Chapter XXI

1‐14. *Appearance of Jesus to the disciples at the Sea of Galilee;
the miraculous draught of fish, after which St. John first
recognises Jesus, and St. Peter leaps from the boat into the water
to come to Him. The breakfast miraculously prepared for the
disciples by Jesus.*

15‐17. *Peter’s triple confession of his love for his master; he
is constituted by Jesus visible head of the whole Church.*

18‐19. *Jesus predicts the manner of Peter’s death, as St. John
explains.*

20‐23. *He reproves Peter’s curiosity regarding the end in store
for St. John.*

24‐25. *The conclusion.*

The authenticity of this last chapter of our Gospel has been questioned (see Introd. v.), and it has been contended that the chapter was not written by St. John, but by some disciple or disciples of his after his death. Even among those who admit its authenticity, some have held that it was not written at the same time as the rest of the Gospel, but at a later period, and added on as an appendix.(138) Both those who deny the authenticity of the chapter, and those who hold it to be an authentic _appendix, written at a later date_, argue from the last two verses of chapter xx., which, they say, prove that St. John intended to conclude at that point. In addition to this, those who deny the authenticity, contend that the style of this chapter is so different from that of the rest of the Gospel as to compel the belief that both cannot possibly be the work of the same hand.

We may begin by remarking that no Catholic is free to doubt the _inspiration_ of the chapter, so that whoever wrote it must have been inspired. This follows from the decree of Trent, which defined the _entire books_ of the Vulgate with all their _parts_ (and this is certainly a part, not merely a “particula” of this Gospel) to be canonical Scripture. See above on iv. 3, 4.

Hence, the only questions remaining are: (_a_) whether St. John or _some other inspired writer_ wrote the chapter; and (_b_) in case St. John wrote it, whether he wrote it at the same time as the rest of the Gospel, or later, and as an appendix.

With Catholic commentators generally, we hold that the chapter was written by St. John and at the same time as the rest of the Gospel. For, since it is read in all the MSS., and quoted by all the fathers, the natural inference is that it stood in the Gospel from the beginning. Against this unanimous testimony of tradition, the arguments for any other view have no weight. For, as to the argument drawn from the last two verses of chapter xx., we have already, with Mald., Tol., and Cornely, given the most probable explanation of those verses, from which it appears that they were not intended as a conclusion of the whole Gospel, but only of that portion of it which deals with the proofs of His Divinity afforded by Christ to the Apostles during His risen life.(139)

As to the argument from the difference of style, we confidently deny that any such difference exists. Kuinoel, no mean judge on such a point, and certainly not a prejudiced witness, says: “Omnino probari nequit, scribendi genus, in hoc capite, si clausulam(140) ejus exceperis, diversum esse a scribendi genere, quod in reliquo Evangelio deprehenditur.”

1. Postea manifestavit se 1. After this Jesus shewed iterum Iesus discipulis ad himself again to the disciples mare Tiberiadis. Manifestavit at the sea of Tiberias. And he autem sic: shewed _himself_ after this manner.

1. *After this.* How many days after Low Sunday (xx. 26) the events now to be recorded occurred, we cannot determine. In the meantime, at all events, the disciples had left Jerusalem and gone to Galilee (Mat. xxviii. 16), in obedience to the express desire of their Divine Master (Mat. xxviii. 7; Mark xvi. 7).

*The sea of Tiberias.* See above on vi. i.

2. Erant simul Simon Petrus, 2. There were together Simon et Thomas, qui dicitur Peter, and Thomas who is Didymus, et Nathanael, qui called Didymus, and Nathanael erat a Cana Galilaeae, et who was of Cana in Galilee, filii Zebedaei, et alii ex and the sons of Zebedee, and discipulis eius duo. two others of his disciples.

2. *Nathanael* is most probably the same with Bartholomew, the Apostle. See above on i. 45.

*And two others of his disciples.* Who they were we cannot tell. Had “the sons of Zebedee” not been already named, it would be quite in the style of our Evangelist to refer to his brother James and himself in this way.

3. Dicit eis Simon Petrus: 3. Simon Peter saith to them: Vado piscari, Dicunt ei: I go a fishing. They say to Venimus et nos tecum. Et him: We also come with thee. exierunt, et ascenderunt in And they went forth and navim: et illa nocte nihil entered into the ship, and prendiderunt. that night they caught nothing.

3. As they had not yet begun to preach the Gospel, and thus to have a right to support from the faithful, they had to provide themselves with the necessaries of life, and so they “go a fishing.”

*And they went forth* from the house where they were, *and entered into the ship* (τὸ πλοῖον), which was there, lent or hired for their use; *and that night they caught nothing*, God having so arranged, no doubt, in order to make the miracle of the following morning more remarkable.

4. Mane autem facto stetit 4. But when the morning was Iesus in littore: non tamen come, Jesus stood on the cognoverunt discipuli quia shore: yet the disciples knew Iesus est. not that it was Jesus.

4. *But when the morning was come.* The better supported Greek reading (γινομένης not γενομένης) gives the meaning: “When the morning was breaking.” But even if this be the correct reading, and the morning was only breaking, still this fact by itself may not be the whole reason why the disciples failed to recognise Jesus. Even when they had come close to him (verse 12), they knew it was He, rather because of what had happened than from the testimony of their eyes. Comp. Luke xxiv. 16.

5. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: Pueri 5. Jesus therefore said to numquid pulmentarium habetis? them: Children, have you any Responderunt ei: Non. meat? They answered him: No.

5. Jesus called to them from the shore: “Have you any meat?” The Revised Version renders: “Have you aught to eat?” The Hellenistic Greek word (προσφάγιον), which is here used, meant primarily something that was eaten as relish with other food, but it came to mean food generally, and so the meaning here probably is: “have you anything to eat?” See Lidd. and Scott, _sub voce_.

6. Dicit eis: mittite in 6. He saith to them: Cast the dexteram navigii rete: et net on the right side of the invenietis. Miserunt ergo: et ship; and you shall find. They iam non valebant illud trahere cast therefore: and now they prae multitudine piscium. were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.

6. *On the right side of the ship.* Jesus directed them to the particular spot (which John, who was present, is careful to record), in order that they might not look upon the draught as a mere accident. Why they so readily obeyed one unknown to them, we cannot say with certainty. Perhaps the minds of some of them reverted to another occasion, in many respects similar to this (Luke v. 4‐10), when, after a night of fruitless toil, their Master, then with them in His mortal flesh, blessed their labours with a miraculous draught of fish in the morning. And though they did not now _know_ it was He that spoke to them, yet we cannot help thinking, especially when we remember how they were now come to Galilee in expectation of His appearance to them, that some of them must have _suspected_ that perhaps it was He who now called to them from the shore.

*To draw it*, _i.e._, into the boat. In verse 11 we are told that they “drew” it to land. It will be noticed that a different word is used in verse 8 of dragging the net after the boat.

7. Dixit ergo discipulus ille 7. That disciple therefore quem diligebat Iesus, Petro: whom Jesus loved, said to Dominus est. Simon Petrus cum Peter: It is the Lord. Simon audisset quia Dominus est, Peter, when he heard that it tunica succinxit se (erat enim was the Lord, girt his coat nudus) et misit se in mare. about him (for he was naked) and cast himself into the sea.

