Matthew § 109

(Cons. Ev. iii. 6.) They that had laid hold on Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the High Priest. But He was first taken to Annas, father-in-law to Caiaphas, as John relates. And He was taken bound, there being with that multitude a tribune and cohort, as John also records. (John 18:12.)

In accordance with God's command, Moses ordered that high priests should succeed their fathers and a line of descent should be woven among priests. Josephus relates that the disreputable Caiaphas purchased the high priesthood from Herod for one year only. No wonder, then, the dishonorable high priest judges dishonorably.

(Verse 57.) And they who were holding Jesus led Him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together. Moses, by God's command, had decreed that the priests should succeed their fathers, and that the line of succession should be preserved among the priests (Exodus 29). Josephus reports that Caiaphas purchased his high priesthood from Herod for a sum of money for only one year. Therefore, it is not surprising if this wicked high priest judges unjustly.

But Josephus writesu, that this Caiaphas had purchased the priesthood of a single year, notwithstanding that Moses, at God's command, had directed that High Priests should succeed hereditarily, and that in the Priests likewise succession by birth should be followed up. No wonder then that an unrighteous High Priest should judge unrighteously.

And when these were fled, "they lead Him away to Caiaphas; but Peter followed, and entered in to see what the end should be."

Great was the fervor of the disciple; neither did he fly when he saw them flying, but stood his ground, and went in with Him. And if John did so too, yet he was "known to the high priest."

And why did they lead Him away there where they were all assembled? That they might do all things with consent of the chief priests. For he was then high priest, and all were waiting for Christ there, to such a degree did they spend the whole night, and give up their sleep for this object. For neither did they then eat the passover, but watched for this other purpose. For John, when he had said that "it was early," added, "they entered into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the passover."

What must we say then? That they ate it on another day, and broke the law, on account of their eager desire about this murder. For Christ would not have transgressed as to the time of the passover, but they who were daring all things, and trampling under foot a thousand laws. For since they were exceedingly boiling with rage, and having often attempted to seize Him, had not been able; having then taken Him unexpectedly, they chose even to pass by the passover, for the sake of satiating their murderous lust.

Wherefore also they were all assembled together, and it was a council of pestilent men, and they ask some questions, wishing to invest this plot with the appearance of a court of justice. For "neither did their testimonies agree together;" so feigned was the court of justice, and all things full of confusion and disorder.

I believe the word for Jewish slavery whereby poor and abandoned persons now profess to be slaves is "Caiaphas." He is known as the high priest who, at odds with the truth, rails against Jesus. But Jesus according to the truth is a priest, the Word of God; under him are established all who worthily and zealously serve God the Father. Where the high priest Caiaphas is found, however, there the scribes come together, that is, learned men who preside over the perishing written word. While being scribes, they are also elders who preside not over the truth but over the classic usage of a mere word. They are unwilling to consider anything beyond that.

Where Caiaphas the High Priest is, there are assembled the Scribes, that is, the men of the letter, who preside over the letter that killeth; and Elders, not in truth, but in the obsolete ancientness of the letter.

And the action suits his name; Caiaphas, i. e. 'contriving,' or, 'politic,' to execute his villainy; or 'vomiting from his mouth,' because of his audacity in uttering a lie, and bringing about the murder. They took Jesus thither, that they might do all advisedly; as it follows, Where the Scribes and the Elders were assembled.

Above the capture of Christ was treated; now he treats of where he was led; and he describes the place and the company of those gathering at the place. He says therefore but they, namely, those who held him, led him to Caiphas. This Caiphas was the high priest of that year according to Jerome, according to what is found at John 11:49: being the high priest of that year. For the priesthood was no longer being administered according to the precept of the law. The Lord had commanded that Aaron and his sons should be priests by hereditary right, so that when one died the other would remain as priest. But afterwards, as ambition grew, they could not endure this, but when Judea was subject to the Romans, this Caiphas had bought the priesthood from the Jews, and had bought it from Pilate; therefore he was a wicked ruler. And it is no wonder if a wicked judge, or ruler, renders a wicked judgment. And this befits the mystery; because just as the passion of Christ was the offering of the true sacrifice, so also the place ought to correspond, so that Christ, who is a priest forever, should be offered in the house of the high priest. Caiphas is interpreted "investigator," and this can be referred to the malice by which he condemned Christ. But here there is a question, because John 18:13 says that he was first led to Annas. And this must be understood as true: for they had gathered at the house of Annas, and there they were assembled; and in this their malice appears, because when they should have been devoted to the solemnity, they were intent on wickedness, so that what is said at Isaiah 1:14 well suited them: my soul hates your solemnities. Hence what was said in Psalm 2:2 was fulfilled: they gathered together against God, and against his Christ.

(Quaest. Ev. i. 46.) And also that the Church should follow, i. e. imitate, the Lord's Passion, but with great difference. For the Church suffers for itself, but Christ for the Church.

Either out of a disciple's love or out of human curiosity, Peter wanted to know what judgment the high priest would make concerning the Lord: whether he would have Christ put to death or beaten with whips. There is a difference between the eleven apostles and Peter at this point. They fled, whereas he followed the Savior from a distance.

(Verse 58.) But Peter followed Him from afar off, even unto the palace of the high priest. He followed Him from afar off, who was to deny the Lord.

He went in, either out of the attachment of a disciple, or natural curiosity, seeking to know what sentence the High Priest would pass, whether death, or scourging.

Great was the zeal of Peter, who fled not when He saw the others fly, but remained, and entered in. For though John also went in, yet he was known to the Chief Priest. He followed afar off, because he was about to deny his Lord.

Peter followed Him afar off, He would neither keep close to Him, nor altogether leave Him, but followed afar off.

For had he kept close to his Lord's side, he could never have denied Him. This also shows that Peter should follow his Lord's Passion, that is, imitate it.

Peter, who was more fervently devoted to the Master, followed at a distance. If John also followed, it was not as a disciple but as an acquaintance of the high priest (Jn. 18:15).

