Chapter II.—Of the Proof of Their Freedom from Any Discrepancies in the Notices Given of the Predictions of Peter’s Denials.

5. “Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and, as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say unto you. A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. Simon Peter saith unto Him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow me afterwards. Peter saith unto Him, Lord, why cannot I follow Thee now? I will lay down my life for Thy sake. Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, until thou deniest me thrice.”748    John xiii. 33–38.    Mark i. 1–21. John, from whose Gospel I have taken the passage introduced above, is not the only evangelist who details this incident of the prophetic announcement of his own denial to Peter. The other three also record the same thing.749    Matt. xxvi. 30–35; Mark xiv. 26–31; Luke xxii. 31–34.    Mark iv. 31. They do not, however, take one and the same particular point in the discourses [of Christ] as their occasion for proceeding to this narration. For Matthew and Mark both introduce it in a completely parallel order, and at the same stage of their narrative, namely, after the Lord left the house in which they had eaten the passover; while Luke and John, on the other hand, bring it in before He left that scene. Still we might easily suppose, either that it has been inserted in the way of a recapitulation by the one couple of evangelists, or that it has been inserted in the way of an anticipation by the other; only such a supposition may be made more doubtful by the circumstance that there is so remarkable a diversity, not only in the Lord’s words, but even in those sentiments of His by which the incident in question is introduced, and by which Peter was moved to venture his presumptuous asseveration that he would die with the Lord or for the Lord. These considerations may constrain us rather to understand the narratives really to import that the man uttered his presumptuous declaration thrice over, as it was called forth by different occasions in the series of Christ’s discourses, and that also three several times the answer was returned him by the Lord, which intimated that before the cock crew he would deny Him thrice.

6. And surely there is nothing incredible in supposing that Peter was moved to such an act of presumption on several occasions, separated from each other by certain intervals of time, as he was actually instigated to deny Him repeatedly. Neither should it seem unreasonable to fancy that the Lord gave him a reply in similar terms at three successive periods, especially when [we see that] in immediate connection with each other, and without the interposition of anything else either in fact or word, Christ addressed the question to him three several times whether he loved Him, and that, when Peter returned the same answer thrice over, He also gave him thrice over the self-same charge to feed His sheep.750    John xxi. 15–17. That it is the more reasonable thing to suppose that Peter displayed his presumption on three different occasions, and that thrice over he received from the Lord a warning with respect to his triple denial, is further proved, as we may see, by the very terms employed by the evangelists, which record sayings uttered by the Lord in diverse form and of diverse import. Let us here call attention again to that passage which I introduced a little ago from the Gospel of John. There we certainly find that He had expressed Himself in this way: “Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you. A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. Simon Peter saith unto Him, Lord, whither goest Thou?”751    John xiii. 33–36. Now, surely it is evident here that what moved Peter to utter this question, “Lord, whither goest Thou?” was the words which the Lord Himself had spoken. For he had heard Him say, “Whither I go, ye cannot come.” Then Jesus made this reply to the said Peter: “Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now, but thou shall follow me afterwards.” Thereupon Peter expressed himself thus: “Lord, why cannot I follow Thee now? I will lay down my life for Thy sake.” 752    John xiii. 37. And to this presumptuous declaration the Lord responded by predicting his denial. Luke, again, first mentions how the Lord said, “Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and, when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren:” next he proceeds immediately to tell us how Peter replied to this effect: “Lord, I am ready to go with Thee, both unto prison and to death;” and then he continues thus: “And He said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.”753    Luke xxii. 31–33. Now, who can fail to perceive that this is an occasion by itself, and that the incident in connection with which Peter was incited to make the presumptuous declaration already referred to is an entirely different one? But, once more, Matthew presents us with the following passage: “And when they had sung an hymn,” he says, “they went out into the Mount of Olives. Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.”754    Matt. xxvi. 30–32. The same passage is given in precisely the same form by Mark.755    Mark xiv. 26–28. What similarity is there, however, in these words, or in the ideas expressed by them, either to the terms in which John represents Peter to have made his presumptuous declaration, or to those in which Luke exhibits him as uttering such an asseveration? And so we find that in Matthew’s narrative the connection proceeds immediately thus: “Peter answered and said unto Him, Though all men shall be offended because of Thee, yet will I never be offended. Jesus saith unto him, Verily, I say unto thee, that this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. Peter saith unto him, Though I should die with Thee, yet will I not deny Thee. Likewise also said all His disciples.”756    Matt. xxvi. 33–35. [It is very probable that the prediction of Peter’s denial was repeated, being first spoken in the upper room (Luke, John), and afterwards on the way to Gethsemane (Matthew, Mark)—R.]

