82. Finally, according to Matthew, when it was revealed that he had been with Jesus of Nazareth, he said: 'I do not know the man' (Matt. 26:72). The same thing is said by both evangelists in the third voice, as we have mentioned; for they both responded with an oath, saying that they did not know the man. And he rightly denied the man whom he knew to be God. Finally, when an oath is made, the response is cautious. For although Peter denied, he did not perjure himself; for the Lord had not mentioned that he would be perjuring himself. But if there is doubt in Peter, how dangerous is an oath!
But John said this because, when questioned by the servant girl, Peter, whether he was one of that man's disciples, he answered straightaway: I am not (John 18:17). For he was not an apostle of a man, but of Christ. And even Paul denied being an apostle of man, saying: Paul, an apostle not from men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father (Galatians 1:1). But lest he seem to bring some ambiguity to the incarnation, he added: Who raised him from the dead (ibid.); so that you may believe that he is not only God, but also man, since you believed in him as God before. He maintains the same meaning elsewhere when he says: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5). He certainly called him the mediator between God and men before he called him the mediator between God and men; for it is not enough to believe both unless the order of faith is preserved.
84. Therefore, the response is consistent everywhere; for the one who said, 'I do not know the man,' it was fair that when questioned whether he was a disciple of the man, he would say, 'I am not.' Therefore, he denied being a disciple, not of Christ, but of the man. Therefore, both Peter and Paul denied the man whom they confessed to be the Son of God. What Peter felt, and Paul expressed; from this, that one made progress. Peter's mistake is the teaching of the righteous: and Peter's stumble is the rock of all. Finally, he wavers upon the waves, but extends his right hand to Christ: he falls on the mountain, but is lifted up by Christ. Indeed, Peter wavered on the sea, but he walked (Matt. XIV, 30). Peter's wavering is stronger than our steadfastness. There he falls, where no one ascends: there he wavers, where no one walks. And yet, even though he wavers among the waves, he does not fall: he wavers, but does not fall: he floats, but does not plunge. And if he falls, he falls on the mountain: but he fell more favorably than others stood: he fell more favorably, whom Christ lifted up.
Again, when he was questioned about his disciples, John wrote that he denied it (John 18:25). And he denied it well, because it was said that he was one of his disciples, whom they had spoken of earlier. For a third time, when he was seen with him, he denied it, and this is derived from the earlier conversation: 'I was not with him, the man you call him, but I have not abandoned the Son of God.'
86. Luke also wrote that when Peter was asked whether he was one of them, he replied in the first voice, 'I do not know him.' And he said well. It was rash, indeed, to say that he knew him, whom the human mind cannot comprehend. For no one knows the Son except the Father (Matthew 11:27). Again, in the second voice, Peter himself says the same thing according to Luke: 'I am not.' He clearly preferred to deny himself rather than Christ. Either because he seemed to deny association with Christ, he certainly denied himself. Certainly, when he denies concerning the man, he sinned against the Son of man, so that it may be forgiven to him, not against the Holy Spirit. Also, when he was asked for the third time, he said: I do not know what you are saying, that is, I do not know your sacrileges.
87. But we excuse ourselves, he himself did not excuse himself; for it is not enough to give a hidden answer, confessing Jesus, but an open confession. What use is it to wrap words if you want to appear to have denied? And therefore Peter is not shown to have responded deliberately; because afterwards he remembered, and yet he wept. For he preferred to accuse his own sin, in order to justify himself by confessing, rather than burden himself by denying: for the righteous man is his own accuser at the beginning (Prov. XVIII, 17); and therefore he wept.
88. Why did he weep? Because guilt overtook him: I am accustomed to weeping, if guilt is lacking to me, that is, if I do not avenge myself, if I do not obtain what I wickedly desire. Peter was grieved and wept; because he erred as a man. I do not find what he said, I find that he wept: I read his tears, I do not read satisfaction: but what cannot be defended, can be washed away. Tears wash away the sin, which shame is too modest to confess with words. And tears seek both forgiveness and modesty. Tears speak of guilt without horror; tears confess a crime without causing offense; tears do not ask for forgiveness, and yet they deserve it. I found out why Peter remained silent, so that a quick request for forgiveness would not cause further offense. Before we cry, we must pray like this.
