Chapter IX
Peter s denial of Christ. That this was an addition to his sufferings.
There is a great question among interpreters (which I will handle very
briefly, because I will not trouble you much with difficulties), whether all
this that follows concerning Peter s denial, and the high priest s asking Christ of his disciples and of his doctrine, was done in Annas his house, or
in Caiaphas his ? All yield that there were some things done in Caiaphas his house, and that he was led to Caiaphas, and that from Caiaphas he was
led to Pilate, and from Pilate to Herod ; but some would have what is
brought in here of Peter, and the examination of Christ concerning his
disciples and doctrine, to have been in Annas his house, and by him. But the case is clear in other evangelists that it was not. For we read in all the other evangelists, especially in Matthew, that Peter s denial was in
Caiaphas his house. And John here saith expressly that Caiaphas was
high priest that same year, and that Peter s denial was when he got into
the palace of the high priest, and that the high priest asked Jesus of his
disciples and of his doctrine. Now though Annas was father-in-law to the
high priest, yet it was Caiaphas that was the high priest ; therefore all this must needs be done in Caiaphas his house, and not in Annas his. The
plain meaning then is this, that whereas Annas was father-in-law to Caiaphas the high priest, they led him therefore first to his house ; but when Annas had seen him, they (without Annas doing anything to him at all that we read of) led him away to Caiaphas ; and though his leading to Caiaphas be not mentioned here, yet it is mentioned at the 24th verse, where it is said,
Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest. So that, I
say, all these things were done in Caiaphas his house, and not in Annas
his ; and therefore there is none of the evangelists but John that mention
anything of Annas, because, indeed, there was nothing done in his house ;
only they brought him unto him because he was Caiaphas his father-in-law, for to see him ; and when he had seen him, he sent him directly to Caiaphas ; the very words, to Annas first, implies this. And the truth is that Cyril, an ancient Greek father, he brings in even here, afore he comes to the 15th
* Annas he sent him bound to Caiaphas, and in the copies that he
verse,
CHAP. IX.] OF CHRIST THE MEDIATOR. 241
had and had seen, those words were found. And Beza inclines to that too, and thinks it was an omission in the writer, and that it ought to be here
inserted. So much now for the solving of that question ; and so I come
to the words of this 15th verse.
Verse 15. And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. That disciple icas known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the
door, and brought in Peter.
It is the beginning of the story of Peter s denial of Christ, which denial
of Peter s is intermingled by all the evangelists with the sufferings of our Lord and Saviour Christ ; and I think it is done on purpose, first, to illus
trate the sufferings of Christ ; for certainly this denial of Peter s did some
thing add to Christ s sufferings ; that at that very time when he was asked
of his doctrine and of his disciples, one of his greatest and most eminent
disciples should be denying of him (for so you see the context runs), which Christ knew, for in the end he looked back upon Peter, and shewed his
grief for him, and that he took notice of him, and of what he had done. And, 2, the evangelists do it also for this purpose, to shew the great love
of Christ, that though Peter and the other disciples were asinning, espe
cially Peter, for he sinned most greviously, Jesus Christ went on in his
work, went on to suffer even for those sins that they were then committing. And as Christ knew what Peter was a-doing then, and yet went on to suffer, so he knew what thou wouldst do against him, and yet suffered for thee. But to come to the story.
There are in all the evangelists recorded three several denials of Christ, and that by Peter ; and as I go along I must compare the one with the
other, and shew that there is no contradiction in what the evangelists record.
In the words here, from the 15th verse to the 19th, you have two eminent things to be considered.
1. The introduction, or the story that delivers how it came to pass that Peter did get into the high priest s hall, which was the occasion of his
denial.