7. All this is recorded almost in the same language also by Mark, only that he has not put in so general a form what the Lord said with regard to the manner in which the event [of Peter’s failure] was to be brought about, but has given it a more particular turn. For his version is this: “Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.”757    Mark xiv. 30. [The Latin reproduces the emphatic form of the Greek text: “That thou to-day, even this night, before the cock crow twice, shalt deny me thrice” (Revised Version). It seem probable that this is the most accurate report, derived from Peter himself.—R.] Thus it appears that all of them tell us how the Lord foretold that Peter would deny Him before the cock crew, but that they do not all mention how often the cock was to crow, and that Mark is the only one who has presented a more explicit notice of this incident in the narrative. Hence some are of opinion that Mark’s statement is not in harmony with those of the others. But this is simply because they do not give sufficient attention to the facts of the case, and, above all, because they approach the question under the cloud of a prejudiced mind, in consequence of their being possessed by a hostile disposition towards the gospel. The fact is, that Peter’s denial, when taken as a whole, is a threefold denial. For he remained in the same state of mental agitation, and harboured the same mendacious intention, until what had been foretold regarding him was brought to his mind, and healing came to him by bitter weeping and sorrow of heart. It is evident, however, that if this complete denial—that is to say, the threefold denial—is taken to have commenced only after the first crowing of the cock, three of the evangelists will appear to have given an incorrect account of the matter. For Matthew’s version is this: “Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice;” and Luke puts it thus: “I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me;” and John presents it in this form: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, the cock shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice.” And thus, in different terms and with words introduced in diverse successions, these three evangelists have expressed one and the same sense as conveyed by the words which the Lord spake—namely, the fact that, before the cock should crow, Peter was to deny Him thrice. On the other hand, if [we suppose that] he went through the whole triple denial before the cock began to crow at all, then Mark will be made to underlie the charge of having given a superfluous statement when he puts these words into the Lord’s mouth: “Verily I say unto thee, That this day, before the cock crow twice, thou shall deny me thrice.” For to what purpose would it be to say, “before the cock crow twice,” when, on the supposition that this entire threefold denial was gone through previous to the first crowing of the cock, it is self-evident that a negation, which would thus be proved to have been completed before the first cockcrow, must also, as matter of course, be understood to have been fully uttered before the second cockcrow and before the third, and, in short, before all the cockcrowings which took place on that same night? But, inasmuch as this threefold denial was begun previous to the first crowing of the cock, those three evangelists concerned themselves with noticing, not the time at which Peter was to complete it, but the extent 758    Reading quanta futura esset. Quando also occurs for quanta, in which case the sense would be = the period at which it was to take place. to which it was to be carried, and the period at which it was to commence; that is to say, their object was to bring out the facts that it was to be thrice repeated, and that it was to begin previous to the cockcrowing. At the same time, so far as the man’s own mind is concerned, we might also quite well understand it to have been engaged in, as a whole, previous to the first cockcrow. For although it is true that, so far as regards the actual utterance of the individual who was guilty of the denial, that threefold negation was only entered upon previous to the first cockcrow, and really finished before the second cockcrow, still it is equally true that, in so far as the disposition of mind and the apprehensions indulged by Peter were concerned, it was conceived,759    Adopting concepta est. There is another reading, coepta est = it was commenced. as a whole, before the first cockcrow. Neither is it a matter of any consequence of what duration those intervals of delay were which elapsed between the several utterances of that thrice-recurring voice, if it is the case that the denial completely possessed his heart even previous to the first cockcrow,—in consequence, indeed, of his having imbibed a spirit of terror so abject as to make him capable of denying the Lord when he was questioned regarding Him, not only once, but a second time, and even a third time. Thus, a more correct and careful consideration of the matter might show us760    The text gives simply: ut rectius diligentiusque attendentibus. Migne states that in six mss. videtur is added = it seems to those who consider the matter more correctly, etc. that, precisely as it is declared that the man who looketh on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart,761    Matt. v. 28. so, in the present instance, inasmuch as in the words which he spoke, Peter merely expressed the apprehension which he had already conceived with such intensity in his mind as to make it capable of enduring even on to a third repetition of his denial of the Lord, this threefold negation is to be assigned as a whole to that particular period at which the fear that sufficed thus to carry him on to a threefold denial took possession of him. In this way, too, it may be made apparent that, even if the words in which the denial was couched began to break forth from him only after the first cockcrow, when his heart was smitten by the inquiries addressed to him, it would involve neither any absurdity nor any untruthfulness, although it were said that before the cock crew he denied Him thrice, seeing that, in any case, previous to the crowing of the cock, his mind had been assailed by an apprehension violent enough to be able to draw him762    The text gives eum. Another common reading is eam = it, i.e. his mind. on even to a third denial. All the less, therefore, ought we to feel any difficulty in the matter, if it appears that the threefold denial, as expressed also in the thrice-recurring utterances of the person who made the denial, was entered upon previous to the crowing of the cock, although it was not completed before the first cockcrow. We may take a parallel case, and suppose an intimation to be made to the following effect to a person: “This night, before the cock crow, you will write a letter to me, in which you will revile me thrice.” Well, surely in this instance, if the man began to write the letter before the cock had crowed at all, and finished it after the cock had crowed for the first time, that would be no reason for alleging that the intimation previously made was false. The fact, therefore, is that, in putting these words into the Lord’s lips, “Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice,” Mark has given us a plainer indication of the intervals of time which separated the utterances themselves. And when we come to the said section of the evangelical narrative, we shall see that the circumstances are presented in a manner which exhibits, in that connection also, the harmony subsisting among the evangelists.