89. Good tears, which wash away guilt. Finally, those whom Jesus looks upon, weep. Peter denied at first, and did not weep; because the Lord had not looked upon him. He denied a second time, did not weep; because the Lord had not yet looked upon him. He denied a third time, Jesus looked upon him, and he wept bitterly. Look upon us, Lord Jesus, so that we may mourn our sin, wash away our transgression. Hence the usefulness of the fall of the saints: what Peter denied did me no harm, what he corrected benefited me. I learned to beware of the conversations of traitors. Peter, among the Jews, denied, and Solomon, deceived by the company of the Gentiles, erred (1 Kings 11:4).
90. Therefore, Peter wept very bitterly, he wept so that he could wash away his sin with tears: and you, if you want to deserve forgiveness, wash away your guilt with tears: at the same moment, at the same time, Christ looks at you. If you perhaps stumble in any way; because the witness of your secrets is present, he looks at you so that you may remember and confess your error. Imitate Peter saying elsewhere for a third time: Lord, you know that I love you. For indeed, because he had denied for the third time, for the third time he confesses: but he denied at night, he confesses in the day (cf. Augustine, Book I on the Grace of Christ, chapter 45).
However, these things are written so that we may know that no one should boast; for if Peter fell, because he said, 'Even if all are made to stumble because of You, I will never be made to stumble' (Mark 14:29), who else has the right to presume about himself? And indeed, David, because he had said, 'I said in my prosperity, 'I shall never be moved'' (Psalm 30:6), openly admits that this was boasting, saying, 'You hid Your face, and I was troubled' (Psalm 30:7-8).
92. Where shall I summon you, Peter, that you may instruct me what you were thinking while weeping? Where, I ask, shall I summon you? From heaven, where you have now been joined to the choir of angels; or even from the tomb, because you do not think there is any injury in being there, from where the Lord rose again? Instruct us what benefit your tears have been to you. But you have instructed us immediately: for you, who had fallen, before you wept, after you wept, were chosen to rule others, whom you yourself had not ruled before.
93. Therefore, Peter had tears, which he poured forth with pious emotion: the traitor did not have tears with which to wash away his guilt, but torments of conscience with which to confess his sacrilege; so that while he is condemned by his own judgment and his crime is atoned for by voluntary punishment, the mercy of the Lord, who did not wish to avenge himself, is demonstrated, and the divinity is proven, who examines the conscience of the mind with invisible power.
94. He said: 'I have sinned in betraying innocent blood' (Matthew 27:5). Although the repentance of the traitor is in vain, since he sinned against the Holy Spirit, there is still some shame in acknowledging guilt in the crime. And although he is not absolved, the impudence of the Jews is refuted: when the confession convicts the seller, the wicked still claim the rights of the contract for themselves, and they believe themselves to be free from guilt, as they say: 'What is it to us?' You seem (Ibid.). Truly insane are those who think they are more released from the author's crime than held. In monetary cases, the law is dissolved by the price being paid: these people receive the price, and they pursue sacrilege, and with persistent efforts they claim for themselves the deadly auction of blood, when the seller repays the reward of sacrilege.
Therefore, while the price of blood is separated from the treasuries of the Jews, and the field of the potter is compared to the money with which Christ is sold (Ibid., 7); while that place is dedicated to the burial of the remains of foreigners, and the prophecy is fulfilled (Jeremiah XXXII, 44), and the mystery of the rising Church is revealed. For this whole world is the field according to divine precepts (Matthew XIII, 38); but the potter, he who formed man from clay, as you have in the Old Testament, 'For God formed man from the clay of the earth' (Genesis II, 7), having the power by nature to form and by grace to reform according to his own will. For even though we fall through our own vices, by his mercy, we are renewed in spirit of mind, according to the oracles of Jeremiah.
