Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 66
66 Chapter XIII. 36–38 PL 35, 1810
1. While the Lord Jesus was commending to the disciples that holy love wherewith they should love one another, “Simon Peter saith unto Him, Lord, whither goest Thou?” So, at all events, said the disciple to his Master, the servant to his Lord, as one who was prepared to follow. Just as for the same reason the Lord, who read in his mind the purpose of such a question, made him this reply: “Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now;” as if He said, In reference to the object of thy asking, thou canst not now. He does not say, Thou canst not; but “Thou canst not now.” He intimated delay, without depriving of hope; and that same hope, which He took not away, but rather bestowed, in His next words He confirmed, by proceeding to say, “Thou shalt follow me afterwards.” Why such haste, Peter? The Rock (petra) has not yet solidified thee by His Spirit. Be not lifted up with presumption, “Thou canst not now;” be not cast now into despair, “Thou shalt follow afterwards.” But what does he say to this? “Why cannot I follow Thee now? I will lay down my life for Thy sake.” He saw what was the kind of desire in his mind; but what the measure of his strength, he saw not. The weak man boasted of his willingness, but the Physician had an eye on the state of his health; the one promised, the Other foreknew: the ignorant was bold; He that foreknew all, condescended to teach. How much had Peter taken upon himself, by looking only at what he wished, and having no knowledge of what he was able! How much had he taken upon himself, that, when the Lord had come to lay down His life for His friends, and so for him also, he should have the assurance to offer to do the same for the Lord; and while as yet Christ’s life was not laid down for himself, he should promise to lay down his own life for Christ! “Jesus” therefore “answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake?” Wilt thou do for me what I have not yet done for thee? “Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake?” Canst thou go before, who art unable to follow? Why dost thou presume so far? what dost thou think of thyself? what dost thou imagine thyself to be? Hear what thou art: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.” See, that is how thou wilt speedily become manifest to thyself, who art now talking so loftily, and knowest not that thou art but a child. Thou promisest me thy death, and thou wilt deny me thy life. Thou, who now thinkest thyself able to die for me, learn to live first for thyself; for in fearing the death of thy flesh, thou wilt occasion the death of thy soul. Just as much as it is life to confess Christ, it is death to deny Him.
2. Or was it that the Apostle Peter, as some with a perverse kind of favor strive to excuse him, did not deny Christ, because, when questioned by the maid, he replied that he did not know the man, as the other evangelists more expressly affirm? As if, indeed, he that denies the man Christ does not deny Christ; and so denies Him in respect of what He became on our account, that the nature He had given us might not be lost. Whoever, therefore, acknowledges Christ as God, and disowns Him as man, Christ died not for him; for as man it was that Christ died. He who disowns Christ as man, finds no reconciliation to God by the Mediator. For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. He that denies Christ as man is not justified: for as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one man shall many be made righteous. He that denies Christ as man, shall not rise again into the resurrection of life; for by man is death, and by man is also the resurrection of the dead: for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. And by what means is He the Head of the Church, but by His manhood, because the Word was made flesh, that is, God, the Only-begotten of God the Father, became man. And how then can one be in the body of Christ who denies the man Christ? Or how can one be a member who disowns the Head? But why linger over a multitude of reasons when the Lord Himself undoes all the windings of human argumentation? For He says not, The cock shall not crow till thou hast denied the man; or, as He was wont to speak in His more familiar condescension with men, The cock shall not crow till thou hast thrice denied the Son of man; but He says, “till thou hast denied me thrice.” What is that “me,” but just what He was, and what was He but Christ? Whatever of Him, therefore, he denied, he denied Himself, he denied the Christ, he denied the Lord his God. For Thomas also, his fellow-disciple, when he exclaimed, “My Lord and my God,” did not handle the Word, but only His flesh; and laid not his inquisitive hands on the incorporeal nature of God, but on His human body. And so he touched the man, and yet recognized his God. If, then, what the latter touched, Peter denied; what the latter invoked, Peter offended. “The cock shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice.” Although thou say, “I know not the man;” although thou say, “Man, I know not what thou sayest;” although thou say, “I am not one of His disciples;” thou wilt be denying me. If, which it were sinful to doubt, Christ so spake, and foretold the truth, then doubtless Peter denied Christ. Let us not accuse Christ in defending Peter. Let infirmity acknowledge its sin; for there is no falsehood in the Truth. When Peter’s infirmity acknowledged its sin, his acknowledgment was full; and the greatness of the evil he had committed in denying Christ, he showed by his tears. He himself reproves his defenders, and for their conviction, brings his tears forward as witnesses. Nor have we, on our part, in so speaking, any delight in accusing the first of the apostles; but in looking on him, we ought to take home the lesson to ourselves, that no man should place his confidence in human strength. For what else had our Teacher and Saviour in view, but to show us, by making the first of the apostles himself an example, that no one ought in any way to presume of himself? And that, therefore, really took place in Peter’s soul, for which he gave cause in his body. And yet he did not go before in the Lord’s behalf, as he rashly presumed, but did so otherwise than he reckoned. For before the death and resurrection of the Lord, he both died when he denied, and returned to life when he wept; but he died, because he himself had been proud in his presumption, and he lived again, because that Other had looked on him with kindness.