7. The beloved disciple infers from the miraculous draught that it is the Lord who stands upon the shore. *Simon Peter* (add “therefore,” οὖν) *when he heard that it was the Lord, girt his coat about him (for he was naked)*. The virgin disciple was the first to recognise his master, but Peter as usual was the leader in action. The “coat” was some garment usually _worn over another_ (ἐπενδύτην), perhaps an outer and looser tunic, which Peter had laid aside while fishing. As he was about to swim to his Master, and foresaw that his garments should necessarily be wet, he probably thought it decorous to have some other garment on him besides the tight‐fitting inner tunic. We suppose therefore that he was already clothed in the inner tunic. He girded himself in order that the garment might not impede him when swimming. The Greek word, which, in our Version, is rendered “naked,” is used not only of those who are entirely naked, but also of those who are sparingly clad. See Matt. xxv. 36; Acts xix. 16; 1 Kings xix. 24.

8. Alii autem discipuli 8. But the other disciples navigio venerunt (non enim came in the ship (for they longe erant a terra, sed quasi were not far from the land, cubitis ducentis), trahentes but as it were two hundred rete piscium. cubits) dragging the net with fishes.

8. *In the ship.* Rather: “in the boat” (τῷ πλοιαρίω). It may be that the reference is to a small boat that was attached to the larger vessel (τὸ πλοῖον) mentioned in verse 3. As the cubit was eighteen inches, the distance of the boat from the shore was 100 yards.

9. Ut ergo descenderunt in 9. As soon then as they came terram, viderunt prunas to land, they saw hot coals positas, et piscem lying, and a fish laid superpositum, et panem. thereon, and bread.

9. *They saw hot coals lying.* In the circumstances, the natural view is that the fire, as well as the fish and bread, was provided miraculously. Doubtless one of Christ’s objects in preparing this repast was to prove to His disciples that He could and would provide for the temporal as well as the spiritual necessities of His followers.

10. Dicit eis Iesus: Afferte 10. Jesus saith to them: Bring de piscibus, quos prendidistis hither of the fishes which you nunc. have now caught.

10. There are various views as to why He said this. Some say because He wished them to cook some of the fish, as what was on the fire was not enough for all. But, especially on account of the next verse, we believe Christ’s object was to give the disciples an occasion of seeing at once the size and number of the fishes, that so they might be the more impressed with the greatness of the miracle.

11. Ascendit Simon Petrus, et 11. Simon Peter went up, and traxit rete in terrain, plenum drew the net to land, full of magnis piscibus centum great fishes, one hundred quinquaginta tribus. Et cum fifty‐three. And although tanti essent, non est scissum there were so many, the net rete. was not broken.

11. *Simon Peter went up.* Peter went _aboard_, and drew the net to land. The fact that the net was not broken is evidently mentioned as something extraordinary. If this great draught was intended, as doubtless it was (see Matthew iv. 19; Luke v. 10: “From henceforth thou shalt catch men”), to symbolize the success which was to attend the labours of the Apostles in drawing men into the Church, we may note how fitting it was that Peter led the way in going to fish (verse 3), and landed the net, and brought the fish to his Master on this occasion. For it was he who first preached to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, converting about three thousand (Acts ii. 14‐41), and he, too, who opened the Church to the Gentiles (Acts x. 1‐48).

12. Dicit eis Iesus: Venite, 12. Jesus saith to them: Come, prendete. Et nemo audebat and dine. And none of them who discumbentium interrogare eum: were at meat, durst ask him: Tu quis es? scientes quia Who art thou? knowing that it Dominus est. was the Lord.

12. *Come, and dine* (ἀριστήσατε). The _primary_ meaning of the Greek word used, has reference to breakfast, and since it was early morning (verse 4), that is the meaning here.

*And none of them that were at meat durst ask him.* The best supported Greek reading has: “And none _of the disciples_ durst ask him.” The words that follow in this verse seem to imply that Christ’s appearance on this occasion was not that which was familiar to the disciples; yet that because of the miracles they were convinced that it was He. Some, as Kuinoel, think that ἐτόλμα (durst) is redundant.

13. Et venit Iesus, et accipit 13. And Jesus cometh and panem, et dat eis, et piscem taketh bread, and giveth them, similiter. and fish in like manner.

13. Their risen Master is not merely their host, but He condescends also to be their servant. Whether He Himself ate with them, as on another occasion (Luke xxiv. 43), we are not told.

*And taketh bread* (τὸν ἄρτον). The article points back to the bread mentioned in verse 9, which Christ Himself had provided. So, too, in the case of the fish (τὸ ὀψάριον).

14. Hoc iam tertio 14. This is now the third time manifestatus est Iesus that Jesus was manifested to discipulis suis, cum his disciples, after he was resurrexisset a mortuis. risen from the dead.

14. *This is now the third time*, &c. It was not His third appearance absolutely, for our Evangelist himself has already recorded three before this: that to Magdalen (xx. 14‐18), that to the ten Apostles on Easter Sunday (xx. 19‐23), and that to the eleven on Low Sunday (xx. 26). The meaning, then, appears to be, that this was the third appearance to any _considerable number_ of the disciples.

Some, as Patrizzi, suppose this appearance at the sea of Galilee to have been absolutely the seventh, after the resurrection, mentioned in the Gospels. Others make it the eighth, and suppose the one upon the mountain of Galilee (Matt. xxviii. 16) to have been the seventh. We rather incline to the view that it was the seventh; and, perhaps, at this seventh appearance Jesus named to the Apostles the mountain on which His eighth appearance would take place (Matt. xxviii. 16). For the other appearances of the Lord during the forty days of His risen life, see Mark xvi. 14‐20; Acts i. 4‐9; 1 Cor. xv. 5‐7.

15. Cum ergo prandissent, 15. When therefore they had dicit Simoni Petro Iesus: dined, Jesus saith to Simon Simon Ioannis, diligis me plus Peter: Simon _son_ of John, his? Dicit ei: Etiam Domine, lovest thou me more than tu scis quia amote. Dicit ei: these? He saith to him: Yea, Pasce agnos meos. Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.

15. *When, therefore.* When they had breakfasted, and were, therefore, free from distractions, so that they could attend to what was said, Jesus addressed Peter.

*Simon, son of John* (see above on i. 42). It was certainly not without a reason that Jesus here addressed Peter by his former name of Simon. Though the Apostle’s name had been already changed into Peter (Mark iii. 10), still he had not yet begun to be what that new name indicated, the _rock_ or foundation of the Church, its Pope and supreme head on earth. Our Lord was now about to confer that dignity upon him, and the mention of his former name, now that he was accustomed to the name of Peter, was calculated to remind him of the change of name, and still more of the _promised_ authority and pre‐eminence (Matt. xvi. 17, 19), which that change implied.

*More than these.* It is supremely ridiculous to suppose, as some Protestants have done, that Christ merely meant to ask, if Peter loved Him more than he loved _these fish_. Surely that would be but a poor proof of his love for his Master! It is equally improbable, though not quite so absurd, to suppose that Christ meant: Lovest thou Me more than thou lovest these companions of thine? For Peter knew and believed Jesus to be God (Matt. xvi. 16), had declared before now his readiness to die with Him (Luke xxii. 33), and on this very morning had proved the intensity of his love for his Master by leaping from the boat and quitting the Apostles to come to Him. Surely, then, it is wholly improbable that Christ merely meant to ask if Peter loved Him more than he loved his fellow‐Apostles.