But Peter followed him afar off. The place has been treated; here he treats of Peter arriving. First, he is led; then Peter arrives. And he does three things: because first, he touches on the manner; secondly, how he arrived while following. That he arrived, this was of fervor; that from afar, this was of fear; hence it was signified that the Church, founded on Peter's faith, would follow Christ, yet from afar; because Christ suffered for the Church, not for himself; but Peter and the Church suffered for themselves. Likewise, the place is touched upon, because even to the court of the high priest: for he did not dare to enter the house, lest he should be seen as one of the disciples of Jesus. But how he entered, Matthew passes over in silence, while John 18:15 narrates that a certain disciple was known to the high priest, and he brought in Peter. Next follows the company: and going in, he sat with the servants, that he might see the end; and he did this either out of curiosity or out of devotion. And these three things were already certain dispositions toward the fall of Peter: that he followed from afar was disposing him, because it signified that he was not firm; for he who is firm ought to draw near. Hence it is said at James 4:8: draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. For in the house is the seat of God and of the Lamb, as is found at Apocalypse, last chapter, verse 3. For in the house was perfect charity. Hence Peter did not draw near to the charity of Christ. Likewise, he had not attained to the malice of the Jews; therefore he was lukewarm; and so there befell him what is said in Apocalypse 3:16: because thou art lukewarm, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. Likewise, because the servants were wicked. Sirach 10:2: as the judge of the people is himself, so also are his ministers. And therefore it was no wonder if he fell, because he remained in wicked company. Wherefore Psalm 18:16: with the holy thou wilt be holy.

(V. 59, 60.) And entering inside, he sat with the ministers, to see the end. But the chief priests and the whole council sought false testimony against Jesus, so that they could deliver him to death. And they did not find any, although many false witnesses came forward. Whether out of love for his disciples or out of human curiosity, the high priest wanted to know what he would decide about the Lord: whether he would condemn him to death or release him after beating him. And there was a difference of opinion among the ten apostles and Peter. Those (people) flee, but this one, although far away, still follows the Savior.

When the Chief Priests were thus assembled, this conventicle of ruffians sought to give their conspiracy the character of a legal trial. But it was entirely a scene of confusion and uproar, as what follows shows, Though many false witnesses came, yet found they none.

From this it is clear that Jesus "committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips." His life was unimpeachable and completely blameless, leaving his enemies no opportunity for provocation. Clearly they found nothing to say against him or to insinuate by shading the truth ("the chief priests and the whole council sought false testimony," but they could find none). There is room for false testimony when it is given with a shading of the truth; however, no shading of the truth was found which could further their lies against Jesus—although there were many who wished to find favor with Caiaphas and the chief priests and the scribes and the elders and the whole council. These avidly sought that testimony.

False witnesses have place when there is any good colour for their testimony. But no pretext was found which could further their falsehoods against Jesus; notwithstanding there were many desirous to do a favour to the Chief Priests. This then is a great testimony in favour of Jesus, that He had lived and taught so irreproachably, that though they were many, and crafty, and wicked, they could find no semblance of fault in Him.

Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put Him to death; but found none: yea, though many false witnesses came forward, yet found they none. They brought Jesus to Caiaphas who was the high priest for that year. There Caiaphas spent the night along with the others, not keeping the Pascha at that time, but waiting so that they might kill the Lord, and thus transgressing the law (Jn. 18:28). For the Lord kept the Pascha in keeping with the law, but they despised the law that they might slay the Lord.

Then follows the examination of Christ. And first, through witnesses; secondly, through his own confession, at and the high priest rising up said to him etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First, the perverse zeal of the chief priests is described; secondly, their failure; thirdly, the false testimony. He says therefore: the chief priests sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death. But there is a question: why did they not put him to death without testimony? One reason is that hypocrites seek what appears to be good, but they do not seek the truth: so these men sought to make it appear that they were not acting on their own, and hence they acted against the law; Exodus 20:16: thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. If it is not lawful to speak it, neither is it lawful to seek it. Another reason was that they did not have the authority to kill, and therefore they sought testimony so that they might hand him over to the governor.

"But false witnesses came, and said, This fellow said, I will destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it." And indeed He had said, "In three days," but He said not, "I will destroy," but, "Destroy," and not about that temple but about His own body.

And they found none, whereas many false witnesses had come in. Behold the failure, in which the innocence of Christ is designated, so that he could say: I have walked in my innocence. For they had always laid snares for Christ, but they found nothing evil. Hence he fulfilled what is found at 1 Peter 2:15: by doing well you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men.

(Verse 61.) But finally came two false witnesses, and said: He said: I can destroy the temple of God, and after three days rebuild it. How are they false witnesses if they say the things that we read the Lord said? But a false witness is one who does not understand the words in the same sense in which they are spoken. For the Lord had spoken about the temple of his body. But even in the words themselves, they slander, and by adding or changing a few things, they make it seem like a just accusation. The Savior had said: Destroy this temple; those men change it and say: I can destroy the temple of God. You, he said, destroy it, not me, because it is unlawful for us to lay hands on ourselves. Then they turn it: and after three days rebuild it; so that it may seem he had spoken properly about the Jewish temple. But the Lord, in order to show that an animal and breathing temple, had said: And in three days I will raise it up. To build is one thing, to raise is another.

How can they be false witnesses if they said what we read the Lord had said before? Because a false witness takes the truth and twists its meaning. The Lord had spoken of the temple of his body, but they falsely accused him with those very words. With a few things added or changed, they made it into an understandably false accusation. The Savior had said, "Destroy this temple." They changed his words to say, "I can destroy God's temple." … But the Lord, indicating the living and breathing temple, had said, "And in three days I will raise it up." It is one thing to build and another to raise up.

At last came two false witnesses. How are they false witnesses, when they repeat only what we read that the Lord spoke? A false witness is one who takes what is said in a different sense from that in which it was said. Now this the Lord had spoken of the temple of His Body, and they cavil at His expressions, and by a slight change and addition produce a plausible charge. The Lord's words were, Destroy this temple; (John 2:19.) this they make into, I can destroy the Temple of God. He said, Destroy, not 'I will destroy,' because it is unlawful to lay hands on ourselves. Also they phrased it, And build it again, making it apply to the temple of the Jews; but the Lord had said, And I will raise it up again, thus clearly pointing out a living and breathing temple. For to build again, and to raise again, are two different things.

Truly these were false witnesses. For Christ had not said, "I am able to destroy," but "You shall destroy." And He had not said, "the temple of God," but "this temple," that is, "My Body." And again, He had not said, "I shall build," but "I shall raise." So they were clearly false witnesses, the Lord having said one thing while they reported that He had said another.

