, and alarm on account of the sinking condition of his ship, fill him with awe for Christ, and with a deep sense of his unworthiness, and operate so powerfully on his nervous temperament as to induce him to make the rash request, "Depart from me, Lord."

The next occasion of special notice of Peter, was when Christ came walking on the water to the disciples in a ship, tossed with waves, at the fourth watch of the night. They were frightened, supposing that they saw a spirit, "but straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid. And Peter answered him, and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me." And so we think it ever was with Peter, though impetuous enough to undertake anything, yet whenever he noticed the boisterousness of the wind, the danger besetting him, he became afraid. True, when specially sustained, he did, at times, rise superior to his natural timidity, and witness a good confession; then, however, it was not Peter, but the grace of God which was with him. We next find him making a noble answer to the question, "Whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Our Saviour commended him for his confession, and most likely at this time gave him the surname Peter. The praise of his Master elated the weak disciple, just as praise always elates men of weak natures, and filled him with so much confidence, that he presumed to rebuke our Saviour when he spoke of his sufferings and death. " Then Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord; this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." Here is a description of Peter by one who knew him altogether. He is charged with savouring the things that be of men, with valuing too highly the opinions and authority of his fellow-worms of the dust. The fear of man was a snare to his feet. The next notice that we have of him, clearly shows this. When at Capernaum, the receivers of tribute came to him, and said, "Doth not your Master pay tribute?" Instead of claiming exemption for his Master, as Lord of the temple, to whose service the tax was to be appropriated, Peter answered, "Yes." For thus fearing public opinion, he was rebuked by our Saviour, who complied with the demand, but under protest against it.

Self is very prominent in the next notice we have of Peter: " Then answered Peter, and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee: what shall we have therefore?" Here is love to Christ united to a keen regard for personal interest. Here is just the spirit of boastfulness which exhibited itself in a claim of superior attachment at the last supper, and failed in the trial at Gethsemane. It is just the same spirit which prompted to strike one blow for the Master, and to put forth mighty exertion in flight for self. It is just the same spirit of generous sacrifice and selfish anxiety, which induced to risk life in following the Saviour, and diminished the risk by following afar off. It is just the same spirit which impelled to the gateway of the high-priest's palace, and filled with the fear of entering. It is just the same spirit which led to concern "to see the end," and prompted to the denial of Him about whom so much solicitude was felt. It is just the same spirit which moved to tears of penitence, and to the concealment of those tears.

We have two other instances on record, which exhibit the impulsiveness of Peter. The first, when Mary Magdalene made her report of the vision of angels to him and to John. He then seems to have been the first to go forth, and run to the sepulchre. His reaching there after John, may have been as much due to the waning of his fickle zeal, as to his greater age. The second occasion was when Jesus appeared on the shore of the sea of Tiberias, while seven of his disciples were fishing. It is an impressive fact, that the eyes of love first recognized the Saviour. The loving and beloved disciple first exclaimed, " It is the Lord." "Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea." The act was eminently characteristic of the ardent and impetuous apostle. An old fisherman had little danger to apprehend from casting himself into the sea; otherwise the more prudential elements of his character might have been displayed.

The courage manifested by Peter after the resurrection of our Lord, on the day of Pentecost, on the occasion of healing the lame man, on trial before Annas and Caiaphas, and all the kindred of the high-priest, by no means proves that he was constitutionally brave. We must not forget how much remorse he had suffered for his cowardice in denying his Master; above all, we must not forget how he had been strengthened by many precious interviews with his risen Saviour.

Astronomy teaches us, that as the planets revolving in their orbits approach the sun, they receive an acceleration to their velocity; and this impulse carries them to the farthest point of their paths, and brings them back again for a new increment of motion. And so it is with the child of God; when he draws near to Jesus Christ, the glorious Sun of Righteousness, he receives new zeal, new energy, new courage for the journey of life; and the fresh impetus thus given, carries him safely through that point in his secular avocations, the most remote from the influence of the central luminary, and brings him back again for fresh supplies of grace and strength. And just so it was with Peter — the point at which he was most likely to swerve from the path of rectitude, was where lay bodily danger to himself. But access to his risen Lord invigorated him, fortified his heart, carried him safely over the critical point, and brought him back once more.