8. If, however, the demand is to get at the very words, literally and completely, which the Lord addressed to Peter, we answer that it is impossible to discover these; and further, that it is simply superfluous to ask them, inasmuch as the speaker’s meaning—to intimate which was the object He had in view in uttering the words—admits of being understood with the utmost plainness, even under the diverse terms employed by the evangelists. And whether, then, it be the case that Peter, instigated at different occasions in the course of the Lord’s sayings, made his presumptuous declaration three several times, and had his denial foretold him thrice over by the Lord, as is the more probable result to which our investigation points us; or whether it may appear that the accounts given by all the evangelists are capable of being reduced to a single statement, when a certain order of narration is adopted, so that it could be proved that it was only on one occasion that the Lord predicted to Peter, on the exhibition of his presumptuous spirit, the fact that he would deny Him;—in either case, any contradiction between the evangelists will fail to be detected, as nothing of that nature really exists.

CAPUT II. De praedicta negatione Petri, quemadmodum ostendantur nihil inter se repugnare.

5. «Filioli, adhuc modicum vobiscum sum. Quaeretis me; et, sicut dixi Judaeis, quo ego vado vos non potestis venire: et vobis dico modo. Mandatum novum do vobis, ut diligatis invicem, sicut dilexi vos, ut et vos diligatis invicem. In hoc cognoscent omnes quia mei discipuli estis, si dilectionem 1160 habueritis ad invicem. Dicit ei Simon Petrus: Domine, quo vadis? Respondit Jesus: Quo ego vado non potes me modo sequi; sequeris autem postea. Dicit ei Petrus: Quare non possum te sequi modo? animam meam pro te ponam. Respondit Jesus: Animam tuam pro me pones? amen, amen dico tibi, non cantabit gallus donec ter me neges» (Joan. XIII, 33-38). Hoc de praedicta negatione sua Petro non solus Joannes, ex cujus Evangelio modo ista interposui, sed et caeteri tres commemorant (Matth. XXVI, 30-35; Marc. XIV, 26-31, et Luc. XXII, 31-34). Non sane omnes ex una eadem que occasione sermonis ad eam commemorandam veniunt: nam Matthaeus et Marcus pari prorsus ordine et eodem narrationis suae loco eam subnectunt ambo, posteaquam Dominus egressus est ex illa domo, ubi manducaverant Pascha; Lucas vero et Joannes, antequam inde esset egressus. Sed facile possemus intelligere aut illos duos eam recapitulando posuisse, aut istos praeoccupando; nisi magis moveret quod tam diversa, non tantum verba, sed etiam sententias Domini praemittunt, quibus permotus Petrus illam praesumptionem proferret, vel cum Domino vel pro Domino moriendi, ut magis cogant intelligi ter eum expressisse praesumptionem suam diversis locis sermonis Christi, et ter illi a Domino responsum quod eum esset ante galli cantum ter negaturus.