Then follows the false testimony: and last of all there came two false witnesses, and they said. But here there is a question: why they are called false witnesses, because it is evident that Christ said this, John 2:19. According to Jerome, not only is he called false who says what he does not know, but he who refers what was said to a false meaning. This man said: I am able to destroy the temple of God, and after three days to rebuild it. But he did not mean the material temple, but the temple of his body. Likewise, the testimony is false not only as to its meaning, but as to its words, because he had said: destroy this temple; and he did not say: I am able to destroy the temple of God; as if to say: you Jews, destroy the temple, i.e., Christ, and after three days I will raise it up. He did not say: and after three days I will rebuild; because to rebuild pertains more to a material temple, but to raise up pertains more to a body. Hence they were false witnesses both by reason of the words and by reason of the meaning. Likewise there is a question. Why do they not accuse him of violating the Sabbath? Chrysostom answers that because they had often accused him of this, and he had always excused himself and had confirmed his excuse with miracles; therefore they thought it would be of no avail to them. Likewise, the judge was not a Jew, and so they knew he would not accept this accusation.

(Verse 62) And the high priest stood up and said to Him, 'Do You answer nothing? What is it that these men testify against You?' But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest became furious and impatient, unable to find a place for false accusations, he threw the high priest off his seat, in order to demonstrate his madness of mind through the movement of his body. The more Jesus remained silent in response to unworthy individuals, false witnesses, and wicked priests, the more the high priest, overcome with rage, provoked Him to respond, so that he could find an opportunity in any occasion of conversation to accuse Him. Nevertheless, Jesus remained silent. For he knew, as if God, whatever response he gave would be twisted into a false accusation.

Headlong and uncontrolled rage, unable to find even a false accusation, moves the High Priest from his throne, the motion of his body showing the emotion of his mind. And the High Priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing to the things which these witness against Thee?

For as God, He knew that whatever He said would be twisted into an accusation against Him. But at this His silence before false witnesses and ungodly Priests, the High Priest was exasperated, and summons Him to answer, that from anything He says he may raise a charge against Him.

What then doth the high priest? Willing to press Him to a defense, that by that he might take Him, he saith, "Hearest Thou not what these witness against Thee? But He held His peace."

For the attempts at defense were unprofitable, no man hearing. For this was a show only of a court of justice, but in truth an onset of robbers, assailing Him without cause, as in a cave, or on a road.

Wherefore "He held His peace," but the other continued, saying, "I adjure Thee by the living God, that Thou tell us whether Thou be the Christ, the Son of the living God. But He said, Thou hast said. Nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy." And this he did to add force to the accusation, and to aggravate what He said, by the act. For since what had been said moved the hearers to fear, what they did about Stephen, stopping their ears, this high priest doth here also.

And yet what kind of blasphemy was this? For indeed before He had said, when they were gathered together, "The Lord said unto my Lord. Sit Thou on my right hand," and interpreted the saying, and they dared say nothing, but held their peace, and from that time forth gainsaid Him no more. Why then did they now call the saying a blasphemy? And wherefore also did Christ thus answer them? To take away all their excuse, because unto the last day He taught that He was Christ, and that He sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come again to judge the world, which was the language of one manifesting His full accordance with the Father.

Then follows the examination through his own confession. And first, the questioning is set forth regarding the testimony; secondly, regarding the principal matter. The second is at and the high priest said to him etc. He says therefore: the high priest rising up said to him: Answerest thou nothing to the things which these witness against thee? That he rose was from impatience and fury, hearing that Christ was not being convicted: and when he says answerest thou nothing etc., he does not say this to excuse him, but to catch him in his words; Isaiah 32:6: the fool will speak foolish things, and his heart will work iniquity.

And of course all three Synoptics tell the story of One who, at his trial, sealed His fate by saying He was the Son of God.

(Verse 63.) And the high priest said to him, I adjure you by the living God that you tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God. Why do you swear, most wicked of priests, to accuse rather than to believe? If to accuse, others argue: condemn the silent one. If to believe, why did you not want to believe the one confessing?

We find in the law several cases of swearing. And now, on this occasion, the priest commands Jesus to swear "by the living God." In this regard, I believe it is improper for one who wants to live by the gospel to command someone to swear.Likewise, the Lord himself says in the Gospel: "But I say to you, 'Do not swear at all' " and do not command someone else to swear at all. So, according to Christ's Gospel command, if it is not permissible to swear, neither is it permissible to command someone else to swear. Therefore it is clear that the high priest unlawfully ordered Jesus to swear, even though he may have ordered him to swear "by the living God."

It was not fitting for our Lord to respond to the high priest's command to swear... For this reason, he neither denied that he was Christ, the Son of God, nor did he openly declare it. Instead, as though accepting to be a swearing witness ... he replied, "You have said so." And since "everyone who commits sin is of the devil," the high priest also committed a sin in plotting against Jesus. Therefore he was of the devil, and, being of the devil as it were, he imitated his very father, who doubtingly asked the Savior twice, "If you are the Son of God," as is written concerning his temptations. Similar in fact are the words "If you are the Son of God" and "if you are the Christ, the Son of God." Someone may rightly say in this regard that to doubt whether Christ is the Son of God is the work of the devil and of the high priest who plotted against our Lord.

This place teaches us to contemn the clamours of slanderers and false witnesses, and not to consider those who speak unbeseeming things of us worthy of an answer; but then, above all, when it is greater to be manfully and resolutely silent, than to plead our cause in vain.

Under the Law, we do indeed find many instances of this adjuration (Numb. 5:19, 1 Kings 22:16.); but I judge that a man who would live according to the Gospel should not adjure another; for if we are not permitted to swear, surely not to adjure. But he that regards Jesus commanding the daemons, and giving His disciples power over them, will say, that to address the daemons by the power given by the Saviour, is not to adjure them. But the High Priest did sin in laying a snare for Jesus; imitating his father, who twice asked the Saviour, If thou be Christ the Son of God. (Matt. 4.) Hence one might rightly say, that to doubt concerning the Son of God, whether Christ be He, is the work of the Devil.

