And again he denied with an oath, I know not the 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.’x 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.”

“Above it was treated of the seizing of Christ; now it is treated of whither he was led, and the place and the company gathering at the place are described. He says therefore, "But they," namely those who had seized him, "led him to Caiaphas." This Caiaphas was the high priest of that year, according to Jerome, as is had in John 11:49: "since he was the high priest of that year." For already the priesthood was not being conducted 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 another priest would remain. But afterward, as ambition grew, they could not endure this, but when Judea had been subjected to the Romans, this Caiaphas had bought the priesthood from the Jews, had bought it from Pilate; therefore he was an unjust prince. And it is no wonder if an unjust judge, or prince, renders an unjust judgment. And this suits the mystery; for just as the passion of Christ was the oblation of the true sacrifice, so also the place had to be fitting, that Christ, who is priest forever, should be offered in the house of the high priest. Caiaphas is interpreted "investigator," and this can be referred to the malice by which he condemned Christ. But here there is a question, because in John 18:13 it is said that he was first led to Annas. And this must be understood to be true: for they had gathered at the house of Annas, and there they had assembled; and in this their malice appears, because whereas they ought to have been intent on the solemnity, they were intent on malice, so that what is said in Isaiah 1:14 fittingly applied to them: "My soul hates your solemnities." Whence was fulfilled what is said in Psalm 2:2: "They gathered together against God, and against his Christ." "But Peter followed him afar off." The place has been treated; here Peter's arrival is treated. First he is led, then Peter arrives. And he does three things: for first he touches the manner; second, how the one following arrived. That he arrived, this was of fervor; that afar off, this was of fear; whence it was signified that the Church, founded on the faith of Peter, was to follow Christ, yet from afar; because Christ suffered for the Church, not for himself, whereas Peter and the Church suffered for themselves. Likewise the place is touched, "even to the court of the high priest": for he did not dare to enter the house, lest he should seem to be one of the disciples of Jesus. But how he entered, Matthew is silent, but John narrates in 18:15, that a certain disciple was known to the high priest, and he brought Peter in. There follows the company and the entrance, "and going in he sat with the servants, that he might see the end"; and this he did either out of curiosity or out of piety. And these three things were already certain dispositions toward Peter's fall: that he followed afar off disposed to this, because it signified that he was not firm; for he who is firm ought to draw near. Whence it is said in 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 had in Apocalypse, the last chapter, verse 3. For in the house was perfect charity. Whence Peter did not draw near to the charity of Christ. Likewise he had not arrived at the malice of the Jews, and so he was lukewarm; whence there befell him what is said in Apocalypse 3:16: "Because thou art lukewarm, I will vomit thee out of my mouth." Likewise, because of evil servants: Ecclesiasticus 10:2, "As the judge of the people is himself, so also are his ministers." And so it was no wonder if he fell, since he remained in bad company. Wherefore Psalm 17:26 [17:16 as cited]: "With the holy thou shalt be holy." Then follows the examination of Christ. And first by witnesses; second by his own confession, at the place, "And the prince of priests rising up said to him," etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First the perverse zeal of the princes is designated; second, its failure; third, the false testimony. He says therefore, "But the chief priests sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death." But there is a question, why they did 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: thus these men sought that they might not appear to act on their own authority, whence they were acting against the Law; Exodus 20:16: "Thou shalt not speak 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 that they might be able to hand him over to the prince. "And they found not, whereas many false witnesses had come." Behold the failure, in which the innocence of Christ is designated, so that he could say: "I have walked in my innocence." For they always laid snares for Christ, but found nothing evil in him. Whence was fulfilled that which is had in 1 Peter 2:15: "By doing well you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men." Then follows the false testimony: "And at the last there came two false witnesses, and said." But here there is a question, why they are called false witnesses, since it is manifest that Christ had said this, John 2:19. According to Jerome, not only is he called a false witness who says what he does not know, but also he who refers a saying to a false meaning. Here he 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 own body. Likewise, it is a false testimony not only as to the meaning but as to the very wording, for he had said, "Destroy this temple"; and he did not say, "I am able to destroy the temple of God"; as if he were saying: you Jews, destroy the temple, that is, Christ, and after three days I will raise it up again. He did not say, "and after three days I will rebuild it," because to rebuild pertains rather to a material temple, but to raise up pertains rather to a body. Whence they were false witnesses both by reason of the wording and by reason of the meaning. Likewise there is a question: why do they not accuse him of violation of the sabbath? Chrysostom answers that it is because they had often