him for a short space of time, we are to follow him all our life, and so always. From Peter’s disastrous fall and foul denial of his Master, we learn the important lesson of following Christ freeiy, fully, fearlessly, faithfully, and for ever. Distance from Christ is real danger, nearness to him is true safety. Distance from the Sun of Righteousness is coldness, darkness, and spiritual death; nearness to him is love, light, and life. In Canticles the question is asked, “ Who is this that cometh up from the wilderness, leaning upon her Beloved?” If this refer to the Church, as we are of opinion it does, it is a picture of her true attitude. ‘The world is the wilderness through which the Christian is passing, and from which he is ascending to a better and promised land; while it is on the arm of Christ that he leans. Thus leaning on Christ, looking to Christ, and living by the faith of Christ, we journey safely from the wilderness of earth to the promised land of heaven. Away from his presence, away from his power, we are every moment in greatest peril; away from the range of his protec- tion and the guidance of his providence, we expose ourselves te the temptations of the evil one, and speedily become his easy prey. 4. The fourth cause of Peter’a sin. The fourth cause of Peter’s sin was bad company. “He sat,” we read, “with the ser- vants” of the high priest, “and warmed himself at the fire” What was this but going into the company of his Master’s enemies? This was mixing, and without necessity, with the enemies of the Saviour. He thus went with his eyes open into the place of peril, among the attendants of the high priest and the adversaries of his Lord and Master. Here there is every reason to believe he would hear little good of any kind spoken; while he would be sure to hear his Master’s name vilified, his character slandered, and his cause reproached. In all this contempt and reproach there is too much cause to believe Peter must for the time have concurred. Possibly he not only agreed with them, but acted as they did, the better to conceal] his real connection with Christ. It is shocking even for a moment to suppose that Peter was so weak and so wicked, during the short space he consorted with such company, as to join them in reviling his Master. Suspecting him, as they did, of being Christ’s disciple, and finding him thus readily uniting with them in heaping scorn upon his Master, what must they have thought of that Master? What estimate could they form of either disciple or Teacher? Must they not have concluded that Christ’s discipleship was neither happy nor honourable? Must they not have inferred, and inferred with reason, that the disciple of such a Master was knave, or fool, or villain ? When, on the other hand, we consider what Peter should have done and what he might have done at the time of his Master’s difficulty and danger, we almost blush for the name of disciple so degraded and disgraced! Had he been true to his con- fession of the Christ, had he been staunch in his adherence to his Master, he would either have kept out of the company which he knew consisted of bis Master’s bitter enemies, or, if he iound it necessary to stand by or sit among them, he would have defended him at whatever risk.
Il. THE AGGRAVATIONS OF PEvER’s six. 1. Ingratitude. Peter had been on the most familiar terms with his Master, and had been highly favoured by him. Of tha chosen, he was one of the choicest; of the elected, he was one of the éite. With James and Jehno he shared the Saviour’s closest intimacy. Like them, he was with him on the Mount of Transfiguration, and was privileged to witness that wondrous scene and see that glorious sight. Like them, he was admitted to the solemnities of the death-chamber, and was present at the restoration to life of the daughter of Jairus. Like them, he had been invited to accompany his Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane, and to watch with him during the agony and bloody sweat. Still more, our Lord had commended his good contession of the Christ the Son of God, and traced it to heavenly revelation ; he had bestowed on him the honourable surname of “Rock-man,” in acknow- ledgment of his firmness and the foundation he should help to lay; besides, he had promised him a high position and also distinguished privileges in his kingdom. Peter had walked to him on the water, and been kept from sinking by his Master’s hand. Yet now, for all these special marks of friendship and favour that had been lavished on him, he shows himself utterly and basely ungrateful. He turned his back on his best and kindest Friend, denying al] knowledge of him. Now, when a return of friendship was most needed, he not only failed to act the part of a triend in need, and reciprocate the kindness he had received, but actually consorted with his bitterest enemies. 2. False
800 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. [cn. xry. 1—72.
hood. When our Lord stood in most need of sympathy, Peter, as we have seen, stood aloof or ranged himself on the side of his enemies. When he might have given valuable testimony in favour of his Master, silence sealed his lips, and he refused to acknowledge him. Nor was this all; he falsified to the most fearful extent and in the foulest manner. He denied all or any knowledge of Jesus ; he repeated the denial in the most positive way; he backed his repeated falsehood with an oath. When chal- lenged the third time, he “began to curse and swear, saying, I know not the man.” Surely one falsehood of the kind indicated would have been bad enough and wicked enough, but its repetition once, again, a third time, greatly aggravated the sin and augmented Peter’s guilt. The violence of language which was prompted by, snd which
ve expression to, his virulence of feeling is difficult to account for. There was fear of