Jesus therefore kept silent, knowing that their tribunal was unlawful. For how would a verbal defense persuade those whom signs had not persuaded? The high priest asks the question, wanting to induce Him to blaspheme; so that if He should say, "I am the Son of God," He might be condemned as a blasphemer, but if He should deny it, the High priest would have Him as a witness against Himself.

But Jesus held his peace. But why was he silent? For three reasons. To teach us caution: for he knew that whatever he said, they would turn everything to calumny; and in such a case one should be silent before those lying in wait; Psalm 39:2: I set a guard on my mouth when the sinner stood against me. Another reason was that it was then not a time for teaching, but for having patience: and so what is said at Isaiah 53:7 was fulfilled: as a lamb before his shearer he shall be dumb, and shall not open his mouth. The third reason is to teach us constancy when someone is accused unjustly of something; Isaiah 51:7: fear not the reproach of men. Then follows the question concerning the principal matter: the high priest said to him: I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell me if thou be the Christ the Son of God. And first, the inquiry is set forth; secondly, the Lord's response. Seeing that he could not catch him, the chief priest adjured him: and this in order to catch him in his words. And this is found at John 10:24: how long dost thou hold our souls in suspense? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. For among the Jews it was held as something great to adjure: for to adjure is to compel one to an oath. For just as Christians ought not to swear except out of necessity, so neither ought they to use adjuration, but in place of adjuration they ought to use prayer.

Then He faces the Church; the very Church that He brought into existence. It condemns Him. This is also characteristic. In every Church, in every institution, there is something which sooner or later works against the very purpose for which it came into existence.

Blind anger and impatience, bereft of grounds for a false accusation, dislodged the high priest from his seat, and he displayed the rabid state of his mind with a vehement bodily gesture. The more Jesus kept silent over the false witnesses and dishonorable priests indignant at his response, all the more did the high priest, overcome with rage, provoke him to give an incriminating reply. Still Jesus kept quiet, because as God he knew that whatever he replied would be twisted into grounds for accusation.

The one whom fury had lifted out of his priestly throne was impelled by that same fury to tear his garments. When Caiaphas tore his robes, he demonstrated that the Jews had lost the glory of the priesthood and that the seat of the high priest was now vacant. But it is the custom of the Jews to tear their clothes when they hear any blasphemy against God. We read that Paul and Barnabas did this when they were honored and worshiped as gods in Lycaonia.

(Vers. 65, 66.) Then the high priest tore his garments, saying: He has blasphemed. What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think? And they answered, saying: He is deserving of death. The same fury that had driven him from the priestly throne now provokes him to tear his garments. He tore his garments to show that the Jews had lost the glory of priesthood and that the high priests had an empty seat. But it is also a Jewish custom, when they hear something blasphemous and seemingly against God, to tear their garments. We read that Paul and Barnabas did the same when they were esteemed as gods in Lycaonia. However, Herod, because he did not give honor to God but acquiesced to the excessive favor of the people, was immediately struck by an angel.

The same fury which drew the High Priest from his seat, impels him now to rend his clothes; for so it was customary with the Jews to do whenever they heard any blasphemy, or any thing against God.

And by this rending his garments, he shows that the Jews have lost the priestly glory, and that their High Priest's throne was vacant. For by rending his garment he rent the veil of the Law which covered him.

To emphasize his alarm over the words he had just heard, Caiaphas "tore his garments." Unaware of his own madness, he deprived himself of priestly honor. Caiaphas, where does reason reside in your mind?… You are oblivious to the command you read concerning high priests: "Do not let the hair of your heads hang loose, and do not rend your clothes." But you, who have now forfeited your dignity, are the very object of disgrace. And in token of the end of the old regulation, the same rending that rips your priestly attire will soon also tear apart the veil of the temple.

Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy! What further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty unto death. It was the practice of the Jews to tear their garments whenever something insufferable would befall them. In order to deceive the crowd, Caiaphas tears his clothes as if he were faced with manifest blasphemy, meaning to create the impression that Christ had greatly blasphemed, and thus to impel the crowd to say that He was guilty unto death. Nevertheless, learn that when Caiaphas rent his clothes, it was a symbol that the high priesthood of the Old Testament had been rent.

Then the high priest rent his garments. Here the condemnation is set forth. And first, he sets forth how he is condemned; secondly, how he is denied by a disciple. And first, he treats of the condemnation; secondly, of the mockery. Concerning the first he does two things. Because first, the chief priest condemns him; secondly, he seeks the sentence. The one condemning shows the guilt both by deed and by word: by deed, because he rent his garments. With the same fury he rent his garments as he had shortly before risen from his seat: for it was customary that those who heard blasphemy would rend their garments as a sign that they could not bear to hear it. But the fact that he did these two things signified something: that he rose from his seat showed that he would lose the priesthood; and that he rent his garments signified that it was to be transferred; Hebrews 7:12: the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation also be made of the law. The garment of Christ was not torn; John 19:24: let us not divide it, but let us cast lots for it, whose it shall be. Hence it signified abolition. And this is signified at 1 Samuel 15:28: the Lord hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day. So it was torn from the Jews and given to the members of Christ. Then he imposes the charge: he hath blasphemed, because since he had said this, he considered him a blasphemer; hence John 10:33: for a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, because thou being a man, makest thyself the Son of God; and for such a one death was due. Then he makes the charge known: what further need have we of witnesses?

Having rent therefore his clothes, he saith, "What think ye?" He gives not the sentence from himself, but invites it from them, as in a case of confessed sins, and manifest blasphemy. For, inasmuch as they knew that if the thing came to be inquired into, and carefully decided, it would free Him from all blame, they condemn Him amongst themselves, and anticipate the hearers by saying, "Ye have heard the blasphemy;" all but necessitating and forcing them to deliver the sentence. What then say they? "He is guilty of death;" that having taken Him as condemned, they should thus work upon Pilate thereupon to pass sentence. In which matter those others also being accomplices say, "He is guilty of death;" themselves accusing, themselves judging, themselves passing sentence, themselves being everything then.

But wherefore did they not bring forward the Sabbaths? Because He had often stopped their mouths; and moreover they wanted to take Him, and condemn Him by the things then said. And the high priest anticipated them, and gave the sentence as from them, and drew them all on by rending his vestments, and having led Him away as now condemned unto Pilate, thus did all.