The meaning, then, plainly is: lovest thou Me more than these love Me? Peter replies, humbly avoiding any comparison between his own love and that of his companions, and appealing to Jesus, whom he knew to be the Searcher of Hearts, in confirmation of the love that he avows: *Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee*. It is worthy of note that the word which Peter uses to express his love, is not that which Christ had just used in His question. Christ had asked: Lovest thou (ἀγαπᾷς) Me? Peter replies: Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I love (φιλῶ) Thee. Many commentators think the distinction is not to be pressed, but we cannot believe that Peter changed the word without a reason, especially as he does so again in his second reply (verse 16), and Christ, in His third question, adopts the word that Peter insists upon using. Whatever the distinction be, it is lost in our English version; but the reader will see that an effort is made to preserve it in the Vulgate, which in each case renders ἀγαπάω, by “diligo,” and φιλέω by “amo.” We think that Trench properly appreciates the difference between the two words. “On occasion,” he says, “of that threefold Lovest thou Me,” which the risen Lord addresses to Peter, He asks him first, ἀγαπᾷ με. At that moment, when all the pulses in the heart of the now penitent Apostle are beating with an earnest affection towards his Lord, this word on that Lord’s lips sounds too cold; not sufficiently expressing the warmth of his personal affection toward Him. Besides the question itself, which grieves and hurts Peter (verse 17), there is an additional pang in the form which the question takes, sounding as though it were intended to put him at a comparative distance from his Lord, and to keep him there; or at least as not permitting him to approach so near to Him as he fain would. He, therefore, in his answer substitutes for it the word of a more _personal_ love, φιλῶ σε (verse 15). When Christ repeats the question in the same words as at the first, Peter in his reply again substitutes his φιλῶ for the ἀγαπᾷς of his Lord (verse 16). And now at length he has conquered; for when for the third time his Master puts the question to him, He does it with the word which Peter feels will alone express all that is in his heart, and instead of the twice‐repeated ἀγαπαᾷς, His word is φιλεῖς, now (verse 17). (Trench, _Syn. of the New Testament_, pp. 48, 49).(141)

16. Dicit ei iterum: Simon 16. He saith to him again: Ioannis, diligis me? Ait illi: Simon _son_ of John, lovest Etiam, Domine, tu scis quia thou me? He saith to him: Yea amo te. Dicit ei: Pasce agnos Lord, thou knowest that I love meos. thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.

16. In the second question our Lord drops the comparison between Peter’s love and that of the other Apostles, and, according to the Greek text, uses different words in giving Peter his commission. Before, it was: _Feed_ My _lambs_ (Βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου): now it is: _Tend_ (or rule) My _sheep_ (ποίμανε τὰ πρόβατά μου). Among Uncial MSS., B and C read προβάτια (little sheep) here. But A, D, X, and nearly all others read πρόβατά; and while the Vulg. (agnos) favours the former, the Vetus Itala (oves) supports the latter. It is difficult, then, to decide between the two readings.

Whether Christ intended to signify one portion of His Church by the lambs, the remaining portion by the sheep, or merely used two different terms to indicate, in each case, _the whole flock_, matters little as to the sense of the passage; for in either case the whole flock of Christ is committed to Peter’s care.

17. Dicit ei tertio: Simon 17. He said to him the third Ioannis, amas me? Contristatus time: Simon son of John, est Petrus, quia dixit ei lovest thou me? Peter was tertio, Amas me? et dixit ei: grieved, because he had said Domine, tu omnia nosti: tu to him the third time, Lovest scis quia amo te. Dixit ei: thou me? And he said to him: Pasce oves meas. Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

17. Again, a third time, Jesus puts the question, but now changing His word to the stronger word of Peter’s choice. This threefold repetition of the question, provoking the threefold confession of Peter’s love, was probably intended, not only to make amends for Peter’s threefold denial, but also to indicate the solemn importance of the trust that was now committed to him. Peter was grieved at the repetition of the question, because it seemed as if his Lord suspected the sincerity of his love, or, perhaps, he feared that the repeated questioning foreboded another fall.

*He said to him: Feed my sheep.* Here, too, as in the preceding verse it is doubtful whether “little sheep” or “sheep” is the true reading. In favour of the former we have here not only B and C but also A. On the other hand, the Vulgate in this verse (oves) supports the latter. The diminutive, as a term of endearment, would not be out of place in this verse or the preceding.

The Vatican Council has interpreted this passage, verses 15‐17, of the bestowal of the primacy on Peter—a primacy not merely of honour, but also of jurisdiction—so that no Catholic is free to interpret the passage in any sense other than this. “Docemus itaque et declaramus, Juxta Evangelii testimonia primatum _jurisdictionis_ in _universam_ Dei Ecclesiam _immediate_ et directe beato Petro Apostolo promissum atque collatum a Christo Domino fuisse.... Atque uni Simoni Petro contulit Jesus post suam resurrectionem summi pastoris et rectoris jurisdictionem in totum suum ovile, dicendo: Pasce agnos meos: Pasce oves meas” (_Decr. Vat._, cap. 1, _De Apost. Prim. Instit._) And, indeed, the passage cannot reasonably be interpreted in any other sense. For Peter alone is addressed, and his love for his master singled out for comparison with that of his companions, to show that to him individually, and not to them with him, the commission here given was entrusted.

What that commission was the Vatican Council tells us in the passage already quoted, and the words of Christ prove. Peter was appointed to feed the _whole flock_ of Christ, to rule it as a shepherd rules his sheep. Now, the shepherd not merely feeds his sheep, but he directs and controls them, tends them, guards them from harm (see above on x. 1), and in various other ways promotes their good. “Wherefore the primacy conferred upon Peter in this metaphor is an _ordinary_(142), _immediate_(143), _universal_, _supreme_, power to _teach_ men the doctrine of Christ, to furnish them with the _pastures_ of salvation, through the Sacraments, evangelical counsels, &c.; to _make laws_ by which the sheep may be directed to the eternal pastures; to _appoint subordinate pastors_; to _secure that the laws be observed_; to _punish_ disobedient sheep, and to _bring back erring sheep_ to the fold. It is, therefore, the fullest power of _Episcopal jurisdiction_. Wherefore St. Peter himself (1 Peter ii. 25) calls Christ ‘the _shepherd_ and bishop of souls’ ” (Corl.).

This wonderful power, then, which as visible head of the Church, and in behalf of its invisible Head Jesus Christ, Peter was to exercise through himself and his successors over all the flock of Christ, whether bishops, priests, or people, was given to him on the shore of the sea of Galilee, on the present occasion.

18. Amen, amen dico tibi: cum 18. Amen, amen, I say to thee: esses iunior, cingebas te, et when thou wast younger, thou ambulabas ubi volebas: cum didst gird thyself, and didst autem senueris, extendes manus walk where thou wouldst. But tuas, et alius te cinget, et when thou shalt be old, thou ducet quo tu non vis. shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not.

18. We are told by St. John in the following verse that, in the words recorded in this, Christ signified by _what kind_ (ποὶῳ) of death Peter should glorify God. Why the Lord chose this particular time, immediately after he had appointed Peter supreme head of the Church, to foretell for the Apostle a martyr’s death by crucifixion, we cannot say with certainty. Probably it was to console Peter, now grieved by the thrice‐repeated question, and to assure him that, though he had denied his Lord and had just now been closely questioned as to his love, yet his final perseverance was secure.

*When thou wast younger*, opposed here to: “When thou shalt be old,” probably includes Peter’s life up to the time to which the prediction refers. It is as if Christ had said: Whilst thou _art_ young; for as Kuinoel on this verse says: “Praeterita de re praesente in oraculis adhibentur.” At all events, Peter was still young in the sense of the word here, for we know from verse 7 that on this very morning he had girded himself. *Thou didst gird thyself*, &c. The meaning is: Throughout your life, as on this morning before you swam to Me, you gird yourself when you will to do what you will, and go where you will; but the day shall come when your hands shall no longer be free to gird yourself, but you shall stretch them forth to have them bound to the transverse beam of a cross,(144) and another shall gird you (with a cloth round your loins), and shall lead you away to death—to death, from which human nature _naturally_ recoils.