6. Neque enim incredibile est, aliquantum disjunctis intervallis temporis Petrum commotum esse ad praesumendum, sicut ad negandum; vel ei Dominum aliquid ter similiter respondisse: quandoquidem etiam contextim, nullis aliis interpositis rebus aut verbis, post resurrectionem ter illum interrogaverit utrum eum amet, et ei ter hoc idem respondenti etiam ipse mandatum de pascendis ovibus suis unum idemque ter praeceperit (Joan. XXI, 15-17). Hoc autem esse credibilius, quod ter ostenderit praesumptionem suam Petrus, et de trina sua negatione ter a Domino audierit, ex ipsis Evangelistarum verbis, quae a Domino dicta diverse ac diversa commemorant, sic probatur. Ecce meminerimus quod nunc interposui ex Evangelio Joannis; hoc certe dixerat: «Filioli, adhuc modicum vobiscum sum. Quaeretis me; et, sicut dixi Judaeis, quo ego vado vos non potestis venire: et vobis dico modo. Mandatum novum do vobis, ut diligatis invicem, sicut dilexi vos, ut et vos diligatis invicem. In hoc cognoscent omnes quia mei discipuli estis, si dilectionem habueritis ad invicem. Dicit ei Simon Petrus: Domine, quo vadis?» Nempe hic manifestum est, ex illis verbis motum esse Petrum ut diceret, Domine, quo vadis? quia dicentem audierat, Quo ego vado vos non potestis venire. Respondit Jesus eidem Petro: Quo ego vado non potes me sequi modo; sequeris autem postea. Tunc ille: Quare non possum, inquit, sequi te modo? animam meam pro te ponam. Huic praesumptioni respondit Dominus futuram ejus negationem. Lucas autem cum commemorasset dixisse Dominum, Simon, ecce satanas expetivit vos ut 1161 cribraret sicut triticum: ego autem rogavi pro te, ut non deficiat fides tua; et tu, aliquando conversus, confirma fratres tuos; tunc subjecit Petrum respondisse, Domine, tecum paratus sum et in carcerem et in mortem ire. Et ille dixit: Dico tibi, Petre, non cantabit hodie gallus, donec ter abneges nosse me. Quam hoc aliud sit, aliud illud unde Petrus ad praesumendum permotus sit, quis non videat? At vero Matthaeus, Et hymno dicto, inquit, exierunt in montem Oliveti. Tunc dicit illis Jesus: Omnes vos scandalum patiemini in me in ista nocte. Scriptum est enim, Percutiam pastorem, et dispergentur oves gregis. Postquam autem resurrexero, praecedam vos in Galilaeam. Sic prorsus et Marcus. Quid habent etiam haec verba vel sententiae simile illis , vel quibus secundum Joannem, vel quibus secundum Lucam, Petrus retulit praesumptionem suam? Et hic ergo ita sequitur: Respondens autem Petrus, ait illi: Etsi omnes scandalizati fuerint in te, ego nunquam scandalizabor. Ait illi Jesus: Amen dico tibi, quia in hac nocte antequam gallus cantet, ter me negabis. Ait illi Petrus: Etiamsi oportuerit me mori tecum, non te negabo. Similiter et omnes discipuli dixerunt.