96. The price of blood is also the price of the passion of the Lord. Therefore, the world is redeemed by Christ at the price of his blood; for he came to save the world through himself (John III, 17): in which, according to the work of the author, it is right. He came, therefore, to preserve through baptism those who were buried and dead to Christ for the grace of eternity. But not everyone has a place for burial, for although the whole world includes everyone, it does not reserve everyone: and if it is a common habitation, it is a legitimate burial for those who now are God's household through faith, but who were strangers under the law. Who are these unless it is said of them: Remember that at one time you were Gentiles in the flesh, separated from the conversation of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise (Ephesians 2:11-12)? But now these are no longer strangers and foreigners; because they have deserved to be citizens of the faith of the saints.
97. There follows an admirable place, where the patience to bear moral harm is poured into the human breast. The Lord is accused, and he is silent (Matthew XXVII, 11): and he is right to be silent, who does not need to defend himself. Let those who fear to be conquered, roam around seeking to be defended. Therefore, he does not confirm the accusation by fearing it, but he despises it by not refuting it. For what would he fear, who does not seek salvation? He betrayed his own salvation for the salvation of all, that it may be acquired by all. But what can I say about God? Susanna remained silent and prevailed; for a better reason is one that is not defended and is proven. And here Pilate absolves: but he absolves by judgment, he crucifies by mystery. But this is specific to Christ: the human aspect, that with unjust judges it seemed more a matter of unwillingness than inability to be defended.
98. But why did the Lord remain silent? He himself gave the answer, saying: If I tell you, you will not believe me; if I ask you, you will not answer me (Luke 22:67-68). However, the most remarkable thing is that he preferred to prove himself as a king rather than to speak; so that those who accuse him could not have a reason to condemn him, as they confess what they object to.
Vers. 8. But Herod, desiring to see some miracles done by him, kept silent and did nothing; for neither did his cruelty deserve to see divine things, nor did the Lord desire to indulge in boasting. And perhaps in Herod all the wicked are symbolized: who, if they do not believe in the Law and the prophets, are unable to see the miracles of Christ's works even in the Gospel.
100. (Verse 11.) He is sent to Herod, sent back to Pilate. And although neither of them pronounce him guilty, they still comply with the desires of someone else's cruelty. Indeed, Pilate washed his hands, but he did not wash away his deeds; for a judge ought not to yield to envy or fear, so as to deliver the blood of an innocent person. His wife warned him: grace shone in the darkness; divinity was evident; yet she did not temper the sacrilegious sentence in this way.
101. Similarly, I think that this is a prototype of all judgments that they would condemn those whom they believed to be innocent. However, it is evident that the Gentiles are more tolerant than the Jews, as Pilate's association with them demonstrates, and they are more persuaded by divine works. But what about those who crucified the Lord of majesty?
102. (Vers. 18.) It is not without reason that murderers seek absolution, as they sought the destruction of the innocent. Such unjust laws have the quality of hating innocence and loving crime. However, in the interpretation of the name, it gives the appearance of a figure; for Barabbas is translated to mean 'son of the father' in Latin: therefore, those to whom it is said, 'You are of your father the devil' (John 8:44), are shown to prefer the son of their father, Antichrist, over the true Son of God.
(Vers. 11.)
And he clothed him in a white garment and sent him away.
103. It is not idle that he is dressed in a white robe by Herod, giving clear indications of his passion; for the great God, without spot, with glory, received the sins of the world. In the figure of Herod and Pilate also, who became friends from enemies through Jesus Christ, the figure of the people of Israel and the Gentile people is preserved, so that through the passion of the Lord there will be future harmony between them both: in such a way, however, that the pious people of the nations receive the word of God and transmit their faith to the Jewish people with their devotion; so that they too may clothe the body of Christ with the glory of their majesty, whom they had previously despised.
104. Moreover, soldiers put on a scarlet cloak and a purple tunic (Matthew 27:27), indicating in one the palms of the martyrs, in the other the insignia of royal power: that his flesh, shed throughout the whole world, would receive our blood for us, and his passion would give birth to a kingdom from us.