accused him of this, and he had always excused himself, and had confirmed his excuse by miracles; therefore they thought it would not avail them. Likewise the judge was not a Jew, and so they knew that he would not accept this accusation. Then follows the examination by his own confession. And first is set down the questioning as regards the testimony; second, as regards the principal matter. The second is at the place, "And the prince of priests said to him," etc. He says therefore: "And the prince of priests rising up said to him: Answerest thou nothing to that which these witness against thee?" That he rose up was out of impatience and fury, hearing that Christ was not being convicted; and what he says, "answerest thou nothing," etc., he does not say in order to excuse him, but in order to catch him in speech; Isaiah 32:6, "The fool will speak foolish things, and his heart will work iniquity. But Jesus held his peace." But why did he hold his peace? For three reasons. To teach us caution: for he knew that whatever he might say, they would refer all of it to calumny; and in such a case, in the presence of those laying snares, one must be silent; Psalm 38:2 [38:1-2], "I set a guard on my mouth, when the sinner stood against me." Another reason was that then was not the time for teaching, but for having patience: and thus was fulfilled what is said in Isaiah 53:7: "He shall be dumb as a lamb before his shearer, and he shall not open his mouth." The third reason is that he might teach us constancy, when someone is unjustly accused of something; Isaiah 51:7: "Fear ye not the reproach of men." Then follows the question as to the principal matter: "And the prince of priests said to him: I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us if thou be the Christ the Son of God." And first is set down the inquiry; second, the Lord's response. Seeing that the prince could not catch him, he adjured him: and this in order to catch him in his speech. And this is had in John 10:24: "How long dost thou hold our soul in suspense? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly." For among the Jews, to adjure was held to be a great thing: for to adjure is to compel 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 follows the response: "Jesus saith to him: Thou hast said it." Note that when something was said against him, he held his peace; but as soon as the power of the Father was invoked by adjuration, he answers. Whence he always sought the glory of the Father; John 8:50: "I seek not my own glory." And concerning this he first sets down the response; second, the manifestation. He says therefore, "Jesus saith to him: Thou hast said it": this can be expounded as though Christ does not assert it, but leaves it in doubt; above, chapter 7:6, "Give not that which is holy to dogs." Or it can be read assertively: "Thou hast said it," that is, it is true; and this is clear, because it is said in Mark 14:62, "I am." Then he shows the evidence: "Nevertheless I say to you, hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the power of God." And he wishes clearly to show that he is the Son of God, according to two authorities. One is in Psalm 109:1: "The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand." And by this he had shown above, in 22:42-46, that Christ was the Son of God. The other is Daniel 7:7 [i.e. 7:13]: "I beheld in the vision of the night, and behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven," etc. Thus, I say, he says, namely, "thou hast said it"; but thou dost not know the truth. Attend, for the truth will be manifested, "for you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the power of God." Because he said "sitting at the right hand," Chrysostom expounds that sitting at the right hand signifies royal dignity; Isaiah 9:7, "Upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom he shall sit." Or, to sit at the right hand is to be in the full beatitude of power, or in the more excellent goods: for the right hand is the more noble part; therefore it signifies greater dignity, not because he has greater power, but equal power; below, the last chapter, verse 18: "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth." Likewise, concerning his power he says: "coming in the clouds of heaven." But what is it that he says, "hereafter you shall see"? etc. It must be noted that what he says, "in the clouds," can be referred to the last coming, or to the daily coming. The last coming will be in a cloud; Acts 1:11: "As you have seen him going into heaven"; and above, chapter 24, it is said that he will come in the clouds. In another way it can be expounded of the daily coming, concerning which Job 9:11 says: "If he come to me, I shall not see him." And this coming is in clouds, that is, in the apostles and the sacred doctors. Concerning these it is said, Isaiah 60:8: "Who are these, that fly as clouds?" These are called clouds because they ascend on high. Likewise clouds are fruitful. The first pertains to the height of life, the second to the fruitfulness of teaching. And they are clouds of heaven, that is, heavenly, because they have borne the heavenly image. But what is "hereafter you shall see"? That is, immediately after the passion he converts some to the faith, others by the evidence of works. Whence some were converted on account of their faith, some on account of good work. Likewise, if this is referred to the last coming, Origen says: the whole time of the world compared to eternity is nothing, like a single moment. Psalm 89:4 [89:4]: "A thousand years before thy eyes are as yesterday, which is past." Therefore he says "hereafter," because time up to the judgment is nothing in respect of eternity. Nevertheless, after you have fallen away from me, nothing remains except that you shall manifestly know me, because I shall come in the clouds of heaven. And then you shall know that I am the Son of Man. A similar manner of speaking is had above, in chapter 23:39: "You shall not see me henceforth, till you