(_c_) As to the _place_ of the second denial, St. John says that it occurred while “Peter was standing and warming himself,” while St. Matthew says it occurred “as he went out to the vestibule,” or more correctly, according to the Greek, “after he _had gone_ out” (ἐξελθόντα) into the vestibule. But again we may readily explain by saying that on this occasion Peter was challenged in _both places_, and denied in both. In regard to the _third_ denial, the reason given, in St. John, by the high‐priest’s servant, for identifying Peter as a follower of Jesus, is different from that given in the other Evangelists; but there is no difficulty in supposing that several different reasons were given by different persons. 18. Stabant autem servi et 18. Now the servants and ministri ad prunas, quia ministers stood at a fire of frigus erat, et calefaciebant coals, because it was cold, se: erat autem cum eis et and warmed themselves. And Petrus stans, et calefaciens with them was Peter also se. standing, warming himself. 18. We are not to connect this verse with the preceding, as if it indicated that Peter was _standing_ during the first denial. We know from St. Matthew (xxvi. 69; Comp. Mark xiv. 54; Luke xxii. 55) that he was _sitting_, and from St. Mark (xiv. 68) that after the first denial he went out into the passage or vestibule (εἰς τὸ προαύλιον). Hence what St. John says here is to be understood in reference to a time between the first and second denial. The Greek here is somewhat different from the Vulgate. It would be rendered: “Now the servants and the officers were standing, having made a fire of charcoal, for it was cold, and they were warming themselves,” &c. The Roman soldiers had, doubtless, gone back to their quarters in the castle of Antonia, close to the Temple; and hence we find mention here of only the servants of the high‐priest and the Temple guards. 19. Pontifex ergo interrogavit 19. The high‐priest therefore Iesum de discipulis suis, et asked Jesus of his disciples, de doctrina eius. and of his doctrine. 19. Meantime, while Peter was denying Him in the court, Jesus was being examined by the high‐priest in a room or hall of the house of Caiphas. See above on verse 16. As we have said already, we believe that Caiphas is the “high‐priest” here referred to; so that St. John here supplements the account given by the Synoptic Evangelists of the preliminary trial, before Caiphas (Matt, xxvi 59‐68; Mark xiv. 55‐65; Luke xxii. 54‐63). From the other Evangelists we learn that many false witnesses now appeared against Jesus; but the inquiry regarding His _disciples_ and _doctrine_ here recorded by St. John is mentioned by no other Evangelist.