2. The denial itself.
1. First, For the story how Peter got in. John waiting* after the other
evangelists, still labours to insert some circumstances which they had
omitted. Now none of the other evangelists tell us how Peter got into the
high priest s hall ; they tell us indeed that Peter followed his master afar
off, but this great circumstance, which was a preparation to his denial, how he got in, and with what difficulty, it is only recorded by John. And there
is a great deal to be observed in it. But first I shall open it historically, and then give you the observations as I go along.
Simon Peter followed Jesus. The other evangelists tell us that he foliowed Jesus afar off. But I shall not speak of that circumstance, intending to
keep principally to what John here saith. It was certainly a mixed action
in Peter, that is, an action mixed of love and of fear, of grace and corruption.
For that he followed him argues that he had a love in his heart to Christ ;
yet there was fear mixed with it, for he walketh after him afar off. The question is here, whether Peter sinned in this, in his going to the
high priest s hall ?
Assuredly he did; For, 1. Christ had expressly told him, Mat. xxvi. 2, that he should suffer at that passover ; therefore it was unbelief in him to
Qu. writing ? ED. VOL. V. Q
242 OF CHRIST THE MEDIATOR. [BOOK V.
follow him after he was apprehended/ to see the event of it, as Matthew
tells us he went for that reason. And, 2. Christ had taken order, when he was first taken, that his disciples should be kept safe, and let free. Let these go, saith he, which was inti mation enough that they were unable to suffer ; for it follows, That the word which he had spoken might be fulfilled, of those thou hast given me have I lost none ; implying that if they had then been put to suffer, they had been lost, for they were weak and unfit for suffering, and it was not the mind of God to strengthen them to suffering at that time. And therefore in John xiii. 36, saith Christ, Whither I go thou canst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow me afterwards. Thou canst not follow me now, for thou art not able to follow me, neither will my Father strengthen thee to follow me ; but afterwards he followed Christ, even to the cross, for, as ecclesiastical
stories tell us, he was crucified as his master was. But yet the meaning of
that place is, that as Christ went to heaven in a way of suffering, so he told him that he should follow him thither, but he should not follow him pre
sently in the like way of suffering. And besides, 3. Christ had plainly and fully told him that he would deny him. Now
for him, having been thus warned by Christ, and having had experience of
his own fearfulness for having struck off the high priest s servant s ear, he
fled away amongst the rest ; and it was not likely that he should be more
valiant and courageous in the high priest s hall, amongst soldiers and officers, than he had been in the garden for him, I say, notwithstanding all this, to be venturing, and to put himself upon that temptation, it was certainly a
sin. But still, I say, grace will work with corruption ; his love unto Christ
wrought with his fear, and then the words that he had spoken himself, those
courageous stout words, I will die with thee rather than deny thee, those
rise in his mind, and put him upon going after Christ to see the issue of the
business ; and perhaps he hoped that he might happily get in with the
crowd, and so not be seen.
Obs. 1. The observation that I make from hence by the way, is this, That we should not put ourselves upon occasions of suffering or danger, till such time as God calls us. It is unwarrantable, and it is sinful so to do. It was
so in Peter.
Obs. 2. As it is unwarrantable to put ourselves upon occasions of suffer
ings, so it is dangerous for us to tempt God by putting ourselves upon occasions of sinning ; to go to the door, as it were, where a man shall be drawn in to sin, as Peter here ; he follows, and he goes to the door, and stands without, hankering to see what shall be the end of it. I say it is a
dangerous thing for us to put ourselves upon occasions of sinning, to tempt God, for then you see by this of Peter what the issue is ; when Peter tempteth God, then doth God suffer Peter to be tempted, he leads him indeed
into temptation.
But Peter had not got in for all this, had it not been for an unhappy pro vidence to him ; for so I may call it in respect of his sin, though God intended good by it. For the story tells us that another disciple went along with him, and that disciple, being known unto the high priest, went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest. This is brought in here on pur pose to shew how Peter got in, for otherwise there is no reason of mention
ing this going in of the other disciple. The providence of God would that here should be two disciples eye-witnesses of Christ s sufferings in the high
priest s hall, from whom the rest might have the relation of it. There was Peter and another disciple. He is called a disciple, for that was the name
CHAP. IX.] OF CHRIST THE MEDIATOR. 243
that was given to Christians in Christ s time, and so in the Acts of the
Apostles, till they came to Antioch, for then they were first called Chris
tians.