say: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." "Then the prince of priests rent his garments." Here the condemnation is set down. And first is set down how he is condemned; second, how he is denied by the disciple. And first he treats of the condemnation; second, of the mockery. Concerning the first he does two things. For first the prince condemns him; second he seeks the sentence. But condemning him, he shows the fault both by deed and by word: by deed, because he rent his garments. With the same fury he rent his garments as that with which 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 that he did these two things, something was signified: that he rose from the throne showed that he would lose the priesthood; and that he rent his garments signified that it was to be transferred; to 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 rent; John 19:24: "Let us not divide it, but let us cast lots for it, whose it shall be." Whence it signified the abolition of the priesthood. And this is signified in 1 Kings 15:28 [1 Samuel 15:28]: "The Lord hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day." Thus it was rent from the Jews, and given to the members of Christ. Then he imposes the guilt: "He hath blasphemed," because he had said this, he reckoned him a blasphemer; whence John 10:33: "For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself the Son of God"; and to such a one death was owed. Then he manifests the guilt: "What further need have we of witnesses?" 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 so they judge wrongly, because they condemn to death the author of life; 1 Corinthians 15:22: "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive." "Then they did 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 [says]. But man through sin was handed over to death, when it was said to him, Genesis 2:17: "In what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt 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 48:13 [48:12/21]. And therefore Christ the Redeemer sustained death and reproaches, first in deed; second in word, at the place, "Prophesy unto us, O Christ." In the first he is spat upon, and beaten with blows; in the second he is struck in the face. As to the first it is said: "Then they did spit in his face, and buffeted him"; according to what is had from the words, this was done as a sign of the contempt of God's commandment, whence it is had in Deuteronomy 25:5ff., that if someone was unwilling to take his brother's wife, they would spit in his face. Likewise on account of contempt of a paternal command: thus concerning Miriam the sister of Moses. Whence they spat in his face, because they reckoned him a blasphemer; Isaiah 50:6: "I have not turned away my face from them that rebuked me, and spit upon me." Likewise "they struck him with blows," after the manner of a drunken man or a fool; Isaiah 53:3: "We have seen him, the last of men," that is, he seemed 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; to 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 puts his hand under his chin: and such are those who seek their own dignity rather than the honor of Christ. Of such it is said that "they loved men's darkness rather than the light." But those who strike the face are those who in a certain way strive to demolish his presence, as the Jews did. Concerning these, Isaiah 30:11: "Let the Holy One of Israel cease from before our face." Then they hurl reproaches 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 to be a prophet; nor was it necessary, for their own infamy was manifest. Whence he was unwilling to say this; Job 16:11: "And reproaching me, they have struck my cheek." "But Peter sat without." Here the denial of Peter is treated. Luke 22:55, however, relates it in a different order, because he first sets down the denial of Peter, then the mockery of Christ; but Matthew does the contrary. And there is no contrariety, because while he was being mocked, it happened at the same time; therefore it does not matter whether it is placed before or after. And it is to be noted that while he was being led, he did not deny; but when he was being mocked, he denied, to signify that some fear reproaches more than blows, contrary to that saying of Isaiah 51:7: "Fear ye not the reproach of men, and be not afraid of their blasphemies." And concerning this, first the denial is set down; second, the repentance of Peter, at the place, "and going out, he wept bitterly, 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 the place, "and as he went out of the gate," etc.; the third at the place, "and after a little while, they came that stood by," etc. And first the place is set down, second the occasion, third 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: "Lord, all they that forsake thee shall be confounded." On the contrary, in Psalm 33:6: "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 is set down the incitement to denial: "and there came to him a servant maid, saying: Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean." And Peter's fall corresponds to the fall of the first man; Ecclesiasticus 25:33 [25:24]: "From the woman came the beginning of sin." Thus Peter denied Christ at the voice of a woman; in which the Lord wished to humble his presumption, since it was not at the voice of a man, but of a woman. "And thou also wast with Jesus the Nazarene." This used to be glorious for him, but now is terrible to him, and so he denied. "But he denied before them all, saying: I know not what thou sayest." If we wish to aggravate Peter's fault, we can aggravate it in three ways. It is aggravated because he denied at once, at slight terror; Leviticus 26:36: "The sound of a leaf flying shall terrify them." Likewise, because he did not blush before them all. Likewise from the lie, because he said "I know not what thou sayest," and "I know not the man"; contrary to that saying of Ecclesiasticus 4:24 [4:30]: "Be not ashamed to speak the truth." "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 