Marcus itaque rei in Petro gestae, ut ab ipso Petro audierat, accuratam praescribens historiam, utriusque Galli cantus meminit, cuius mentionem facit et Iuvenalis[1] dicens{.}<:>

Quod tamen ad cantum Galli facit ille secundi

Proximus ante diem caupo sciet.

Per cantum Galli secundi intelligens secundum cantum Galli, et per hoc describere volens tempus illud, quod Gallicinium dicitur. Reliqui vero tres Evangelistae posteriores tantum Galli cantus meminerunt, ut qui sit praecipuus, et a quo pars noctis dicatur Gallicinium: proinde idem ab omnibus est significatum, nempe ter Petrum negaturum ante tempus illud noctis, quod Gallicinium dicitur, quod tempus secundum communem quidem loquendi modum simpliciter notatur per Galli cantum: secundum accuratiorem vero loquendi rationem, notatur per secundum Galli cantum.

Therefore Mark, reconstructing an accurate history of what happened in Peter as he heard it from Peter himself, recorded both cockcrows, of which Juvenal also makes mention:

Nevertheless, what he does at the crowing of the second cock

the next innkeeper will know before daybreak.

Meaning by the crow of the second cock the second crowing of the cock and wishing by this to describe that time which is called gallicinium - crow of the rooster, dawn. The three other Evangelists mentioned only the following cockcrows, since it is the principal one and from which the part of the night would be called gallicinium: Hence the same thing has been said by all of them, that is, that Peter would deny thrice before that time of night called gallicinium; that time which, according to the common mode of speech, is simply indicated as cockcrow: according to a more accurate manner of speaking it is indicated as the second cockcrow.

Ex praedictis, et sequenti Marci narratione patet, quod cum hic dicitur apud eum, Priusquam Gallus bis vocem dederit, illud bis accipiendum esse pro duabus diversis vicibus, et temporibus, non autem simpliciter, ut duplicatum significet sonum. Cum emphasi autem apud Marcum dicit Dominus Petro: Tu hodie, tu, inquit, singulariter, qui prae aliis te singulariter putas constantiorem, non quidem post aliquot dies, sed hodie, im<m>o in nocte hac praesenti, idque diu ante finem eius, nimirum ante Gallicinium, praeterquam quod cum aliis, me derelicto, fugies, etiam negabis, idque non semel tantum, sed ter in tam brevi temporis spatio. Quomodo autem Petrus erat Dominum negaturus, explicatur a Luca[2] cum dicit: Donec ter abneges, nosse me, id est, donec abneges, quod noveris me. Haec itaque ille de eiusmodi Evangelistarum discrepantia.

From what has been said before and from the succeeding narrative of Mark it is clear that when he says in his verse “Before the cock shall have crowed twice”, that twice must be meant as two different times in succession and two different moments, and not simply as signifying a duplicate sound. For with emphasis the Lord says to Peter in Mark: You today, he says, you yourself, who think yourself especially more constant than the others, not indeed in a few days’ time but today, nay, this night itself and at length before its end, that is, before gallicinium, apart from after you abandoned me you will flee with the others, you will also deny me, and this not only once, but thrice in so short a space of time. In what manner Peter was to deny the Lord is cleared up by Luke when he says: Until you thrice deny that you know me, that is, until you deny that you could know me. Thus far Cornelis Jansen concerning such a discrepancy among Evangelists.

Ad eiusmodi negationis mysticum sensum explicandum Iacobus Vitriacensis[3] Cardinalis sic scribit. Permissus est Petrus negare, ut in Ecclesiae principe remedium poenitentiae conderetur, et nemo auderet de sua virtute confidere. Post resurrectionem satisfecit, cum ipsum se amare confessus est. Ante Galli cantum, dum adhuc tenebrae sunt, in ascensu negat Petrus, postquam Gallus cantavit, cum iam tenebrae sunt, Petrus poenituit. Gallus, id est, praedicator somnolentos increpat, dicens. Evigilate, iusti, et nolite peccare. Post eius vocem multi prius factis Christum negantes poenitent, et flent amare. Quam noxia pravorum colloquia, quae Petrum negare cogunt, qui inter discipulos Christum confessus est Dei filium, intus autem in societate impiorum poenitet. Ter autem Christum negavit, primum ad vocem ancillae, et cantavit Gallus, secundo negat ad vocem alterius ancillae, et ad vocem calefacientium se ad prunas: tertio ad vocem servi principis sacerdotum, qui erat cognatus Malchi[4], et tunc Gallus iterum cantavit. Tertia igitur negatio est inchoata ante Galli cantum et consummata est, antequam Gallus bis cantaret: primo simpliciter negat Petrus, dicens: Non novi hominem, et non sum discipulus eius.