There is a question amongst interpreters who this other disciple was. Some say (and many good interpreters) that it was John, and the reason
they give is this, because John in this epistle * when he speaks of himself,
he styles himself that other disciple, and never mentions his name, as in John xx. 30. But you shall find that where John speaks of himself, though he concealeth his own name, and saith that other disciple, yet he adds
* whom Jesus loved ; so you have it in the same 20th of John, ver. 2 But now that addition is not put to this disciple, but it is another dis
withal,
ciple which was known to the high priest. And besides, to me there is
this great reason that this other disciple was not John, because there is no
likelihood (but the contrary seems much more probable) that John should have so much knowledge and familiarity as this disciple apparently had, both with the high priest himself, and so, by virtue of that acquaintance and
greatness with him, an interest in his family also ; so that he could com mand or order to have Peter let in. Now John was a poor fisherman, that
lived in Galilee, a country remote from Jerusalem, and came but up with
Christ at the feast ; for Christ did not live ordinarily at Jerusalem, but
always after the feast went down again into Galilee, the place of his usual
residence ; unless he preached sometimes up and down in the country ; and when he went, his disciples went with him ; therefore it is not likely that he should have such interest in the high priest s house. And then again, if it had been John, he would certainly have been questioned as well as
Peter, neither would he himself have ventured in, being so well known as
it is said this other disciple was. And the Syriac translation favours this
opinion, that it was none of John, for it reads it thus, unus ex aliis, one of the other disciples, not being one of the twelve. And it was a disciple, though known to the high priest, yet certainly he was not known to be a disciple ; for had he been known to be a disciple, doubtless they had fallen upon him
as well as upon Peter, for all his favour with the high priest. And it had been brought in as an argument to Peter, that he was a disciple, because he was helped into the hall by another disciple ; but you see it is not, only they
allege that Peter was one of them that was in the garden, &c. But the truth is, when the Holy Ghost hath concealed who this disciple was, why should we go and say, Who is it ?
Obs. From hence I will give you this observation, that Christ he had other disciples besides his apostles ; many hidden ones. You shall find in John xii. 42, that among the chief rulers there were many that believed on him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him. And in Acts i. 15, there were a hundred and twenty that met together. So that there were more disciples than the twelve, yet there were many that appeared not, as Nicodemus, that came to Jesus by night ; and they did not appear
till after his death. Christ hath many hidden ones that are a long time
putting themselves forth in profession. We see it in experience ; it hath been known that men have been long converted, and lived privately in the
family, before they made an open profession. And so now, many are favourers of the cause of Christ that do not shew themselves ; but shew themselves they will in the end. This man here, though he would not pro fess himself openly, yet when he saw a disciple, ho would do him a good turn, as he thought he did Peter in having of him into the high priest s house.
*Qu. "Gospel?"- -ED.
244 OF CHEIST THE MEDIATOR. [BOOK Y.
The text saith, this other disciple was known to the high priest. The reason why this expression is used, is, to shew that it was a hard thing to
get in unless a man had acquaintance, and it was likewise a great favour to come into this Sanhedrim, yea, this very acquaintance of the high priest him
self, as it is thought, was not admitted into the inner room where Christ was ; for their proceedings against Christ were secret and hidden, they would not have this court kept openly, for the people to see their juggling
dealing. Peter, you see, could not get in but by favour of this disciple who was known to the high priest, though unknown to us.