down. And first the place is touched; second the incitement; third the denial. As to the history, according to Mark 14:66-72, after the first denial the cock crew, and then he went out of the gate, and the maid saw him, and he denied. But this seems contrary to the others, because the others seem to say that those sitting said it; and Luke 22:58 says that one of those sitting said it. Why then is it said here that it was a maid? It must be noted, according to Augustine, that when he had denied, he went out; and while he was going out, the maid said this to him, etc.; and then he denied; hearing which, Peter returned inside. Then those who had heard it from the maid asked the same thing. And it can be that one who recognized him pressed him more. And again with an oath he denied, "for I know not the man"; contrary to that saying of Ecclesiasticus 23:9: "Let not thy mouth be accustomed to swearing." Then follows the third denial. And first the time is described; second the incitement; third the denial. He says therefore, "and after a little while." Luke says that an interval of about one hour had passed. And the Devil procured this, so that he might have no respite. Whence they say to him, "Surely thou also art one of them"; and this they prove, "for even thy speech doth discover thee." But it is agreed that all were Jews; how then does he say, "for even thy speech doth discover thee"? Jerome resolves this by saying that within the same language there is often a different manner of speaking, as is evident in France, and Picardy, and Burgundy, and yet it is one language. Thus the Galileans had some difference from the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Thus also it can be said to anyone: "for even thy speech doth discover thee"; because, as is said in Luke 6:45, "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh"; because when a man is carnal, he quickly breaks out into carnal words; when spiritual, into spiritual words. "Then he began to curse and to swear," etc. There are some who wish to excuse Peter, saying that he did not sin; whence when he said "I know not the man," it is true as to man, but not as to man and God. And this is not good, because it imposes a lie upon Christ: for Christ had said, "Thou wilt deny me." Therefore it is better to say that Peter rather lied, than Christ. Likewise it must be noted that he not only denied Christ but denied that he was a Christian. Whence in one denial he said, "I know him not," namely, I am not a Christian. Likewise it must be noted that he who does not quickly draw himself back goes further into evil; Ecclesiasticus 19:1: "He that contemneth small things shall fall by little and little." Whence to the denial he added perjury, and to the perjury, blasphemy. Whence Gregory says: a sin which is not washed away by penance soon by its own weight drags one into another. Likewise it must be noted that a threefold temptation is signified, by which man is tempted. 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 [14:21]: "For a covetousness of gain devised that." Likewise by demons, and this is signified by that denial in which it is said, "after a little while they came that stood by." To the Ephesians 6:12: "For we wrestle 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." Concerning these three it is had in 1 John 2:16: "All that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and 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; some, however, 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 have 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 seduced many, and some even died. Likewise it must be noted that certain writings are found which seem to excuse Peter, saying that he did not sin mortally, because Bernard says: charity was lulled to sleep in him, not extinguished. It must be said that he sinned mortally, yet not out of malice, but out of fear of death. And this is what Bernard wished to say, that it was "lulled to sleep," etc. "And immediately the cock crew." Here the repentance of Peter is treated. And first is set down the motive, or the incitement; second, his repentance, at the place, "and going out, he wept bitterly." Two things are touched, by which the excitation is effected. First, the crowing of the cock; whence, "and immediately the cock crew." By the cock the preacher is signified, who rouses sinful men to repentance; whence the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 15:34: "Awake, ye just, and sin not"; and to the Ephesians 5:14: "Rise thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall enlighten thee." The second is the memory of Peter: "and Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which he had said," etc. Psalm 21:28 [21:27]: "All the ends of the earth shall remember, and shall be converted to the Lord." And these two frequently occur at the voice of the preacher, because he who has forgotten God through sins returns at the voice of the preacher. Concerning that cock it is said in Job 38:36: "Who hath given understanding to the cock?" Likewise Luke sets down a third thing, that "the Lord turned and looked upon Peter." The Apostle to the Romans 3:24: "Being justified freely by his grace." Lamentations 5:21: "Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted." Afterward the repentance of Peter is treated: "and going out, he wept bitterly." And his repentance is commendable for three reasons. First, because it was prompt, since he went out immediately; Ecclesiasticus 5:8 [5:7]: "Delay not to be converted to the Lord." Likewise, because it was prudent, because he withdrew from the company of those who had led him to deny; thus penitents also ought to avoid the occasion of sinning; 2 Corinthians 6:17: "Go out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you." Likewise, because it was efficacious and true; Jeremiah 6:26: "Make thee mourning as for an only son, a bitter lamentation"; Isaiah 38:15: "I will recount to thee all my years in the bitterness of my soul."”