19. Hoc autem dixit, 19. And this he said, significans qua morte signifying by what death he clarificaturus esset Deum. Et should glorify God. And when cum hoc dixisset, dicit ei: he had said this, he saith to Sequere me. him: Follow me.

19. *And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God.* When St. John wrote this, St. Peter’s death had thrown light on Christ’s words, if, indeed, our Evangelist did not understand their meaning at the time they were spoken. That Peter understood it, we may rest assured. According to tradition, Peter, at his own request, was crucified with his head downwards, declining, in his humility, to be crucified like his Lord.

*Follow me.* Most of the fathers take these words to mean, not so much that Peter was now to walk after Jesus, as that he was to follow Him through the death of the cross to the glory of the Father. Compare xiii. 36, 37.

20. Conversus Petrus vidit 20. Peter turning about, saw illum discipulum, quem that disciple whom Jesus loved diligebat Iesus, sequentem, following, who also leaned on qui et recubuit in coena super his breast at supper, and pectus eius, et dixit: Domine said: Lord, who is he that quis est qui tradet te? shall betray thee?

20. *Peter turning about, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved following.* From these words it would appear that Christ had begun to move away and Peter to follow, as if to symbolize the higher sense in which Peter was one day to tread in His footsteps.

*Who also leaned.* Rather, “who also leaned back” (ἀνέπεσεν). The reference is to the incident recorded in xiii. 25, not to the position John occupied at table.

21. Hunc ergo cum vidisset 21. Him therefore when Peter Petrus, dixit Iesu: Domine hic had seen, he saith to Jesus: autem quid? Lord, and what _shall_ this man _do_?

21. Peter, having learned what his own end was to be, was now anxious to know the end that awaited our Evangelist, who was so dear to Jesus and to himself. He therefore asked: “And what shall this man do?” or rather as the Greek has it; “And this man, what?” that is to say, what end awaits him?

22. Dicit ei Iesus: Sic eum 22. Jesus saith to him: So I volo manere donec veniam, quid will have him to remain till I ad te? tu me sequere. come, what is it to thee? follow thou me.

22. *So I will*, &c. “So” translates the Vulgate “sic,” which is a misprint for _si_ (ἐαν). Hence the true reading is: If I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? Follow _thou_ Me. Our Lord here reproves Peter’s curiosity and bids him see to himself, nor wish to know more than his Master was pleased to communicate.

*Follow thou me.* “Thou” is emphatic. Peter’s question regarding the end that awaited John; and our Lord’s reply, contrasting as it does the two Apostles (“If I will have _him_” ... Follow _thou_), justifies us in taking the words “Follow thou me” in reference to Peter’s death by crucifixion.

23. Exiit ergo sermo iste 23. This saying therefore went inter fratres quia discipulus abroad among the brethren, ille non moritur. Et non dixit that that disciple should not ei Iesus: Non moritur: sed: die. And Jesus did not say to Sic eum volo manere donec him: He should not die; but, veniam, quid ad te? So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee?

23. Our Evangelist tells us here what was _not_ the meaning of the Lord’s words; what their meaning was, he does not say. He merely wished to show that the words afforded no ground for the belief which prevailed among the faithful, and which his own very advanced age at the time when this Gospel was written tended to confirm, that he was not to die at all, or at least not until the day of judgment. Those who deny the authenticity of this last chapter appeal triumphantly to this verse. It was written, they say, after St. John died, when it become necessary to explain away the meaning that had been put upon our Lord’s words. But, from what we have said already, the reader will have seen that there is not the slightest reason why this verse may not have been written by St. John himself.

There is a difference of opinion as to what our Lord meant by the words: “If I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee?” Some have taken the meaning to be: If I will have him to remain till I come for him in a _natural_ death, what is it to thee? But this is not probable; Christ comes for the martyr just as much as for him who dies a natural death.

Others thus: If I will have him to remain till My coming at the destruction of Jerusalem, what is it to thee?

But it is most likely that Christ’s coming when spoken of absolutely, as here, refers to His coming at the day of judgment. Hence the most probable view seems to be: _If I were_ to will him to remain living even till the day of judgment, what were that to thee? Thus our Lord makes a purely hypothetical case, and conveys no information to Peter, thereby reproving still more his curiosity.

24. Hic est discipulus ille 24. This is that disciple who qui testimonium perhibet de giveth testimony of these his, et scripsit haec: et things, and hath written these scimus quia verum est things: and we know that his testimonium eius. testimony is true. 25. Sunt autem et alia multa 25. But there are also many quae fecit Iesus: quae si other things which Jesus did: scribantur per singula, nec which if they were written ipsum arbitror mundum capere every one, the world itself, I posse eos, qui scribendi sunt, think, would not be able to libros. contain the books that should be written.

24, 25. The authenticity of these verses has been questioned more than that of the rest of the chapter, both because it is not in St. John’s manner to speak of himself in the plural number (as here in verse 24: “_we_ know”), and because of the hyperbole in verse 25. For these reasons, some Catholic writers have denied their authenticity, though no Catholic, as far as we are aware, has denied their _inspiration_. Those Catholics who deny their authenticity, hold that they were probably written by the bishops of Asia Minor, at whose request St. John wrote the Gospel. See Introd. iii., note. This view is not without some probability. Still, we prefer the common opinion of Catholic commentators, that the verses were written by St. John himself; for without them the conclusion of the Gospel would be extremely abrupt.

As to the reasons for the opposite view, though we admit that St. John does not usually employ the first person plural, still it is not unnatural that in closing his Gospel he should wish to confirm his own testimony by an appeal to the consenting voice of his contemporaries. Besides, he does use the same form of expression in i. 14: “And we saw his glory.” See also 1 Ep. i. 3. As to the argument drawn from the alleged extravagance of the hyperbole in verse 25, it has no weight. For, there is no reason why St. John may not have used this striking hyperbole to signify the inexhaustible treasury of instruction contained in our Divine Lord’s life and works, and to suggest the deep truth that a full account (“every one”) of Christ’s human life would be practically infinite. “Hunc loquendi modum,” says St. Aug. on this passage, “Graeco nomine hyperbolem vocant: qui modus, sicut hoc loco, ita in nonnullis aliis divinis Literis invenitur ... et multa hujusmodi, sicut _alii tropi_, Scripturis S. non desunt.”

FOOTNOTES

1 _Vie de Jesus_, ed. xiii., pp. 10, 11.

2 See Lamy, vol. ii., pp. 246‐270; Cornely, Introd. iii., pp. 216‐260.

3 See, _e.g._, Cornely, iii., pp. 222, 223.

4 Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._, iii. 39.

5 St. Ephrem († 373) wrote a Commentary, in Syriac, on the
_Diatessaron_, and this Commentary is still extant in an Armenian
translation, which is probably as old as the fifth century.

6 It is important to note this, because the Rationalist arguments
against the Johannine authorship prove nothing against St. John that
they do not prove also against all his contemporaries.

7 See notes on chronology of the Acts.

8 St. Jerome, referring to this, writes: “Refert Tertullianus quod
Romae missus in ferventis olei dolium purior et vegetior exierit
quam intraverit.” (_Advers. Jovin_, i. 26.)

9 “Joannes quum esset in Asia, et jam tunc haereticorum semina
pullularent Cerinthi et Ebionis et ceterorum qui negant Christum in
carne venisse ... coactus est ab omnibus tunc pene Asiae Episcopis
et multarum ecclesiarum legationibus de divinitate Salvatoris altius
scribere.”—_Prol. in Matthew._

10 Iren., _Haer._ iii. 1: “Joannes volens per evangelii annunciationem
auferre, eum qui a Cerintho inseminatus erat hominibus errorem et
multo prius ab his qui dicuntur Nicolaitae ... sic inchoavit
evangelium.”