Obs. From thence we may observe, that we should not presently censure
a man, that he is not holy or the like, because he holds correspondency, or
it may be some intimacy or acquaintance, with men that are carnal ; for
there may be reason why he doth so, and yet he may be a holy man, as
this disciple certainly was, and yet kept his correspondency with the high
priest. I will not justify in all things the act itself, but we should not esteem men, or think that therefore they are ungodly, for even that judg ment may deceive us.
Now this disciple he went in with Jesus, that is, he went in with the crowd of the officers, and the band of men that went in with Jesus.
He went into the palace of the high priest ; into the outward court, so it
is in the original. The question is, whether Peter and the soldiers that were about the fire and the like were in one room, and Christ in another ? That which breeds the scruple is that in Mat. xxvi. 69, it is said that Peter
sat without in the palace ; which seems to argue that Christ was in one room and he in another. The answer is clear, that they were both in one room, that is evident, because the other evangelists tell us that Christ looked back upon Peter. Now it is not to be thought that Christ came out to look upon him when he denied him. Therefore that which is the reconciliation of it is this : whereas
it is said he was in the lower part of the hall, the meaning is plainly this, that the high priest and his fellows, they sat in a place more high advanced
by steps or so, all within the same walls, and in the lower part of it there was a fire, where Peter and the rest stood ; and so Christ being called before them there, he might eminently look over all the room.
Yerse 16. But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other
disciple, which icas known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.,
That other disciple, perceiving that Peter stood without, and knowing him
to be a disciple, and bearing love and goodwill to him, befriends him, goes to her that kept the door, and as some think, betrusts her with this secret
that Peter was one of Christ s disciples, which made her so confidently afterward charge him, as you know she did ; and so upon this speech he
gets in.
Peter stood at the door without. As I said before, it was an unwarrant
able action for Peter to follow Christ ; he had had warning about his deny
ing of him before, yet you see he would not away, but though he found
the door shut upon him, yet there he stands ; and as he followed Christ in
confidence of his own strength, so here in the same confidence he stands at
the door, waiting for an opportunity to get in. My brethren, it is a certain
rule and truth, that though another man may suffer for Christ out of a
heroic spirit, out of some carnal grounds and ends, yet God will not per mit those that are his own children to suffer for him upon such grounds ; he
CHAP. IX.] OF CHRIST THE MEDIATOR. 245
will rather give them up to a denying of him, till such time as they are fitted for a true and real suffering; and so he did Peter here. Above all things, there
fore, we should by this example learn to take heed of venturing in ways of
suffering out of our own strength, for so Peter did ; he went forth in his own
strength, and you see what the issue of it is.
Well ; Peter, you see, by the help of his friend, gets in. The observa
tions that I make upon all this story of letting in Peter are these.
Obs. 1. Observe the workings of God s providence about this sin and
denial of Peter s. The providences of God they were many ; I shall men
tion them here.
(1.) He could not get in : Peter stood at the door without. Here now God in his providence at first did put an impediment a bar to Peter s
attempt, stopped him in going on to that which should be the occasion of
his sin. Peter he should have taken this for a warning, he should have observed the providence of God in hindering him, but he would not. In
any way or course wherein we find that God in his providence doth put impediments, it should strike our hearts ; and we should look upon it as
a call and warning from God to examine our grounds in going on in that
way. If indeed we find our ways such as are warranted by the word, or
that our consciences are clear in it that it is a duty, and that we are called
to it, then, let there be never so many impediments, we are to go on in it. But otherwise, in a doubtful way, if a man finds impediments, let him observe that providence. If Peter had done thus when he found the door
shut, he had not sinned thus against Christ as he did ; but he still stands
at the door, tempting of God, and therefore doth God in the end suffer him to be tempted.