Cum Dominus Jesus sanctam dilectionem qua se invicem diligerent, discipulis commendaret, Dicit ei Simon Petrus: Domine, quo vadis? Sic utique hoc dixit Magistro discipulus, et Domino servus, tanquam sequi paratus. Propterea quippe Dominus, qui ejus animum vidit quare hoc interrogaverit, sic ei respondit: Quo ego vado, non potes me modo sequi: tanquam diceret, Propter quod interrogas, non potes modo. Non ait, non potes; sed non potes modo: dilationem intulit, non spem tulit; et eamdem spem quam non tulit, sed potius dedit, sequenti voce firmavit, addendo atque dicendo, Sequeris autem postea. Quid festinas, Petre? Nondum te suo spiritu solidavit petra. Noli extolli praesumendo, non potes modo: noli dejici desperando, sequeris postea. Sed adhuc ille quid dicit? Quare te non possum sequi modo? Animam meam pro te ponam. Quid in animo ejus esset cupiditatis, videbat; quid virium, non videbat. Voluntatem suam jactabat infirmus, sed inspiciebat valetudinem medicus; iste promittebat, ille praenoscebat: qui nesciebat, audebat; qui praesciebat, docebat. Quantum sibi assumpserat Petrus intuendo quid vellet, ignorando quid posset? quantum sibi assumpserat, ut cum venisset Dominus animam suam ponere pro amicis suis, ac per hoc et pro ipso, ille hoc Domino offerre confideret: et nondum pro se posita anima Christi, animam suam polliceretur se positurum esse pro Christo? Respondit ergo Jesus, Animam tuam pro me pones? Itane facies pro me, quod nondum ego pro te? Animam tuam pro me pones? Praeire potes, qui sequi non potes? Quid tantum praesumis? quid de te sentis? quid esse te credis? Audi quid sis: Amen, amen dico tibi; non cantabit gallus, donec ter me neges. Ecce quomodo tibi cito apparebis, qui magna loqueris, et te parvulum nescis. Qui mihi promittis mortem tuam, ter negabis vitam tuam. Qui te jam putas mori posse pro me, prius vive pro te: nam timendo mortem carnis tuae, mortem dabis animae tuae. Quanta enim vita est confiteri Christum, tanta mors est negare Christum.
An apostolus Petrus, sicut eum quidam favore perverso excusare nituntur , Christum non negavit, quia interrogatus ab ancilla hominem se nescire respondit, sicut alii evangelistae contestantur expressius? Quasi vero qui hominem Christum negat, non Christum negat; et hoc in eo negat quod factus est propter nos, ne periret quod fecerat nos. Ergo qui ita confitetur Christum Deum, ut hominem neget, non pro illo mortuus est Christus; quia secundum hominem mortuus est Christus. Qui negat hominem Christum, non reconciliatur per mediatorem Deo. Unus enim Deus, et unus mediator Dei et hominum homo Christus Jesus . Qui negat hominem Christum, non justificatur; quia sicut per inobedientiam unius hominis, peccatores constituti sunt multi; ita et per obedientiam unius hominis, justi constituentur multi . Qui negat hominem Christum, non resurget in resurrectionem vitae; quia per hominem mors, et per hominem resurrectio mortuorum: sicut enim in Adam omnes moriuntur, ita et in Christo omnes vivificabuntur . Per quid autem caput est Ecclesiae, nisi per hominem, quod Verbum caro factum est? id est, Dei Patris Unigenitus Deus homo factus est. Quomodo est igitur in corpore Christi, qui negat hominem Christum? Qui enim caput negat, quomodo est membrum? Sed quid multis immorer, cum ipse Dominus abstulerit omnes humanae argumentationis ambages? Non enim ait, Non cantabit gallus donec hominem neges; aut, sicut loqui familiariore cum hominibus dignatione consuevit, Non cantabit gallus donec Filium hominis ter neges: sed ait, donec me ter neges. Quid est, me, nisi quod erat? et quid nisi Christus erat? Quidquid ergo ejus negavit, ipsum negavit, Christum negavit, Dominum Deum suum negavit. Quia et ille condiscipulus ejus Thomas, quando exclamavit, Dominus meus et Deus meus, non Verbum, sed carnem tetigit; non incorpoream Dei naturam, sed hominis corpus curiosis manibus contrectavit . Hominem itaque tetigit, et tamen Deum cognovit. Si ergo quod iste tetigit, hoc Petrus negavit; quod iste exclamavit, hoc Petrus offendit. Non cantabit gallus, donec ter me neges. Dicas licet, Nescio hominem; dicas licet, Homo, nescio quid dicis; dicas licet, Non sum ex discipulis ejus : me negabis. Si, quod dubitare nefas est, Christus hoc dixit, verumque praedixit, procul dubio Petrus Christum negavit. Non accusemus Christum cum defendimus Petrum. Peccatum agnoscat infirmitas; nam mendacium non habet veritas. Agnovit quippe peccatum suum infirmitas Petri, prorsus agnovit; et quantum mali Christum negando commiserit, plorando monstravit. Ipse suos redarguit defensores, et unde eos convincat, producit lacrymas testes. Neque nos cum ista dicimus, primum Apostolorum accusare delectat: sed hunc intuendo admoneri nos oportet, ne homo quisquam de humanis viribus fidat. Nam quid aliud pertinuit ad doctorem salvatoremque nostrum, nisi ut nobis nequaquam de se quemquam praesumere debere, in ipso primo Apostolorum demonstraret exemplo? In anima itaque Petri contigit quod offerebat in corpore. Non tamen pro Domino, ut temere praesumebat, praecessit, sed aliter quam putabat. Namque ante mortem et resurrectionem Domini, et mortuus est negando, et revixit plorando: sed mortuus est, quia superbe ipse praesumpsit; revixit autem, quia benigne ille respexit.