17. It will be convenient to treat of the three denials by Peter (verses 17, 25‐27) together. Many Rationalist and Protestant commentators have alleged that it is impossible to harmonize the different accounts of these denials. We hope to show, however, that there is little difficulty in harmonizing them. To this end we would draw attention, with Dean Alford,(113) to the following points:— “In the first place, we are not bound to require accordance ... in the _recognition_ of Peter _by different persons_. These may have been _many_ on _each occasion_ of denial, and independent narrators may have fixed on different ones among them.” “Secondly, no reader ... will require that the _actual words spoken by Peter_ should in each case be _identically reported_.” In support of this view, Alford refers to the remarks of St. Augustine on the words: “Domine, salva nos, perimus” (Matt. viii. 25). “What matters it,” says St. Aug., referring to the different versions of the words given by the Evangelists, “whether the disciples, in calling on the Lord, really used one or another of those three expressions, or some other, not recorded by any of the Evangelists, differing from all those that are recorded, but still giving the sense, that those who called upon Him were perishing, and called on Him to save them.” “Thirdly, I do not see that we are obliged to limit the narrative to _three sentences_ from Peter’s mouth, _and no more_. On _three occasions_ during the night he was _recognised_, on _three occasions he was a denier_ of his Lord: such a statement may well embrace _reiterated expressions of recognition_, and _reiterated and importunate denials on each occasion_.” “And those remarks being taken into account, I premise that all difficulty is removed, the resulting inference being that the narratives are _genuine, truthful accounts of facts underlying them all_.” Similarly, Patrizzi:—“Considerare etiam juvat, ut ea difficultas quam quidam in hac historia esse putant, quod alter Evangelista ait Petrum a muliere, alter a viro, hic ab uno, ille a pluribus, fuisse interrogatum, in specie quidem gravis, re tamen ipsa propemodum nulla sit; ex his enim nihil aliud consequitur, nisi, non unum, sed plures, sive simul, sive alium post alios, Petrum esse percontatos, hunc autem, nisi multis ac repetitis interrogationibus adactum non respondisse, quod apprime veri simile est, imo vix dubitandum de hoc foret, etiamsi ex evangeliis id minime colligeretur” (Lib. ii. Adnot. clxxviii.) That the reader may apply these principles, and convince himself as to their sufficiency, we quote from Dr. Walsh’s _Harmony of the Gospel Narratives_, a tabulated statement suggesting the chief points to be attended to in the four Gospel accounts. 1st Denial: ST. MATTHEW.: There came to him _a maid servant_: “Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean.” “I know not what thou sayest.”