etection and imagined danger, but there must have beeu rage as well, to explain his violent and passionate language. Several of the bystanders recognize him; a kinsman of Malchus is there who had seen him in the garden; his Galilean dialect bewrays him ; accusations crowd upon him; proofs multiply against him. Peter gets irritated, and completely loses his temper and self-control. At the supposed discrepancy, or at least difficulty, in Peter’s denial of his Master we can only glance. The place of the first denial was by the fire in the high priest’s hall, or quadrangular court under the open air (aiaf), while that of the third is not specified. The place of the second was in the mpoatAsoy according to St. Mark, and the wvAdva according to St. Matthew; while St. John tells us that he was standing and warming himself. Now, the fire was in the open court (aiAf), the passage from this to the street was xpoatvAioy, and the portal or entrance door of this passage was mvaé». He had removed to a short distance from the fire, but not so far as to lose the influence of its heat or warmth. With respect tc the persons, the first question that called forth his denial was put by the portress. On the occasion of the second denial the same maid addressed the bystanders, who echoed her words, so that several persons (male érepos) and (female &AAm) another maid different from the portress—all (efwoy, plural) assailed Peter with their inconvenient and unwelcome questions. In replying to or repelling these, Peter kept denying (jpyeire, imperfect), At the third denial more of the bystanders (of éorares of St. Matthew, and oi wapeor@res of St. Mark), with some other different person (&Ados mis of St. Luke) as ringleader, drew attention to his being a Galilean; while the relative of Malchua confirmed this by alleging that he had seen him in the garden. There is thus neithe: real difficulty nor discrepancy of any kind. 3. Profanity and perjury. By this time Peter is excited and enraged. Goaded to madness, he breaks out into language of shocking profaneness. The falsehood already repeated he backs by an imprecation. He also swears the lie, invoking the name of Jehovah and calling the omniscient One to witness his reiterated untruth, and thus lays foui perjury on his soul. He began, we read, to anathematize, that is to say, he used a formula of imprecation such as “ God do so to me and more also,” thus cursing himself if what he said was untrue; but, besides this, he employed the customary formula of an oath, invoking God as witness of his words, false as he knew them to be. Naturally impetuous and passionate, and in youth, or before his discipleship, perhaps addicted to profane swearing, he relapsed into his old sin in order to corroborate his statements and to force credence on the incredulous. One sin leads to another; one lie especially needs another to support it. The by- standers must have known little of Jesus’ character and teaching, or Peter’s profanity of itself would have convinced them that he knew not that Teacher—nothing, at least, of his spirit and doctrine. Could it be possible that Peter, in the madness of his rage and fear, meant by his profanity to leave this impression on his questioners, and that there was thus a method in his madness? At all events, he spoke as one who was @ stranger to the fear of God and the ordinary dictates of religion, not to speak of discipleship to a Teacher. who said, “Swear not at all . . . but let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay.” 4. Other aggravating circumstances. There were several other circumstances of aggravation which we can only indicate, and may not dwell on, among them the following :—The faithful and frequent warnings he had received, and had received so recently ; his own vehement protestations of loyalty and fidelity to his Master—that if all others should be offended he would not, that if he should die with him he would not deny him in any wise. There were also other considerations connected with the denial that greatly added to the sin: there were the circumstances and time—
on, XIV. 1—72.] THE GOSPEL ACOORDING TO ST. MARK, 801 ee
our Lord being now deserted, delivered into the hands of cruel enemies, and dragged before inexorable judges; there were the persons to whom the denial was addressed, namely, servants and other humble officials, with little influence and less power, not magistrates or functionaries invested with authority; there were the flagrant breaches of Peter’s own positive and repeated promises. Al] are forgotten or falsified! Alas, what is man! At the strongest but weakness, and at the best but imperfection !