How great their error! to pronounce the principle of all men's life to be guilty of death, and not to acknowledge by the testimony of the resurrection of so many, the Fount of life, from Whom life flows to all that rise again.

Then he seeks the sentence: what think you? But they answering, said: He is guilty of death, according to the judgment of the law. And this would be true if he were a blasphemer; but he was not, and therefore they judge wrongly, because they condemn the author of life to death; 1 Corinthians 15:22: for as by Adam death came to all men, so also by Jesus life.

(Quaest. Ev. i. 44.) That, they did spit in his face, signifies those who reject His proffered grace. They likewise buffet Him who prefer their own honour to Him; and they smite Him on the face, who, blinded with unbelief, affirm that He is not yet come, disowning and rejecting His person.

This is clearly a reflection of the holy prophet's words, "Be appalled at this, O heavens, and shudder with great fear," says "the Lord," the one true God, the king of kings and Lord of lords. He was dishonored by us: first he endured blows, and then he endured laughter from the impious, exemplifying the highest forbearance yet presented to us. How can the one who "examines heart and mind," the one who illumines prophets, not know "who strikes you"?

(Verse 67.) Then they spat in his face and struck him with their fists. As it was foretold: I have given my cheeks to those who struck me; I have not turned my face from disgrace and spitting. (Lamentations 3:30)

They spit in his face, and buffeted him, to fulfil the prophecy of Esaias, I gave my cheek to the smiters, and turned not away my face from shame and spitting. (Isa. 50:6.)

Wherefore did they these things, when they were to put Him to death? What need of this mockery? That thou mightest learn their intemperate spirit by all things, and that having taken Him like a prey, they thus showed forth their intoxication, and gave full swing to their madness; making this a festival, and assaulting Him with pleasure, and showing forth their murderous disposition.

But admire, I pray thee, the self command of the disciples, with what exactness they relate these things. Hereby is clearly shown their disposition to love the truth, because they relate with all truthfulness the things that seem to be opprobrious, disguising nothing, nor being ashamed thereof, but rather accounting it very great glory, as indeed it was, that the Lord of the universe should endure to suffer such things for us. This shows both His unutterable tenderness, and the inexcusable wickedness of those men, who had the heart to do such things to Him that was so mild and meek, and was charming them with such words, as were enough to change a lion into a lamb. For neither did He fail in any things of gentleness, nor they of insolence and cruelty, in what they did, in what they said.

For what could be equal to this insolence? On that face which the sea, when it saw it, had reverenced, from which the sun, when it beheld it on the cross, turned away his rays, they did spit, and struck it with the palms of their hands, and some upon the head; giving full swing in every way to their own madness. For indeed they inflicted the blows that are most insulting of all, buffeting, smiting with the palms of their hands, and to these blows adding the insult of spitting at Him. And words again teeming with much derision did they speak, saying, "prophesy unto us, thou Christ, who is he that smote thee?" because the multitude called Him a prophet.

But another saith, that they covered His face with His own garment, and did these things, as though they had got in the midst of them some vile and worthless fellow. And not freemen only, but slaves also were intemperate with this intemperance towards Him at that time.

These things let us read continually, these things let us hear aright, these things let us write in our minds, for these are our honors. In these things do I take a pride, not only in the thousands of dead which He raised, but also in the sufferings which He endured. These things Paul puts forward in every way, the cross, the death, the sufferings, the revilings, the insults, the scoffs.

It was necessary for him to teach these things by example, "giving his back to whips and his cheeks to fists" and not turning his face away "from insults and spitting." Thus would he, by suffering these things in our place, deliver us (as I believe) who were worthy to suffer all that disgrace. Truly he did not "die for us" that we might not die but that we might not die for ourselves. And he was spat upon and beaten for us, so that we who were worthy of all these things because of our sins might not just suffer them but, suffering them for the sake of justice, we might gratefully accept them. Paul makes it clear that the Savior "humbled himself becoming obedient all the way to death, even to the death of the cross." … "On account of all this, God exalted him." God not only exalted him because of the death he underwent for our sake but also because of the buffeting and the spitting and all the rest.Christ did not turn his face away "from insult and spitting," so his face might be glorified more than the face of Moses42—with so much glory that comparatively the glorification of Moses' face was outshone, even as the light of a lamp is outshone by that of the sun and even as knowledge, which knows in part, is outshone "when that which is perfect has come." But they also buffeted the holy head of the church. Because of this, they will be beaten by Satan, not that they may not be extolled or may have their power brought to an end but that, once in the hands of the enemy and punisher, they may receive just punishment for the sin they committed in buffeting Jesus. Not content with spitting in his face and buffeting him, they even struck his face with the palms of their hands, and, mocking him, they said, "Prophesy to us, O Christ! who is it that struck you?" On account of this … they have been struck and punished. Yet they were unwilling to accept any discipline, as Jeremiah had prophesied about them: "You chastened them and they did not grieve; they were unwilling to receive correction." And now whoever harms anyone in the church and does these things to him spits on the very face of Christ, and, buffeting Christ, they slap him with the palms of their hands.

Then did they spit in His face, and buffeted Him; and others smote Him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee? When they had condemned Him, then they abused Him and mocked Him, wrapping His face in a cloth, as another evangelist says (Lk. 22:64, Mk. 14:65). They mocked Him in this manner because the people considered Him a prophet. To "buffet" is to strike with the hands with the fingers clenched, or, to put it more plainly, to punch with the fist.