“And immediately he denied with an oath, I know not the man. It appears from S. Luke and S. John that several others put the same question, and pressed him hard. On which Peter, finding that a stronger answer was required, added an oath, ue., committed perjury; for, as S. Gregory says, “a sin which is not blotted out by repentance, by its very weight quickly draws on to another,” both because it weighs down, depresses, and weakens the conscience, and also because the sinner thinks that as he has sinned, it is of little moment if he falls again into the like sin. Some Christians when they have once fallen into fornication or gluttony repeat the sin, as thinking, “We have already fallen, let us fall again, and then by the same confession we shall blot out all our sins together.” But they are wrong ; for a second is a new offence against God, and inflicts on the soul a new wound more deadly than the first; for repentance is more difficult after repeated sin than after the first fall. “ Perseverance in sin causes increase of guilt,” says Rabanus. His intercourse with the ungodly, which he ought to have given up after his first fall, drove Peter to this, though, assuredly, he never should have done it, 244 as having experienced its noxiousness and his weakness in their company”

“And after a while,.... Mark says, "a little after", Mar 14:70, and Luke observes, that it was "about the space of one hour after", Luk 22:59, so that here was time to reflect upon what he had been saying, and to guard against another temptation, should he be attacked; but, alas! as yet he was unmindful of his Lord's words, and persists in the denial of him, and that with greater aggravation, than at his first surprise: and indeed his temptation was now more violent: for there came unto him they that stood by; the officers and servants of the high priest, his attendants that waited upon him, and who stood by the fire, where Peter was warming himself: before he was attacked by single maidservants, now by a body of men, and one of them the kinsman of the man whose ear he had cut off, and who challenged him, as having seen him in the garden: and another confidently affirmed, and swore to it, that he was with Jesus, and was a Galilean; and all of them agreed in this, and said to Peter, surely thou also art one of them, for thy speech betrayeth thee: not his spiritual speech, for he had not been speaking in the language of a disciple of Christ, like one that had been with Jesus; nor his swearing neither, for this rather showed him to be one of them; but his country language, the brogue of his speech, the Galilean dialect which he spoke: for in Mark it is said, "thou art a Galilean, and thy speech agreeth thereunto", Mar 14:70, for though the same language was spoken in Galilee as at Jerusalem, yet it was not so accurate and polite in Galilee, nor so well pronounced; words of different signification were confounded together. Hence the Talmudists say (b), that "the men of Judah, who were careful of their language, their law was confirmed in their hands; the men of Galilee, who were not careful of their language, their law was not confirmed in their hands--the men of Galilee, who do not attend to language, what is reported of them? a Galilean went and said to them, , they said to him foolish Galilean, "Chamor" is to ride upon, or "Chamar" is to drink, or "Hamar" is for clothing, or "Immar" is for hiding for slaughter. By which instances it appears, that a Galilean pronounced "Chamor", an ass, and "Chamar", wine, and "Hamar", wool, and "Immar", a lamb, all one, and the same way, without any distinction; so that it was difficult to know which of these he meant. Many other instances of the like kind are given in the same place, which show the Galilean to be a more gross, barbarous, and impolite language, than what was spoken at Jerusalem; and Peter using this dialect, was known to be a Galilean: just as the Ephraimites were known by their pronouncing Shibboleth, Sibboleth, (b) T. Bab. Erubin, fol. 53. 1, 2. Vid. Buxtorf. Lex. Talmud. in rad,”