(2.) But yet, though Peter was thus stopped for a while, there comes (after he had tempted Providence) the fairest and clearest providence to bring him
in to the high priest s hall that could be. Peter spake not to this disciple to let him in, but he, spying of him, goes out and brings him in. So that, on the other side, we are not in businesses to go merely by providences, for you shall find that oftentimes providences do lay fair for occasions of
sinning. Here was as fair and as clear a providence to bring Peter into
the high priest s hall, where he should deny Christ, as could be ; nay, the
providence was so fair, that one would think that God called Peter into
the hall. We are apt ofttimes to measure our ways by providences much ; but never believe the works of God unless thou hast a word of God first
for thy way, for God doth lay snares, especially when men tempt him. When Jonah was to go to Nineveh, and instead of going thither, ran away from God to go to Tarshish, he had the fairest providence that could be, for he found a ship that was fitted and all ready to go to Tarshish ; he
might now think, here is a providence serves me as fit as can be. Ay, but he went against the word of God. And the truth is, so doth Peter here ; and therefore, I say, never be ruled by the providences of God, unless thou
hast the word of God, for the providence of God doth as equally and in
differently lay temptations for men as it doth facilitate their way in what he would have them do. In things which are not God s way, you shall have providences fall exceedingly fair ; and in things that are God s way, you shall have many impediments to the contrary, to try your faith.
When Peter now did thus get in, he thought it certainly a very great favour and courtesy, and a special privilege, that he should, according to
his desire, see the issue of things ; for he went for that end, as Matthew
saith. And his friend certainly intended to do him the greatest kindness
246 OF CHRIST THE MEDIATOR. [BOOK V.
and favour that could be. There are snares that lie oftentimes in the
courtesies and kindnesses of friends. For so there is in this ; he did it as
a kindness, and the other thought it a favour ; but the truth is, it was a
great snare, and in the end it proved a fatal business to Peter, as being the
occasion of that great and famous denial of his master.
It is strange likewise that Christ, who could tell him he should deny him, would not bid him take heed of the high priest s hall. He could have done
the one as well as the other. He, that knew all things that should befall
himself, knew what should befall Peter, how it was he should deny him. But yet Jesus Christ, he being God as well as man, he was not obliged to
give Peter that caveat; but though he knew it, and suffered it for his own
glory, yet it is no warrant for us to do so. God may permit sin, he knows how to punish it, and how to get glory out of it, and he himself is not de
nied by it ; but we are not to permit others to sin. And so much for the 16th verse, and for the introduction into Peter s denial. I come now to
the denial itself.
Verse 17. Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not
thou also one of this mans disciples ? He saith, I am not. That a damsel should be the door-keeper to the high priest, some say
(and indeed many of the best interpreters) it was ex more yentis, from the custom of the country. Thus, in Acts xii. 13, you read that when Peter knocked at the door, that a damsel went and opened the door ; for it was
her place so to do. And in 2 Sam. iv. 6, in the Septuagint it is in the
feminine gender ; it is not in the Hebrew indeed, but the Septuagint, that
ancient translation (which shews it was the custom of the country), inserts
these words, and the woman that was the doorkeeper was winnowing of
corn. I speak it only for this, to shew the reason why a damsel kept the door of the high priest. But others say (and probably too) that the reason why this damsel kept the door, was because that all the servants were now
busy, and taken up in attending one way or other ; the keeping of the door
therefore for the present was committed to this maid. But I take it that the first is the truth, that it was the manner of the country ; it being strengthened by those two instances. However it fell out, certainly God ordered it in the greatest providence that could be. For of all men you know how confident Peter was, and how he had said, Though all men forsake thee, I will not forsake thee. He goes forth in his own strength ; he had out of his valour cut off the ear of the high priest s servant, falling upon a whole multitude of men, he alone and one other ; for there was but two swords amongst them. God therefore ordered it in his providence, that he would confute the pride of Peter this way, that his weakness might be seen to all posterity, and made the more famous : at the speaking of a