Then did they spit in his face etc. After the condemnation of Christ, the mockery is treated. And quite fittingly, because Christ bore our sins, as Isaiah 62. But man through sin was handed over to death, when it was said to him, Genesis 2:17: in what day soever you shall eat of it, you shall die the death. Likewise, he lost his proper honor, because man when he was in honor did not understand; he is compared to senseless beasts, Psalm 49:13. And therefore Christ the Redeemer endured death and reproaches, first by deed; secondly by word, at Prophesy unto us, O Christ. In the first he is spat upon and struck with fists; in the second he is struck in the face. As to the first it says: then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; according to what is found from the words, this was done as a sign of contempt for God's command, for it is found at Deuteronomy 25:5 ff. that if anyone refused to take his brother's wife, they would spit in his face. Likewise, on account of contempt for a father's command: so with Miriam, the sister of Moses. Hence they spat in his face because they considered him a blasphemer; Isaiah 50:6: I have not turned away my face from them that rebuked me and spat upon me. Likewise, they buffeted him, after the manner of a drunkard or a fool; Isaiah 53:3: we saw him the last of men, i.e., he appeared so despised as if he were the last of all men. And others struck his face with the palms of their hands, in irreverence; Lamentations 3:30: he shall give his cheek to him that striketh him. Mystically, according to Augustine, some still do this: because to spit in the face is nothing other than to despise the presence of the grace of Christ; Hebrews 10:29: how much more, do you think, he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace? But properly he buffets who places the head under the hand: and such are those who seek their own dignity rather than the honor of Christ. Of such it is said that men loved darkness rather than the light. But those who strike the face are those who in a certain way strive to demolish his presence, as do the Jews. Of these, Isaiah 30:11: let the Holy One of Israel cease from before us.

(ord) Prophesy unto us is said in ridicule of His claim to be held as a Prophet by the people.

(Verse 68.) But others slapped his face and said: Prophesy to us, Christ, who is it that struck you? It would have been foolish to respond to those who were beating him and to prophesy about the one who was striking him, since it would seem like madness to openly predict someone who was already striking. But just as he did not prophesy this to you, so he prophesied very clearly that Jerusalem would be surrounded by an army and not a single stone would be left upon another in the temple.

But it would have been foolish to have answered them that smote Him, and to have declared the smiter, seeing that in their madness they seem to have struck Him openly.

Then they heap insults upon him by word: Prophesy unto us, O Christ: who is he that struck thee? And they said this in mockery, because none of them held him for a prophet; and it was not necessary: for their infamy was manifest. Hence he did not wish to say; Job 16:11: and they that revile me have struck my cheek.

(de Cons. Ev. iii. 6.) Among the other insults offered to our Lord was the threefold denial of Peter, which the several Evangelists relate in different order. Luke puts Peter's trial first, and the ill usage of the Lord after that; Matthew and Mark reverse the order.

(ubi sup.) We understand that having gone out after his first denial, the cock crowed the first time as Mark relates.

(ubi sup.) The second denial was not outside the door, but after he had returned to the fire; for the second maid did not see him after he had gone out, but as he was going out; his getting up to go out drew her attention, and she said to them that were there, that is, to those that were standing round the fire in the hall, Tins fellow also was with Jesus of Nazareth. He who had gone out, haying heard this returned, that he might by denial vindicate himself. Or, as is more likely, he did not hear what was said of him as he went out, but it was after he came back that the maid, and the other man whom Luke mentions, said to him, And thou also art one of them.

(ubi sup.) Let us now come to the third denial; And after a while came they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them, (Luke's words are, About the space of one hour after,) for thy speech bewrayeth thee. (Luke 22:59.)

(Quæst. Ev. i. 45.) Also Peter thrice denied, because heretical error concerning Christ is limited to three kinds; they are in error respecting His divinity, His humanity, or both.

(Verse 69.) But Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. He was sitting outside to see the outcome. And he did not come near Jesus, so that no suspicion would arise among the servants.

Peter sat without, that he might see the event, and not excite suspicion by any approach to Jesus.

Oh strange and wonderful acts! When indeed he saw his master seized only, he was so fervent as both to draw his sword, and to cut off the man's ear; but when it was natural for him to be more indignant, and to be inflamed and to burn, hearing such revilings, then he becomes a denier. For who would not have been inflamed to madness by the things that were then doing? yet the disciple, overcome by fears, so far from showing indignation, even denies, and endures not the threat of a miserable and mean girl, and not once only, but a second and third time doth he deny Him; and in a short period, and not so much as before judges, for it was without for "when he had gone out into the porch," they asked him, and he did not even readily come to a sense of his fall. And this Luke saith, namely, that Christ looked on him showing that he not only denied Him, but was not even brought to remembrance from within, and this though the cock had crowed; but he needed a further remembrance from his master, and His look was to him instead of a voice; so exceedingly was he full of fear.

But Mark saith, that when he had once denied, then first the cock crew, but when thrice, then for the second time; for he declares more particularly the weakness of the disciple, and that he was utterly dead with fear; having learnt these things of his masters himself, for he was a follower of Peter. In which respect one would most marvel at him, that so far from hiding his teacher's faults, he declared it more distinctly than the rest, on this very account, that he was his disciple.

How then is what is said true, when Matthew affirms that Christ said, "Verily I say unto thee, that before the cock crow thou shalt deny me thrice;" and Mark declares after the third denial, that "The cock crew the second time?" Nay, most certainly is it both true and in harmony. For because at each crowing the cock is wont to crow both a third and a fourth time, Mark, to show that not even the sound checked him, and brought him to recollection saith this. So that both things are true. For before the cock had finished the one crowing, he had denied a third time. And not even when reminded of his sin by Christ did he dare to weep openly, lest he should be betrayed by his tears, but "he went out, and wept bitterly."

(Serm. 60, 4.) For this reason it should seem he was permitted to waver, that the remedy of penitence might be exhibited in the head of the Church, and that none should dare to trust in his own strength, when even the blessed Peter could not escape the danger of frailty.

Upon examining Peter's denial, we note that "as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." For this reason, neither was it possible for Peter at the time to profess belief in Jesus nor was he to be criticized for not professing belief in him, since it is said to those who profess belief: "It is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you." We … since the Spirit of the Father has the power to speak in us and since it is in our power to "make room" in us for the Holy Spirit and not "for the devil," if we should deny Christ, we would have no excuse.It may be that whoever is in the courtyard of Caiaphas "the high priest" cannot admit knowing the Lord Jesus unless he has gone outside his courtyard and has been brought outside of every teaching contrary to Jesus and outside of Jewish traditions handed down, not according to the Spirit of the Scriptures but according to the "commands and teachings of men." Consider how Peter, seated outside at a distance from Jesus and in the high priest's courtyard, denied Jesus before them all; and again, for the second time, going out to the porch and wishing to leave but not yet outside the gateway, he denied the Lord. Then, for the third time, "while the bystanders came and said, 'Certainly you are also one of them,' " when "he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear 'I do not know the man,'?" he was not yet outside. Furthermore, all the denials were made at night and in the darkness, before the break of dawn and the sign of the new day, that is, the crowing of the cock that bestirs the early risers. And if, by way of hypothesis, Peter had denied after the crowing of the cock, as was said, "The night is far gone, the day is at hand … let us conduct ourselves becomingly as in the day," he would have had no excuse for his actions. Perhaps all people when they deny Jesus … seemingly deny him before the crowing of the cock, when the sun of justice has not yet risen for them and its rising is not yet at hand. But if upon the rising of the sun for the soul "we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries."