11 “Joannes discipulus Domini ... et ipse edidit evangelium Ephesi
Asiae commorans.”—_Haer._ iii. 1.

12 Corluy, indeed, supposes the heads of doctrine to be reported in
precisely the exact words of our Lord: “Eas propositiones quae quasi
capita doctrinae apparent ... ad verbum referri admittendum
putamus,” are his words. But the fact that the words of institution
of the Blessed Eucharist are _differently_ reported by the Synoptic
Evangelists seems to us to refute this view.

13 “Joannes novissime omnium scripsit evangelium, rogatus ab Asiae
episcopis, adversus Cerinthum aliosque haereticos et maxime tunc
Ebionitarum dogma consurgens, qui asserunt Christum ante Mariam non
fuisse.”—_Jer. de Vir. Illust._, 9.

14 The words of Irenæus are:—“Et Cerinthus autem quidam in Asia, non a
primo Deo factum esse mundum docuit, sed a Virtute quadam valde
separata, et distante ab ea principalitate, quae est super universa,
et ignorante eum, qui est super omnia, Deum. Jesum autem subjecit
non ex Virgine natum (impossibile enim hoc ei visum est); fuisse
autem Joseph et Mariae filium similiter ut reliqui omnes homines....
Et post baptismum descendisse in eum ab ea principalitate quae est
super omnia (ἐκ τῆς ὑπὲρ τὰ ὄλα αὐθεντίας) Christum figura columbae,
et tunc annuntiasse incognitum Patrem, et virtutes perfecisse, in
fine autem revolasse iterum Christum de Jesu, et Jesum passum esse
et resurrexisse, Christum autem impassibilem perseverasse,
existentem spiritalem.”—Iren., _Adv. Haer._, i. xxvi.

15 “_Ebionaei_ autem consentiunt quidem mundum ab eo, qui revera Deus
est, factum esse; quae autem ad Christum pertinent, consimiliter
Cerintho fabulantur. Moribus Judaicis utuntur secundum legem;
quapropter et Christum Dei vocatum esse Jesum, quum nemo ex reliquis
observaret legem. Etenim si quis alius fecisset quae in lege
praescripta sunt, ille evasisset Christus. Posse autem etiam ipsos,
si similiter egerint, Christos evadere; etenim illum quoque hominem
aeque ac reliquos fuisse dicunt.”—_Philosophumena_, vii. 16, 3342
(Migne).

16 Referring to this sublime prologue, St. Augustine says: “Ceteri tres
evangelistae tanquam cum homine Domino in terra ambulant, et de
divinitate ejus pauca dixerunt, istum autem quasi piguerit in terra
ambulare, sicut in ipso exordio sui sermonis intonuit, erexit se non
solum super terram et super omnem ambitum aeris et coeli, sed super
omnem etiam exercitum angelorum, omnemque constitutionem
invisibilium potestatum; et pervenit ad eum per quem facta sunt
omnia, dicendo: ‘In principio erat verbum.’ Huic _tantae sublimitati
principii_ etiam caetera congrua praedicavit,” etc.—Tract 36 on St.
John.

17 Compare also 1 John i. 1, where our Vulgate should have translated
by “erat” instead of “fuit.”

18 According to many, Heb. iv. 12 affords another instance in the New
Testament.

19 “Huic nomini seligendo occasionem forte dederunt tunc jam grassantes
doctrinae Gnosticorum, qui ita post Philonem vocabant ens aliquod
sublimius quod dicebant Jesu fuisse unitum. Sic etiam nomina ἀρχή,
ζωή, χάρις, ἀλήθεια, μονογενής, a Gnosticis tribuuntur aeonibus
suis, quae omnia Joannes in suo prologo sensu genuino
exponit.”—Corl., _Comm. in S. Joan._, Quaer. 3, p. 26.

20 Sometimes (with πρός) the import of the accusative is apparently
lost, πρός signifying _with_, particularly in connection with names
of persons (John i. 1); but here πρός indicates (ideal)
_annexation_, implying rather the active notion of intercourse than
a mere passive idea.—Winer, Gr. _Gram. N. T._, 8th Eng. ed., p. 504,
h. and note 4.

21 “The omission of the article before the predicate, when the
predicate stands before the copula is the usage of the New
Testament.”—Alford, on this verse.

22 See Patrizzi, iii. Diss. viii. 21.

23 Patriz.

24 The R. V. has “apprehended it not,” with marginal alternative:
“overcame it not.”

25 “Pluralis adhibetur ratione habita utrusque parentis.”—Beel, _Gr.
Gram._ § 273, note.

26 St. Thomas seems to prefer St. Augustine’s peculiar view, that the
woman is here meant by “caro.” The other opinion given above is
given by him only in the second place as an alternative.

27 Compare our expression: he acted _like_ a man.

28 Verba “a Patre” aeque jungi possunt nomini sive “unigeniti,” sive
“gloriam.” Si primum, sensus erit unigeniti, qui est ex Patre, neque
enim Verbum γεννάσθαι, quod continetur in μονογενοῦς constructum
reperitur cum praepositione παρά.—Patriz.

29 Patrizzi, following Kuinoel, contends that ἐμπρόσθεν (before) is
never used of priority in dignity; but see Alford, who cites Gen.
xlviii. 20, as well as Plato and Demosthenes, for this meaning.

30 Thus far, the prologue of our Gospel, of which Franzelin truly
says:—“Singula doctrinae capita de J. Christo vero Deo, Deique Filio
in unum quodamodo collecta verticem conspiciuntur. Hoc enim loco is
qui in tempore caro factus est, docetur esse Deus, Deus aeternus,
Deus creator universi, Deus auctor gratiae et ordinis
supernaturalis, Deus cui supremus cultus debetur.”—_De Verbo
Incarn._, Th. 8.

31 Simon, vel Symeon (Act xv. 14 sine var. lect. in Gr. codd., 2 Pet.
i. 1, א, A, K, L, P, &c.) שׂמעון (exauditio, Gen. xxix. 33). “Nomen
Patris aut Jonas, Ἰωνᾶ (Matt. xvi. 17), aut Ἰωάνες vel Ἰωάννες (Joan
xxi. 15) legitur; Joan i. 43 codd. graeci alii Ἰωνᾶ alii Ἰωάνου vel
Ἰωάννου; unde prius nomen non essi nisi alterius corruptionem nec
quidquam cum nomine prophetae Jonae habere commune elucet.”—Corn.
iii. § 212, note 1.

32 _Publ. Life of our Lord_, vol. i., p. 185.

33 Consult also, as almost exactly the same, 2 Kings xvi. 10; Josue
xxii. 24; Matthew viii. 29; Matthew xxvii. 29; Mark i. 2.

34 See M’Carthy, _Gospels of the Sundays_, p. 72.

35 Nisan, the first month of the sacred year of the Jews, corresponded
to the latter half of March and the first half of April.

36 “Additus ibi voci διδάσκαλος articulus Nicodemum exhibet tanquam ex
Israelis doctoribus _excellentibus unum_.”—Beel., _Gr. Gram._, § 17,
4, adnot 3.

37 Smith’s _Dictionary of the Bible_, 2nd edition, 1893.

38 Trench, _Studies in the Gospels_, p. 84.

39 The name Sichar is derived by some from _shikkor_ (שׂכר), a
drunkard; by others _sheqquer_ (שׂקר), a liar; the city of liars,
perhaps of _false_ worship.

40 “Venit mulier ad puteum et fontem quem non speravit invenit.”—St.
Aug.