poor silly maid, he denies his Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ ! Then said the damsel unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man s dis
ciples? The evangelists they do all reckon up three several sorts of denials that Peter had ; yet if you compare the first in Matthew, and the
first in Mark, and the first in Luke, with this first in John (which all must be accounted to be but one), the story seems to be exceeding different, if you either consider what the evangelists record her speeches to have been unto Peter, and of Peter, or of what his speeches were unto her. In Matthew, chap. xxvi. 69, the speech she there useth to him is, Thou also wert with Jesus of Galilee, that is, thou as well as others. In Mark it is
thus, Thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth; now Nazareth, you know,
CHAP. IX.] OF CHRIST THE MEDIATOR. 247
was a city in Galilee. And in Luke, chap. xxii. 56, her speech is not to
Peter, but to them that stood by, and it was thus, This man also was with
* Art not
him. Now here in John it is a differing speech from all these,
thou also, saith she, one of this man s disciples ? And as her speeches recorded by the evangelists do vary, so you shall find that his speeches to
* He
her vary as much. For in Matthew, chap. xxvi. ver. 70, it is said,
denied afore them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. It is the
highest kind of negation that can be ; the meaning of it is, I am so far from
belonging to him, that the truth is, it is strange to me that you should ask me any such question ; I do not know the least of him ; as if he had never heard of the man before. And so in Mark xiv. 68, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And in Luke xxii. 57, Woman, I know him not. Now here, in John, being asked, whether he was his disciple ?
he saith, I am not. How shall we reconcile this ? The reconciliation is very easy, for they are several speeches of hers, and
several speeches of his, whereof some evangelists record some, and others,
others. And it seemeth to have been thus (that I may hang and pin them
* This man also was with him, as Luke hath it ; and then she turns to Peter, and says,
: this maid she first says to the standers by,
altogether)
* Are not thou one of this man s disciples ? as John here hath it ; and
then she peremptorily affirms it, that she upon her own knowledge had seen him with him,
* Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee, as Matthew and Mark have it. Now she, using several forms of speeches, some to the
standers by, and some to himself, at the first asking him the question
only, afterward peremptorily affirming it, this is it which draws out those
several answers from Peter, according to the several occasions ; which all
the evangelists severally record, and all these make but this first denial of
Peter s.
Others cast it thus (which comes all to one) that she did first ask Peter
the question, as John hath it here, Are not thou one of this man s dis
* I am not. After wards going to the fire where Peter sat, and as Luke hath it, seeing him
ciples ? as he came in at the door. He answered,
by the light thereof (for so it is in the original), and as the text there saith,
viewing of him wistly, with fixed eyes, thought she, I have seen you afore
now, and seen you with him. And now she doth not go and ask him, Art thou not one of this man s disciples ? but she plainly saith,
* Thou art one ; and she tells the standers by so too, This man (saith she to them) also was with him ; and therefore Matthew tells us, that he denied before them all, spake as loud as he could, that they might all take notice of it,
* I know not, saith he, what thou sayest. You may likewise see the working of the providence of God even in this
too ; as, namely, that such a woman as had seen him some time or other with Christ, should now keep the high priest s door ; for indeed that seems
: Thou also, saith she, wast with him, that is, thou didst converse with him ; so Matthew and Mark have it. And the truth is, that the coherence here in John evidently carries it so, for here at the 17th verse we translate it,
to be plain, that she speaks of her own knowledge
* Then saith the
damsel; but in the original it is, Therefore saith the damsel, the coherence whereof is plainly this, that she having observed him to be spoken for to be
let in by a disciple, being at the door, minds him not so much at first, but
afterwards eying him more wistly by the light of the fire, having formerly seen him, she peremptorily challengeth him: She therefore saith unto him, &c. Now, I say, here was a providence of God, that that woman (it may be