I believe that the first servant girl who caused Christ's disciples to deny him stands for the synagogue of the Jews "according to the flesh," who have frequently coerced the faithful to deny him. The second maidservant stands for the assembly of Gentiles, who also in persecuting Christians has forced them to deny the Lord. And third were the bystanders in the courtyard, who are ministers of the different heresies and who also compel others to deny the truth of Christ.

Or, By the first handmaid is understood the Synagogue of the Jews, which oft compelled the faithful to deny; by the second, the congregations of the Gentiles, who even persecuted the Christians; they that stood in the hall signify the ministers of divers heresies, who also compel men to deny the truth of Christ.

What means this, that a handmaid is the first to tax him, when men would be more likely to recognise him, except that this sex might seem to sin somewhat in the Lord's death, that they might be redeemed by His passion? He denied before them all, because he was afraid to reveal himself; that he said, I know not, shows that he was not yet willing to die for the Saviour.

In this denial of Peter we affirm that Christ is denied not only by him who denies that He is Christ, but who denies himself to be a Christian.

Observe how baneful are communications with evil men; they even drove Peter to deny the Lord whom he had before confessed to be the Son of God.

Spiritually; By Peter's denial before the cock-crow, are denoted those who before Christ's resurrection did not believe Him to be God, being perplexed by His death. In his denial after the first cock-crow, are denoted those who are in error concerning both Christ's natures, His human and divine. By the first handmaid is signified desire; by the second, carnal delight; by them that stood by, the dæmons; for by them men are led to a denial of Christ.

Now Peter sat without in the courtyard: and a servant girl came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth. And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man. And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech discloseth thee. Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crowed. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crows, thou shalt deny Me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly. Overcome with immense fear, Peter forgot his promises and became enslaved to human weakness, as if he were lifeless with fear, not knowing what he was saying. Understand it also in the spiritual sense, that Peter was rebuked by the servant girl, that is, by human weakness which is lowly and meant to be governed, until the cock crowed and brought him to his senses. The rooster is the Word which does not permit us to be lazy and to sleep, but says, "Wake up and rise, O sleeper!" Peter, therefore, was wakened by the Word as if by a rooster. Going out of the palace of the high priest, that is, the confines of a hardened mind, and leaving behind senselessness, he wept bitterly. While he was in the courtyard of the hardened mind, he could not weep, for he had lost his sense; but as soon as he went out, he came to his senses.

But Peter sat without. Here the denial of Peter is treated. Luke 22:55 reports in a different order, because he first sets forth the denial of Peter and then the mockery of Christ; but Matthew does the opposite. And there is no contradiction, because while he was being mocked, it happened simultaneously; therefore it matters not whether it is placed before or after. And it should be noted that while he was being led, he does not deny; but when he is mocked, he denies, to signify that some fear reproaches more than blows, contrary to that saying at Isaiah 51:7: fear not the reproach of men, and be not afraid of their blasphemies. And concerning this, first the denial is set forth; secondly, the repentance of Peter: and immediately the cock crew; and Peter remembered the word of Jesus. The first is divided into three, according to the three denials. The second is at and as he went out of the gate etc.; the third at and after a little while they came that stood by etc. And first the place is set forth, secondly the occasion, thirdly the denial. He says therefore: but Peter sat without, namely, outside the place where Christ was suffering: for those who distance themselves from Christ are quickly confounded; Jeremiah 17:13: O Lord, all that forsake thee shall be confounded. On the contrary, Psalm 34:6: come ye to him, and be enlightened, and your faces shall not be confounded. For he who is outside the passion of Christ easily falls. Then what excited him to deny is set forth: and there came to him a certain servant maid saying: Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean. And the fall of Peter corresponds to the fall of the first man; Sirach 25:33: from the woman came the beginning of sin. So Peter denied Christ at the voice of a woman; in which the Lord wished to humble his presumption, because he denied not at the voice of a man, but of a woman. Thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth. This used to be glorious for him, but now it is terrible to him, and therefore he denied: but he denied before them all, saying: I know not what thou sayest. If we wish to aggravate the guilt of Peter, we can aggravate it on three counts. It is aggravated because at once, at a slight alarm, he denied; Leviticus 26:36: the sound of a flying leaf shall terrify them. Likewise, because he was not ashamed before all. Likewise, because of the lie, since he said I know not what thou sayest, and I know not the man; contrary to that saying at Sirach 4:24: be not ashamed to say the truth.

(in Luc. 22, 57.) I had rather that Peter deny, than that the Lord be made out false.

Observe, that he said the first time, I know not what thou sayest; the second time, He denied with an oath; the third time, He began to curse and to swear that he knew not the man. For to persevere in sinning increases sinfulness, and he who disregards light sins, falls into greater.

And as he went out of the gate, another maid saw him and she saith to them that were there: This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth. And again he denied. Here the second denial is set forth. And first, the place is touched upon; secondly, what provoked it; thirdly, the denial. As to the history, according to Mark 14:66, after the first denial the cock crew, and then he went out to the gate, and the maid saw him, and he denied. But he seems contrary to the others, because others seem to say that those sitting said it; and Luke 22:55 says that one of those sitting did. What then is said here, that a maid said it? It should be noted, according to Augustine, that when he had denied, he went out: and while he was in the act of going out, the maid said to him, etc.; and then he denied; which Peter hearing, he returned inside. Then those who had heard from the maid asked the same thing. And it can be that one person, who recognized him, pressed him more urgently.

(Verse 72.) And again he denied it with an oath, 'I do not know the man.' And after a little while those standing there came up and said to Peter, 'Surely you also are one of them, for your accent betrays you.' Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, 'I do not know the man.' And immediately the rooster crowed. And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, 'Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.' And he went out and wept bitterly. Some pious people have interpreted this passage in such a way that they say Peter did not deny God but only a man, and the meaning is: 'I do not know the man, for I know God.' A discerning reader understands how frivolous this interpretation is; they defend Peter in such a way as to make God guilty of lying. For if he did not deny, then the Lord lied, who said, 'Truly I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.' See what he says, you will deny me, not a man.