41 Massillon, in a beautiful Lenten Sermon on this subject, says:
“Nouvelle artifice, dont elle s’avise pour détourner la question de
ses mœurs, qui lui déplait, et qui l’embarasse, elle se jette
habiliment sur une question de doctrine.”

42 Compare Acts xvii. 23, where the true reading is ὃ οὖν, agreeing
with the Vulgate.

43 Compare the saying, common in parts of Ireland: “It is long till
Hallow‐day.”

44 Our Lord was probably baptized by John between the middle of October
and the 25th December: “Quae quum ita sint, dies baptismi fuerit
oportet inter medium Octobrem interque viii. Kal., Januar,”
Patrizzi, _Diss._ xlvii., c. i. 11.

45 It is not certain which is the correct reading, whether ἑορτὴ or ἡ
ἑορτὴ (a feast, or _the_ feast). Nearly all the critics are against
reading the article. So Lachmann, Tisch, Westc., and Hort; and, so
too, the Protestant Revised Version. Still, there are a great many
ancient authorities, among them the Codex א (Sinait.) in favour of
reading the article. But even if the reading were certain, it would
still be doubtful what feast is meant.

46 The passage is regarded as spurious by Tisch., Tregell., Westc., and
Hort, and by the Rev. Vers.

47 “δίωκειν haud raro est verbum forense, atque significat
accusare.”—Kuin.

48 “Unde secundum Augustinum, demonstrare Patrem Filio, nihil aliud est
quam Patrem generare Filium. Et Filium videre quae Pater facit,
nihil aliud est quam Filium esse et naturam a Patre recipere.”—St.
Thom. on verse 20.

49 “Est argumentum ab humano modo sumptum, respectu hominum illorum,
qui se amant, hi enim mutuo sibi omnia communicant, nihil sibi
occultant, et cum revera Pater summe diligat Filium, utitur hoc
argumento ut signo, et probatione propter nos, non autem quod causa
sit cur omnia demonstret,”—Tolet. For other explanations, Corl.,
page 118, may be consulted.

50 Mald. thinks that the principal reference in verses 21 and 25 is to
the _general_ resurrection.

51 “Deus eam (potestatem judiciariam) communicare noluit nec congrue
potuit puro homini, sed Christo soli, qui Deus est et homo. Ipse
enim ut Deus, summam habet auctoritatem judicandi; ut homo vero
habet facultatem judicium hoc visibiliter coram hominibus salvandis
et damnandis exercendi.”—A Lap.

52 “Nam ipse, qua Deus, idem numero habet judicium, eandem numero
mentem et voluntatem divinam quam habet Pater; qua homo vero, totus
regitur a deitate et verbo inhabitante, ut aliud judicare et velle
nequeat quam id quod ejus deitas, quasi praeses, judicat et vult.”—A
Lap.

53 The inspiration of the prophets, though usually attributed to the
Holy Ghost, is, like every work that is not terminated in God
Himself, common to the three divine Persons, and is here referred to
the Father, since Christ is addressing the Jews, who knew nothing of
the Holy Ghost, and would not value His testimony.

54 From Juvenal we learn that in Rome the cophinus was carried about
with them by the Jews: “Judaeis Quorum cophinus foenumque
supellex.”—_Sat._ iii. 14.

55 Calvin retained Baptism, Eucharist, and Holy Orders; Zwingli,
Baptism, Eucharist, and Matrimony; Luther, in the Confession of
Augsburg, Baptism, Eucharist, and Penance; and the Anglican Church,
in the 25th of the Thirty‐nine Articles, Baptism and the Eucharist.

56 Though it is not _defined_ that there is reference to the Blessed
Eucharist in any part of the 6th chapter of St. John, still, since
the Council of Trent understood the passage (52‐59) in this sense
(Sess. xiii., cap. 2), as did nearly all the fathers who commented
on the chapter, it would be rash for a Catholic to deny that the
Blessed Eucharist is promised in the passage 52‐59.

57 “De hac significatione inter philologos nulla est dubitatio, confer
Psal. xxvi. (_Hebr._ 27) 2; Job xix. 22; Mich. iii. 3.”—Franz., _De
Euch._, Thes. iii., p. 22, note.

58 Though Franz. holds that the discourse from verse 35‐47 regards
_faith_ in Christ, yet he holds that the Blessed Eucharist is
referred to in verse 27.—_De Euch. Thes._, iii., p. 15.

59 “Noli te cogitare invitum trahi; trahitur animus et amore ... Ramum
viridem ostendis ovi, et trahis illam. Nuces puero demonstrantur et
trahitur.”—St. August.

60 See, _e.g._, above iii. 6: What is born of the spirit is spirit;
_i.e._, spiritual.

61 Even Renan, who had held this view in the _Vie de Jesus_ abandoned
it in a later work: _Les Evangiles_, Appendix, page 542.

62 That James the brother of the Lord was an Apostle, is proved from
Gal. i. 19. See also Acts ix. 27, 28. Now Jude, the author of the
short Epistle which bears his name, who is commonly referred to as
identical with Jude the Apostle, calls himself a brother of James
(only James the Less, the brother of the Lord, and well‐known bishop
of Jerusalem can be meant). Jude 1; hence, two at least, of the
brothers of the Lord mentioned by Matthew (xiii. 55), Mark (vi. 3),
were Apostles: and since the Apostle Simon is mentioned side by side
with them in the four lists of the Apostles, it is fairly concluded
that he was their brother Simon; hence three of these brethren of
the Lord were Apostles.

63 Evangelistaries are selections from the Gospels for the purpose of
liturgical reading.

64 “Relate ad stylum haec praesertim notantur; pro particala οὖν quam
amat Joannes, semper adhibetur δέ; deinde occurunt vocabula (vel
phrases), quibus Joannes nullibi utitur: ὄρθρον, πᾶς ὁ λαός, καθίσας
ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς, οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ φαρισαίοι, ἐπιμενεῖν,
ἀναμάρτητος, καταλείπεσθαι, κατακρίνειν, et πλήν.”—Corn., Introd.,
iii., p. 235, n. 3.

65 _e.g._, ix. 21‐28, ἡλικίαν ἕχειν; συντίθεσθαι; λοιδορείν.

66 “Rien dans le morceau ne fait disparate avec le style du quatrième
Evangile.”—Renan, _Vie de Jesus_, ed. 18, page 500.

67 _Theiner_, i., pp. 71‐77.

68 So the Protestant Revised Version, which in the margin gives as an
alternative: How is it that I even speak to you at all?

69 It is hardly necessary to remind the reader that the present of this
verb means to place, and hence the perfect means, I have placed
myself, or stand.

70 Besides the Pharisees believed that only the _good_ souls passed
into other bodies. See Josephus, _Ant._, viii. 1, 3; _B. Jud._, ii.
8, 14.

71 That προσκύνεω is often used of merely civil worship in the Old
Testament is not denied by anyone; and that it is so used in the New
Testament also, see Matt. xviii. 26, where it is far more probable
that προσεκύνει (“adorabat,” not “orabat,” as Vulg.) is the correct
reading.

72 “Significat enim haec phrasis primo securitatem, secundo fiduciam,
tertio libertatem conversandi ubilibet, suo munere fungendi, et
quaelibet negotia peragendi pro Christo et per Christum.”—A Lap.

73 “Patres omnes ... intelligunt de uno pastore _in terris existente_
qui _visibiliter_ pascat et regat.”—Suarez, _De Fide_, Tract. 1,
Disp. 9, Sect. 6, n. 3.