248 OF CHRIST THE MEDIATOR. [BOOK Y.
none of all the family else had observed him), that she should be at the door and take notice of all these things, that she should come to challenge him, and did challenge him, or else he had not been challenged. Others of them
bring other arguments, that his speech bewrayed him, and that they saw him with Jesus in the garden ; but the providence of God so ordered it, that
of all the family she should be the woman that kept the door, who had seen him and knew him to be with Christ. At first indeed she did not know him so perfectly, therefore she only puts the question to him, Art not thou one of this man s disciples ? But afterward viewing him more strictly, and
that by the light of the fire, she comes to know him, and challengeth him
in a peremptory manner. So that God s providence did still strongly work
in this great business to discover Peter. To get him in, it wrought much, and now it works as strongly even for a discovery. And you shall see other passages of providence afterward in the story, and how strongly they wrought too. And so much now for the historical opening of the words of
this verse.
I will give you but an observation or two, and so pass on.
Obs. 1. You see that as God would have it manifested that all sorts of
people, Jew and Gentile, civil state and ecclesiastical, all these sorts were
against our Lord and Saviour Christ, so all sexes too. There is this damsel
here, and another damsel afterward, as Matthew and Mark have it, that fall upon Peter, and challenge him for being his disciple.
Obs. 2. You see likewise the weakness of Peter ; he was but asked by a
dimsel, and at the first but in a secret way, for I take it this speech here in John, which occasioned his first denial, was when he came in at the door ;
it was then that she asked him, Art not thou one of this man s disciples ? A damsel, you see, foiled him ; he that was not long before so extreme eager, that he promised he would die with Christ, that he would never leave him, that he would not, promised it three times ; he that in the garden was so valiant as to cut off Malchus his ear, in defence of his master ; this man
being left to himself, at a private question that a damsel makes him, falleth into this great lie, which afterwards he seconded with further and greater protestations, as we shall see in the story. If that God doth leave us, what
poor creatures are we ! That that Peter who had naturally so bold a spirit, so great a natural courage, one that was a rash and a venturous, a bold and a daring man, as appears by all his actions, especially by that in the
garden, when he cut oif the high priest s servant s ear ; he that was so bold afterward from the Spirit of God, when the Holy Ghost comes upon him ; this Peter, when he is left to himself, neither natural courage doth assist him, but at the whispering of a maid you see what a lie he tells ; neither doth the Holy Ghost help him, who yet did dwell in his heart. What poor creatures are the most courageous of men, if God leave them ; they will fall short not only of the grace that is in them, and of the power of the Holy Ghost that is in them, but of that natural boldness which they have, for so Peter did.
Obs. 3. When was it that Peter thus foully and grossly denies his master ? It was then when our Lord and Saviour Christ was entered into his suffer
ings when he was arraigned, and arraigned for him, for his sins, before the high priest. Then when our Lord and Saviour Christ was about to do the greatest favour and mercy that ever was done for creatures, and for Peter amongst the rest, then God ordered it that Peter should sin, and sin thus foully and grossly. It was a very great aggravation of his sin, even
this, for so the circumstance of time is to any sin. If that, at the same time
CHAP. IX.J OF CHRIST THE MEDIATOR. 249
that a friend is contriving, or taking pains for me, or doing anything for me
of the greatest moment, saving my life, begging my pardon, if I should at
that time wrong my friend most, how would that heighten my unkindness !
This was Peter s case. Yet you see Christ goes on with his work for all
that. He knew Peter was a-denying of him, yet that did not make him withdraw his neck from suffering for Peter. Great sins against God, when he is doing us very great mercies, should exceedingly break our hearts, as
it did Peter s here ; he went out afterwards, and wept bitterly. Whenever we do sin, Jesus Christ is interceding in heaven for us. Our sins do not
hinder him from going on to intercede, as Peter s sinning here did not hinder him from going on to suffer for him.
Obs. 4. And then again, Peter being asked whether he was one of his
* I am not. He doth not deny Christ to be the Messiah
disciples, answers,
of the world, only he saith, I am not one of his disciples. Yet Christ had said, Thou shalt deny me. He denied, indeed, that he belonged to him. For any man to slink out of the profession of Christ when he is
called to it, or out of any truth of his, though he deny not that Christ is
the Messiah, and that Christ is come in the fiesh, or the great points of sal
vation, yet it is a denial of Christ. And so much now for the 17th verse.