The express declarations of the inspired writer of the Acts of the Apostles, confirm the view that we have given. We are explicitly told, that all the disciples were filled with the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. And so, too, we are told, that Peter was filled with the Holy Ghost when he so boldly addressed u the rulers of the people and elders of Israel." His courage at this time was therefore supernatural, and proves nothing as to native boldness. And so thought the persons addressed; for "when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus." The fearlessness of Peter was attributed to the true cause. It was not inborn valour, the natural inheritance of the brave man, but the courage inspired by having been with Jesus. It was the same sort of contempt of danger and death, often exhibited by the most timid females, in times of fiery persecution.

The difficulty with which Peter was persuaded to go to the house of Cornelius, shows how much he feared the opinions and prejudices of his countrymen, the Jews. And this unmanly fear seems never to have left him; for, the very last account we have of him, tells of a rebuke that he received from Paul for being afraid to eat with the Gentiles in the presence of his brethren from Jerusalem. "But when Peter was come to Antioch," (says Paul,) " I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For, before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come, he withdrew, and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision."

52. We have now seen that the portraits of Peter, from the hands of four different artists, bear the most exact resemblance to one another, and to the man himself. And yet Peter was not a person whose likeness was easily taken. Of all who have lived upon earth, there probably has not been another more difficult subject for a picture. His features played with the most opposite emotions; his eyes sparkled alternately with love and hate, courage and cowardice; his complexion was as variable as the changing hues of the evening sky. We can only account for the life-likeness of the portraits under these circumstances, by supposing that pencil and brush were guided by the unerring skill of the great Artist of Nature.

Our adversaries are fond of flouting us with the discrepancies of the Gospels; let us bring home to them the consistencies in the representation of Peter's character. We must not stand on the defensive, we must wage a close aggressive warfare. When the fleet of Nelson was bearing down upon the enemy, near the mouth of the Nile, that gallant sailor cried out to the officer in charge of the signals, "What signal have you flying?" "Close action, my Lord." "Keep it so, sir, to the last." Let "close action" be the signal of the soldiers of the cross, and let it be kept so to the last; a victory equally as decisive, and infinitely more glorious than that of the Nile, will be their reward. The closeness of the action, and the heaviness of the firing, would serve too to bring out many friends, who now listen with cool indifference to the distant booming of the defensive cannonade.

The intrepid General Medows was not present at the commencement of the battle of Seringapatam; but Lord Cornwallis knew his man so well, that he exclaimed, when the action grew close and hot, "If Medows is above ground, this firing will bring him out." Christian warriors! if ye were more in earnest, if ye pressed more closely and vigorously upon the foes of the Captain of your salvation, your firing would bring out all who were above ground, all who were not dead in trespasses and sins. You have the noblest of causes, the greatest of leaders, the best of equipments, the most powerful of armaments; abandon then your intrenched position, and seek the enemy in the plain. You may have thought, like Elijah, that your little band was left alone in Israel, but you will then find vast multitudes pouring from the hills and the valleys, from the mountains and the gorges, to rally around the banner of the Lord God of Hosts.

It is proper to notice that Matthew and Mark place the denial of Peter after the condemnation of Christ, while Luke places it before that event, and John speaks of it as occurring during the progress of the trial. We hope to be able to give a satisfactory explanation of this difference in their respective accounts. But should we fail to do so, the difference is not a contradiction. Observe that it is a matter of fact, and not of time. Had the Evangelists been called upon to tell the precise period at which the three denials took place, and differed totally in fixing the time, we would frankly acknowledge our inability to harmonize their statements. But the business of the writers is plainly to speak of the denial, without respect to the time when it happened. The references to the hour are only incidental, and of no sort of. consequence in regard to the thing narrated. In questions of time, we have a right to expect accuracy even to a minute. In questions of fact, we have a right to expect accuracy even to the smallest particular. But inattention to fact in the first case, and to time in the second case, argues no want of truthfulness.

If a witness was called upon in court, to tell when a wound was inflicted, and a physician was required to describe the nature and extent of the wound, surely no one would suppose that the two contradicted each other, should the physician incidentally speak of the wound as having been inflicted at a different time from that mentioned by the other witness. Too much attention cannot be paid to the distinction that we now make. Most of the much-boasted discrepancies are just of the character here described. They would not have the least weight with a jury of even moderate intelligence.