74 “Lectio Vulgatae ita foret exponenda: Pater _quod_ dedit mihi,
divinam naturam secum identicam, id _majus_ est rebus omnibus,
adeoque omnibus creaturis potentius; ideoque nemo potest oves rapere
de manu mea, sicut nec de manu Patris, nam _Ego et Pater unum
sumus_.... Ceterum si duo versiculi in Vulgata complexive sumuntur,
exprimunt quum Patris omnipotentiam tum Filii cum Patre
consubstantialitem; quae duo dogmata etiam in originali textu
habentur, licet alio modo. Ergo duae lectiones _dogmatice_
concordant substantialiter.”—Corl.

75 “Praesens adhibetur ad significandum id quod _jam jam_ eventurum
est, aut quod quis jam in eo est ut faciat.”—Beel., _G. G._, 41, 2,
a.

76 The bodies of the wicked also shall be raised on the last day, but,
as A Lap. says: “Quia resurgent ad tormenta Gehennae, hinc vita
eorum potius mors dicenda est, quam vita.”

77 The Perfect here has a Present signification. “Praesentis temporis
loco Perfectum adhibetur eatenus tantum quatenus verbo perfecti
temporis significatur actio quaepiam aut conditio, quae praeterito
tempore incepta nunc perdurat quaeque adeo sui initium tantum
praeterito tempore habeat.”—Beel., _Gr. Gram._, § 41, 4 a.

78 By its original institution, the office of High‐priest was to be
held for life; but we know from Josephus that the High‐priest was
frequently deposed by the Romans. “Praetor in Judaeam missus est
Valerius Gratus; qui Ananum Pontificatu privavit, et eum Ismaeli
Phabi filio tribuit, atque hunc non multo post abdicavit, et id
munus Eleazaro Anani Pontificis filio commisit. Uno autem anno post
sacerdotium huic ademtum Simoni Camithi filio tradidit; cumque is
dignitatem non ultra anni spatium tenuisset, Josephus, cui etiam
Caiphae nomen fuit, ei successit.”—Josephus, _Antiq._, xviii. 2, 2.

79 “Dubium non est, quin Matthaeus et Marcus, ut explicent quo modo
Judas ad traditionem pervenerit, narrationem hanc parenthetico modo
illis, quae de Pharisaeorum et sacerdotum consilio tradunt,
inseruerint.”—Corn., iii., p. 296, note n. So too Coleridge, _Life
of our Life_, vol. ii., p. 46: “The two earlier Evangelists give
their accounts of that supper out of its place, and in immediate
connection with the Passion of our Lord, for the obvious reason that
it was an incident of that supper, which finally determined Judas to
betray our Lord to His enemies, and thus to bring about His death.”

80 So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., West & Hort. The R. V. has: Suffer her to
keep it against the day of my burying, and in margin: Let her alone;
it was that she might keep it.

81 It is frequently mentioned as a proof of our Lord’s humility that He
condescended in this hour of triumph to ride upon an ass; and the
context in the prophecy of Zachary quoted above seems to favour this
view. Still there is good reason for supposing that the ass was
commonly used by nobles in the East (see, _e.g._, Judg. v. 10, x. 4;
3 Kings i. 33), and that for this reason, Christ may have used it in
the hour of His triumph.

82 See, _e.g._, John xviii. 28, where we are told that the Jews, on the
morning of the crucifixion, abstained from entering the hall of
Pilate, “that they might not be defiled, but that they might _eat
the pasch_.”

83 Matt. xxvi. 17‐20; Mark xiv. 12‐17; Luke xxii. 7‐14.

84 See Coleridge, _Passiontide_, Part ii., p. 33.

85 _Passiontide_, Part ii., pp. 40‐42.

86 Since the Jews removed all leaven from their houses on the 14th
Nisan, that day seems to have been called the first day of Azymes.
It was _during_ that day that the last supper was _prepared_, but it
was during the following _night_ (Exod. xii. 8), and therefore when
the next Jewish day had already commenced, that it was eaten.

87 The following are the passages from which the objections are
drawn:—John xiii. 1; xiii. 29; xviii. 28; xix. 14, 31.

88 See the able article, by Dr. Molloy, in _I. E. Record_, vol. ix.,
pp. 445‐464.

89 The reader may consult with profit _I. E. Record_, vol. x., pp.
110‐114.

90 “Adhuc coenabatur quum Dominus surrexit et pedes lavit discipulis
suis.”—St. Aug.

91 Anyone who desires fuller information on the rites of the Paschal
Supper will find it in Maclean’s account given by Dr. Walsh in the
note referred to above.

92 “Quam enim Romani togam aut pallium, id est summan vestem, Graeci,
ui ex Plutarcho discimus, το ἱμάτίον appellabant.”—Mald, _in loco_.

93 Matt. xxvi. 25: “And Judas that betrayed him, answering said: Is it
I, Rabbi? He saith to him: Thou hast said _it_,” presents
considerable difficulty, as Judas appears to be there distinctly
pointed out. Some have held that only the traitor himself heard
Christ’s reply; but it is difficult to see how some of the others
close to Jesus should not also hear it. Hence we prefer to hold that
these words, though recorded by St. Matt. before his account of the
institution of the Blessed Eucharist were in reality not spoken till
after the dipped bread had been given to the traitor.

94 Dr. Walsh, _Harmony of the Gospel Narratives_, pp. 137, 138.

95 It is read by Lachm., Tisch., Tregel., Westc., and Hort, and by the
Revised Version as well as the Vulgate.

96 The quantity of the third syllable in this word varies. Strictly it
ought to be long, the word being derived from the Greek παράκλητος;
but in ecclesiastical Latin it is generally short, and spelled with
_i_ instead of _e_, as in the _Veni Creator_: Qui diceris
Paraclitus.

97 “Ex dictis colligitur duo ad missionem proprie dictam concurrere,
alterum, sempiternam processionem personae, quae mittitur; alterum,
externam aliquam efficientiam, sive sub sensus incidat, ut cum,
homine suscepto. Verbum hominibus apparuit, aut sub columbae specie
Spiritus Sanctus, sive interius sit nec aspectabile quod agitur, ut
cum Spiritus S. ad fidelium quemque demittitur.”—Perrone, _De
Trin._, cap. vi., Scholion 4, note 3.

98 See also A Lap. _in loco_. Some who hold that this was spoken _on
the way_ to Gethsemane, think that the mention of the vine was
suggested by the sight of a vine as Christ and the Apostles passed
along.

99 See Less. of Thir. Noct. Comm. Marty. (Temp. Pasch.)

100 “Non eo modo illi in ipso, sicut ipse in illis. Utrumque autem
prodest, non ipsi, sed illis. Ita quippe in vite sunt palmites, ut
viti non conferant, sed inde accipiant unde vivant, ita vero vitis
est in palmitibus, ut vitale alimentum subministret eis, non sumat
ab eis. Ac per hoc, et manentem in se habere Christum et manere in
Christo, discipulis prodest utrumque, non Christo. Nam praeciso
palmite potest de viva radice alius pullulare; qui autem praecisus
est, sine radice non potest vivere.”—St. Aug. _in loc._

101 “Non utique ipso die Pentecostes, sed _tempore_ adventus Spiritus
Sancti paulatim, ac per gradus inducti sunt in omnem veritatem, ut
ex manifestis factis et ex ipsis verbis constat: _inducet_ in omnem
veritatem ὀδηγήσει ὑμᾶς.”—_Franz._ _De Trad._, p. 267. note 1.

102 See Franz., _De Div. Trad. Thes._, xxii. 11.

103 “Semper itaque audit Spiritus Sanctus quia semper scit: ergo et
scivit, et scit, et sciet; ac per hoc et audivit, et audit, et
audiet: quia sicut jam diximus, hoc est illi audire quod scire, et
scire illi hoc est quod esse. Ab illo igitur audivit, audit, et
audiet a quo est: ab illo est a quo procedit.”—St. Aug. on this
verse, _Tract._ 99.