Verse 18. And the servants and officers stood there, who had made afire
of coals (for it was cold), and they warmed themselves ; and Peter stood with them and warmed himself.
The scope of this relation is only this, to shew the occasion of Peter s second and third denial, which John afterwards tells us of. For though his second denial comes not in till the 25th verse, yet this stor}~ here is
related as a preparation thereunto : that the weather being cold, the ser vants and officers were not scattered up and down, but were all gathered together in a ring, and cluster in the midst of the hall about the fire, and Peter he was in the midst of them; and therefore, if there were notice taken
of Peter, all must take notice of him, one as well as another ; and hence it came to pass that Peter was so mightily afraid, that he went on to deny his
master, with oaths and curses, as afterward you read in the story. It was
to shew the publicness of his sin, for Matthew saith, he denied before them all, for they were all gathered together in a heap, and Peter in the midst. But to open it a little. They had a fire of coals ; of wood already burned or kindled, to avoid the smoke, because the fire was in the midst of the hall, as Luke hath it. For it was cold, which might seem strange, because those countries are
hot, and it was in the spring time, for it was in March. But this is easily resolved, for you must know that in those countries, as there is an extremity of heat in the day, so there are oftentimes in the spring, as well as in the
winter, exceeding cold nights, especially after rain. And it was that night
especially a cold night, and that was the reason of the fire.
The observations I make out of these words are only these two.
Obs. 1. It is said that it was a cold night. Now this night, which thus
occasionally fell out to be more cold than ordinary, it was that night in which Christ sweat drops of blood in the agony of his spirit when he was in the garden. For that agony of his was riot many hours afore this befell him ; for after he had supped, he made a long sermon and a long prayer, and then went into the garden, and from thence they fetched him out (all this was within night) ; and afore the first crowing of the cock this denial of Peter s fell out. It is noted, therefore, by interpreters, as a circumstance
250 OF CHRIST THE MEDIATOR. [BOOK V.
to greaten the agony of Christ, and to set forth the extremity of his suffer
ings, that in a cold night he should sweat drops of blood, which was con
trary to nature, and must proceed, therefore, from that great anxiety and
perplexity his soul was in. It is brought, I say, by divines as an aggrava tion and evidence of those great soulsufferings of Christ, more than from the fear of death, that in a cold night he should thus sweat drops of blood.
It is noted upon that, though it comes in here upon another occasion, viz., that it being cold, there was a fire, and Peter stood there to warm himself, as he mignt lawfully do, but that he stood in the midst of temptations, and
in the midst of tempters.
Obs. 2. Peter stood in the midst of them ; so Luke hath it ; for now he was in, and having once denied him to the damsel, to the end he might not
further be known, he goes and shrinks in amongst the crowd, thinking to hide himself; and there he stands amongst the enemies of Christ, who
being all full of malice did certainly speak evil of him, and talked their
pleasures of him ; but he, standing by, was forced to be silent, said not a
word, suffered all to pass in silence, which was a kind of a denying Christ. And so, Peter having sinned thus far, God gives him up still to more sin.
It is a dangerous thing, my brethren, without a special call of God, to be in
ill company, especially in evil times. Peter being amongst these enemies of Christ, it was the occasion of his being challenged, and that was the occasion of this great sin he fell into. In evil times, if a man be in such
company, either he must be silent, or if he speak, they will be ready to per vert his speech, to put him upon a temptation. We should therefore avoid
all needless societies with carnal people. Take heed of coming into high
priest s halls ; you see into what inconvenience it drew Peter to. And so much for this first denial of Peter s, which I have historically laid open. I come next to the examination of Christ, in the nineteeth, twentieth, and
twenty-first verses.