Cardinal Jacques de Vitry writes as follows in order to explain the mystic meaning of such a denial. Peter was allowed to deny in order that the remedy of penitence might be established in the prince of the Church, and no one would dare to trust in his own virtue. He made satisfaction after the resurrection when he acknowledged that he loved Him. Before the cockcrow, while there are still deep shadows, Peter denies for raising himself, after the cock crowed, while by now deep shadows are going away, Peter repented. The cock, that is, the preacher, urges the sleepy ones, saying: Wake up, ye just men, and do not sin. After his recall many who before denied Christ by their deeds repent and weep bitterly. How evil are the conversations of the wicked men who force Peter to deny, he who among the disciples acknowledged that Christ is the son of God, but inwardly he does penance within the community of impious men. For three times he denied, first at the call of a handmaid, and the cock crowed, the second time he denies at the call of another handmaid and at the call of those warming themselves at a fire: the third time at the call of a servant of the chief of priests, who was a relative of Malchus, and then the cock crowed again. Therefore the third negation started before the cockcrow and ended before the cock crowed twice: first Peter simply denies, saying: I do not know the man, and I am not his disciple.

Non solum enim negat Christum, sed se negat esse Christianum, vel discipulum eius: secundo cum iuramento negavit: tertio coepit anat<h>ematizare, quia perseverare in peccato dat incrementum scelerum, et qui modica spernit, cadit in maiora. Spiritualiter autem prima ancilla titubatio est: secunda consentio, tertius vir, id est, operatio, sic perficitur trina negatio. Ad vocem ancillae negat, qui carnis delectatione mortaliter peccat. Ad vocem calefacientium se ad prunas negat, qui per avaritiam peccat, qui se turpi quaestu calefieri desiderat, vel qui exemplo cupiditatis alienae a via veritatis deviat. Ad vocem cognati Malchi negat, qui vitio elationis contra Deum peccat. Malchus enim rex interpretatur. Potentum enim cognatum est vitium elationis. Hucusque ille.

For not only does he deny Christ, but he denies he is a Christian or a disciple of him: the second time he denied with an oath: the third time he began to curse, because to persevere in sin gives an increase to wickedness, and who spurns moderation falls into greater things. But, from a spiritual point of view, the first handmaid is the wavering: the second is a consent, the third man is the pursuit, and thus the third denial is done. At the call of the handmaid he denies who sins mortally because of the delight of the flesh. At the call of those warming themselves by the fire, he denies who sins through avarice, who desires to warm himself by filthy gain or who wanders from the way of truth by the example of the cupidity of someone else. At the call of the relative of Malchus, he denies who sins against God through the vice of arrogance. For Malchus means king. For the vice of arrogance is a relative of powerful men. Thus far Jacques de Vitry.

Eundem sensum ita Iansenius interpretatur, et ut videtur, dilucidius. Ut bene, inquit, nocti tribuit scandalum discipulorum, et Petri negationem, quod nocti conveniant peccata, et errores, ita bene finem negationum imponit in cantu Galli, quod per hunc lux annuncietur instare, et homines a somno excitentur, ut quo signo monentur homines surgere a somno, eodem et Petrus moneretur agnoscere suum errorem. Petrum autem prae aliis Dei providentia cadere gravius erat permissura, iusto quidem iudicio, nimirum quia de se nimis praesumendo aliis praetulerat, sed tamen propter bonum aliquod, nempe ut discerat Petrus, et nos in illo, quantae sit temeritatis hominem considere in se ipso, quamque necessarium sit Dei implorare gratiam, sine qua nostra dilectio, et propositum non possit, vel ad breve tempus perseverare, etc.

Cornelis Jansen interprets in this way the same meaning and, as it seems, more clearly. As, he says, the scandal of the disciples was attributed to the night and the denial of Peter also, because sins and errors are suitable to night, as well again he places the end of the denials in the crowing of the cock, since through it the light is announced to be approaching, and humans are roused from sleep, so that by this sign humans are warned to rouse from sleep and Peter by it was warned to recognize his error. The providence of God was about to allow that Peter was falling headlong more heavily than others, even though because of a right reason, that is, because in his presumption he regarded himself above the others, but nevertheless for a good aim, and precisely so that Peter learned, and we with him, how is a sign of great rashness the fact that the man places his trust in himself, and how necessary it is to implore the grace of God, without which our love and purpose cannot, or persevere in a short term, etc.

In eandem fere sententiam ita quaerit Franciscus Georgius Venetus[5]: Cur datus fuit Galli cantus in signum negationis Petri? An, ut Christus vaticinaretur tanquam verus Propheta negotium hoc, sicut et multa alia, quae ipsi superventura erant? Nam mortem, et resurrectionem suam ante praedixerat. An cum omnia acta, et gesta Christi sint plena sacramentis, hoc signum tradidit, ut indicaret Galli cantum, qui fit in mente omnium peccantium, per synderesim, et portionem [265] superiorem remurmurantem?

According to almost the same opinion Francesco Giorgio wonders as follows. Why was the cockcrow meant as a sign of the denial of Peter? Or perhaps, so that Christ as true prophet might predict this event, just as many others events which were about to fall upon him? For he had prematurely predicted his death and resurrection. Or perhaps, since all the acts and deeds of Christ are full of mysteries, did he hand down this sign in order to indicate the cockcrow, which is occurring in the mind of all sinners, by a process of synderesis and by a superior resounding portion?