And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man. I know that some out of a feeling of piety towards the Apostle Peter have interpreted this place to signify that Peter denied the Man and not the God, as though he meant, 'I do not know the Man, because I know the God.' But the intelligent reader will see that this is trifling, for if he denied not, the Lord spoke falsely when He said, Thou shalt deny me thrice.

And again he denied with an oath: I know not the man; contrary to Sirach 23:9: let not thy mouth be accustomed to swearing.

(Verse 73.) Truly, you are also one of them: for even your speech gives you away. Not that Peter spoke a different language or came from a foreign nation. For all of them were Hebrews, both those who accused and those who were accused. But each province and region has its own peculiarities, and cannot avoid the sound of their native language. Hence, even the Ephraimites in the Book of Judges (chapter 12) could not pronounce the word σύνθημα.

"Certainly you are also one of them, for your accent betrays you." Not that Peter spoke a different language or belonged to a foreign nation … but since each province and region had their own characteristics and vernacular, one could not help having a certain sound to his speech. For instance, the Ephrathites in the book of Judges cannot pronounce the word synthema.

Not that Peter was of a different speech or nation, but a Hebrew as his accusers were; but every province and every district has its peculiarities, and he could not disguise his native pronunciation.

Then follows the third denial. And first, the time is described; secondly, what provoked it; thirdly, the denial. He says therefore: and after a little while they came that stood by. Luke says that after the space of about one hour. And the devil was arranging this, so that he would have no respite. Hence they say to him: surely thou also art one of them; and they prove this: for even thy speech doth discover thee. But it is certain that all were Jews; how then does he say: for even thy speech doth discover thee? Jerome explains that in the same language different speech patterns often occur, as is clear in France, and Picardy, and Burgundy, and yet it is one language. So the Galileans had some difference from the Jerusalemites. So also it can be said to anyone: for even thy speech doth discover thee; because, as it says at Luke 6:45, out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh; because when a man is carnal, he quickly breaks forth in carnal words; when spiritual, in spiritual words.

I have two confessions to make, and they are both made merely in the interests of mental science. The first is that whereas I had been in a quite pious frame of mind the moment before the collision, when I got to my feet and found I had got off with a cut or two I began (like St. Peter) to curse and to swear. A man offered me a newspaper or something that I had dropped. I can distinctly remember consigning the paper to a state of irremediable spiritual ruin. I am very sorry for this now, and I apologise both to the man and to the paper. I have not the least idea what was the meaning of this unnatural anger; I mention it as a psychological confession.

(Verse 74, 75.) Then he began to curse and swear, saying that he did not know the man. And immediately the rooster crowed. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus that he had said: Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times. In another Gospel, we read that after Peter's denial and the rooster's crowing, the Savior looked at Peter and with his gaze, he caused him to burst into bitter tears. It was not possible for him to remain in the darkness of denial, whom the light of the world had looked upon.

And going out, he wept bitterly. Sitting in the courtyard of Caiaphas, he could not do penance. He goes out from the wicked council to wash the fearful filth of his denials with bitter tears.

"Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear that he did not know the man. And immediately the cock crowed." In the other Gospel we read that after Peter's denial and the crowing of the cock, the Savior looked at Peter and, by his very gaze, aroused bitter tears in him. It could not be that Peter, on whom the light of the world had gazed, should remain in the darkness of denial.

In another Gospel we read, that after Peter's denial and the cock-crow, the Saviour looked upon Peter, (Luke 22:61.) and by His look called forth those bitter tears; for it might not be that he on whom the Light of the world had looked should continue in the darkness of denial, wherefore, he went out, and wept bitterly. For he could not do penitence sitting in Caiaphas' hall, but went forth from the assembly of the wicked, that he might wash away in bitter tears the pollution of his timid denial.

After the third denial comes the cock-crow; by which we may understand a Doctor of the Church who with chiding rouses the slumbering, saying, Awake, ye righteous, and sin not. (1 Cor. 15:14.) Thus Holy Scripture uses to denote the merit of divers cases by fixed periods, as Peter sinned at midnight and repented at cock-crow.

Then he began to curse and to swear etc. There are some who wish to excuse Peter, saying that he did not sin; hence when he said I know not the man, it is true, a man, but a man and God. And this is not good, because it imputes a lie to Christ: for Christ had said thou shalt deny me. Therefore it is better to say that Peter lied rather than Christ. Likewise, it should be noted that he not only denied Christ but denied being a Christian. Hence in one denial he said I know him not, namely, I am not a Christian. Likewise, it should be noted that he who does not quickly withdraw goes from bad to worse; Sirach 19:1: he that contemneth small things shall fall by little and little. Hence to denial he added perjury, and to perjury blasphemy. Hence Gregory says: a sin which is not washed away by repentance soon by its own weight drags one to another. Likewise, it should be noted that the threefold temptation by which a man is tempted is signified. He is tempted by the concupiscence of the flesh; James 1:14: every man is tempted by his own concupiscence. Likewise, he is tempted by the desire of earthly things; Wisdom 14:2: for desire of gain devised that. Likewise, by demons, and this is signified by that denial in which it says after a little while they came that stood by. Ephesians 6:12: our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places. Of these three it is found at 1 John 2:6: all that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh, or the concupiscence of the eyes, or the pride of life. Or otherwise, according to Augustine, it must be said that by these three denials the error of all heretics is signified. For some denied the divinity of Christ, as Photinus; others denied his humanity, as Eunomius; some denied both, as Arius, who said the Son was unequal to the Father. Likewise, according to Origen, the persecution which the Church was to endure is signified. The first was from the Jews, in which many died; the second from the Gentiles, in which many were made martyrs; the third from heretics, which led many astray, and some also died. Likewise, it should be noted that certain writings are found which seem to excuse Peter, saying that he did not sin mortally, because Bernard says: charity was put to sleep in him, not extinguished. It must be said that he sinned mortally, yet not from malice but from fear of death. And this is what Bernard meant when he said that charity was put to sleep, etc.