7. Haec pene ipsis verbis etiam Marcus commemorat, nisi quod non generaliter, sed distinctius, quemadmodum futurum esset, expressit dictum a Domino, Amen dico tibi, quia tu hodie in nocte hac, priusquam bis gallus vocem dederit, ter me es negaturus. Cum itaque omnes dicant praedixisse Dominum quod eum Petrus esset negaturus antequam gallus cantaret, non autem omnes dicant quoties gallus cantaret, Marcus hoc solus narravit expressius. Unde nonnullis videtur non congruere caeteris, quia parum attendunt, et maxime eorum obnubilatur intentio, cum adversus Evangelium animo induuntur hostili. Tota enim Petri negatio, trina negatio est. In eadem namque permansit trepidatione animi, propositoque mendacii, donec admonitus quid ei praedictum sit, amaro fletu et cordis dolore sanaretur. Haec autem tota, id est trina negatio, si post primum galli cantum inciperet, falsum dixisse viderentur tres: quorum Matthaeus dixit, Amen dico tibi, quia in hac nocte, antequam gallus cantet, ter me negabis; Lucas autem, Dico tibi, Petre, non cantabit hodie gallus, donec ter abneges nosse me; Joannes autem, Amen, amen dico tibi, non cantabit gallus, donec ter me neges. Diversis enim verbis et verborum ordine eamdem explicaverunt sententiam dixisse Dominum, quod antequam gallus cantaret, ter eum Petrus esset negaturus. Rursus si totam trinam negationem ante peregisset, quam cantare gallus inciperet, superfluo dixisse Marcus deprehenderetur ex persona Domini, Amen dico tibi, quia tu hodie in nocte hac, priusquam gallus bis vocem dederit, ter me negaturus es. Quid enim attinebat dicere, priusquam bis, quando, si ante primum galli cantum tota illa trina negatio compleretur, simul et ante secundum, et ante tertium, et ante omnes galli cantus ejusdem 1162 noctis completa inveniretur, quae ante ipsum primum completa probaretur? Sed quia ante primum galli cantum coepta est illa trina negatio, attenderunt illi tres, non quando eam completurus esset Petrus, sed quanta futura esset, et quando coeptura; id est, quia trina, et quia ante galli cantum: quanquam in animo ejus, et ante primum galli cantum tota possit intelligi. Quamvis enim verbis negantis ante primum coepta, ante secundum autem galli cantum peracta sit tota illa trina negatio; tamen affectione animi et timore Petri ante primum tota concepta est . Nec interest quantis morarum intervallis trina voce enuntiata sit, cum cor ejus etiam ante primum galli cantum tota possederit, tam magna scilicet formidine imbibita, ut posset Dominum, non solum semel, sed iterum et tertio interrogatus negare, ut rectius diligentiusque attendentibus , quomodo jam moechatus est mulierem in corde suo qui eam viderit ad concupiscendum (Matth. V, 28); sic Petrus quandocumque verbis ederet timorem, quem tam vehementem animo conceperat, ut perdurare posset usque ad tertiam Domini negationem, tota trina negatio ei tempori deputanda est, quando eum trinae negationi sufficiens timor invasit: ex quo etiam si post primum galli cantum inciperent, pulsato interrogationibus pectore, verba illa negationis erumpere, nec sic absurde atque mendaciter ante galli cantum ter negasse diceretur, quando ante galli cantum tantus timor obsederat mentem, qui eum posset usque ad tertiam negationem perducere. Multo minus igitur movere debet, quia trina negatio etiam trinis negantis vocibus ante galli cantum coepta, etsi non ante primum galli cantum peracta est. Tanquam si alicui diceretur, Hac nocte, antequam gallus cantet, ad me scribes epistolam, in qua mihi ter conviciaberis: non utique si eam ante omnem galli cantum scribere inciperet, et post primum galli cantum finiret, ideo dicendum erat falsum fuisse praedictum. Marcus ergo de ipsarum vocum intervallis planius elocutus est, qui dixit ex persona Domini, Priusquam bis gallus vocem dederit, ter me es negaturus. Ita gestum esse apparebit, cum ad eumdem locum narrationis evangelicae venerimus, ut etiam illic ostendatur Evangelistas sibi congruere.

8. Si autem quaeruntur ipsa omnino verba quae Petro Dominus dixerit; neque inveniri possunt, et superfluo quaeruntur; cum sententia ejus, propter quam cognoscendam verba proferuntur, etiam in diversis Evangelistarum verbis possit esse notissima. Sive ergo diversis sermonum Domini locis commotus Petrus singillatim ter enuntiaverit praesumptionem suam, et ter ei Dominus suam negationem praedixerit, sicut probabilius indagatur; sive aliquo narrandi ordine possint omnium Evangelistarum commemorationes in unum redigi, quibus demonstretur semel Dominum praedixisse Petro praesumenti quod eum negaturus 1163 esset; nulla hic Evangelistarum repugnantia deprehendi poterit, sicut nulla est.