104 “Uno verbo: Spiritus Sanctus aeternaliter audit et accipit a Filio
cum respectu ad effectum in tempore, qui tum quando Christus
loquebatur, promittebatur adhuc futurus; ideo auditio et acceptio
quae aeternaliter et ideo etiam tunc est, quando existit effectus,
potuit propter hanc operationem et propter effectum futurum ad extra
enuntiari in forma temporis futuri.”—Franz., _De Trin. Thes._,
xxxii. i. 4 c.

105 “Igitur in _significatione formali_ illud _meum_, quod Spiritus
veritatis dicitur accipere communicatum a Filio, est absoluta
sapientia cum respectu ad extra, ad doctrinam scilicet inspirandam
et annuntiandam. At profecto sapientia absoluta _identice ac
realiter_ est ipsamet essentia divina.”—Franz., _Thes._, xxxii. i. 4
b.

106 There is a clear and important difference between the two words for
asking used in this verse. ᾽Ερωτάω always in classical, and
generally in Hellenistic Greek, means to interrogate, to question.
In Hellenistic Greek it sometimes means to request, to petition, as
in verse 26 below; but even then there is a distinction which is
carefully observed throughout the New Testament between it and
αἰτέω. ᾽Ερωτάω is used of the request of an equal, or at least of a
familiar friend, αἰτέω of the supplication of an inferior. Hence
Christ never once uses the latter word in reference to His own
asking of the Father.

107 “Resuscita me, ut innotescas toti orbi per me.”—St. Aug.

108 All theologians admit that the happiness of the blessed consists
_radically_ in the vision of God; but while many Thomists hold that
it consists _essentially_ in this, other theologians hold that it
consists in acts of the will, as of love and joy, as well as of the
intellect.

109 Christ’s human soul enjoyed the beatific vision from the first
moment of the incarnation; but the connatural effects of this upon
His body were suspended during His mortal life.

110 “_Aoristus_ ... indicat peractam rem esse aut nunc aut olim, hoc
est, aliqua praeteriti temporis parte, quae _indefinita_
relinquitur. _Perfectum_ sicut in classica graecitate, ita et in
graecitate N. Testamenti adhiberi solet ad significandam actionem
plane praeteritam, quae aut nunc finita est, aut per effectus suos
durat.”—Beel., _G. G._, § 41.

111 So Griesb., Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc., Hort, and the Revised
Version.

112 Or more correctly: “for we all partake of one bread.”

113 Fourth Edition, London, 1859.

114 “Est autem in Graeco sensus hujus sententiae apertior: non enim
habetur particula copulativa, sed illativa, et non est praeteritum,
sed aoristus primus qui saepe plusquam perfecti significationem
habet. Sensus ergo est: _Miserat_ igitur eum Annas ligatum ad
Caipham Pontificem, est enim locutio revertentis ad narrationem
praetermissam, et particula illativa indicat quae relata sunt,
fuisse facta postquam missus est Christus ab Anna ad Caipham.”—Tol.,
_in loc._

115 We shall not be far from the truth, if we say that the Paschal
Supper began about 7 p.m.; that Jesus retired to Gethsemani about
10; that He was arrested between 11 and 12; that the midnight trial
was over about 2 a.m.; and that day dawned about 4.30.

116 Maimonides, _De Pasch._, vi. 1, says: “Qui cadaver reptilis tetigit,
aut reptile, aut _quid aliud simile_ die decima quarta, is lavatur,
et postquam lotus est, pro eo pascha mactant, et sub vesperam, quum
sol ei occubuit, _pascha comedit_.”

117 We read in the Mishna, which is the oldest portion of the Jewish
Talmud, and was composed about the beginning of the third century:
“Sacrificium festi Chagigah (חגיגה) adducebatur ex grege et jumento,
agnis et capris, masculis et feminis; et comedebatur per _duos dies_
et unam noctem.” (Mish., _Pesachim_, vi. 4.)

118 Jesus till now had been outside, for it is well known the Roman law
required that the criminal should be present to hear the charges
brought against him. See Acts xxiv. 2.

119 We prefer to render: “Thou sayest it, _for_ (ὅτι) I am a king;” and
thus St. John’s version of Christ’s reply is more like that of the
other Evangelists.

120 φραγελλόω indeed belongs to late Greek, and is derived from the
Latin flagellum.

121 We know not what kind of thorns was used for the crown. Benedict
XIV. says that in his time it could not be decided from any relics
of the thorns known to exist to what species they belonged.

122 “Jesus igitur flagellis caesus spinisque coronatus fuit, ante quam
Pilatus eum capite damnaret. Non ergo est dubium, ordinem in his
referendis a Matthaeo et a Marco minime esse observatum.”—Patriz.

123 See above on xiii. 1.

124 That a division of the night into four watches existed, is proved
from the New Testament. See, _e.g._, Mark xiii. 35: Luke xii. 38.

125 Whether St. John numbers the hours of the day according to the
Jewish or modern method it is extremely difficult to decide from his
Gospel. In only four passages (i. 39; iv. 6; iv. 52; and xix. 14)
does he refer to distinct hours of the day, and to these passages
the patrons of both opinions appeal. In John iv. 6 we read that it
was “about the sixth hour” when Jesus met the Samaritan woman at the
well, and if we are right in holding that it was then the month of
December (see above on iv. 35), this would go to show that our
Evangelist numbers according to the Jewish method. For at 6 a.m. or
6 p.m. it would be dark, and it is wholly improbable that Jesus in
the darkness would have held conversation alone with the woman.

126 Dr. Walsh, _Harmony of the Gospel Narratives_, note 35.

We have not mentioned the view of those who hold that the error from
transcription occurred in St. Mark and not in St. John, and that we
ought to read “sixth” instead of “third” in St. Mark xv. 25. For, as
Patrizzi well points out, if St. Mark had written “sixth” in verse
25, he would not, after describing the mocking of Christ upon the
cross, say in verse 33: “And when the _sixth hour was come_ there
was darkness over the whole earth until the ninth hour.” If error
has crept in, then, it is not in St. Mark.

127 Cyrene was “the principal city of that part of Northern Africa,
which was anciently called Cyrenaica, and also (from its five chief
cities) Pentapolitana. This district was that wide projecting
portion of the coast (corresponding to the modern Tripoli) which was
separated from the territory of Carthage on the one hand, and that
of Egypt on the other.”—Smith’s _B. D._

128 The following questions also are disputed:—(_a_) Whether Christ had
the crown of thorns upon Him while He hung on the cross; (_b_)
whether He was entirely naked; (_c_) whether four nails or three
were used, that is to say, whether His feet like His hands were
nailed separately or were placed one over the other, with one nail
piercing both.

129 Darras, _Hist. Eccles._ vol. v., says that P. Drach was able to
trace all the Hebrew characters, and that they agree exactly with
St. John’s version of the title.

130 The sponge is still preserved in Rome, in St. John Lateran’s.

131 Longet, _Physiologie_, t. ii., p. 701.

132 St. Matt. on this point need create no difficulty, for although he
says that an angel rolled back the stone from the mouth of the
sepulchre and sat upon it (probably _outside_ the sepulchre), yet he
does not say that the women were addressed by the angel while he sat
upon the stone, nor even that he was seen by them while he was in
that position. That he was seen by the guards, one of whom may have
been afterwards converted and have told this incident, is plain from
St. Matt.: but we are free to suppose that when the angel addressed
the women (Matt. xxviii. 5), he may have been already within the
sepulchre, as in St. Mark.

133 The difficulty against this view, from the fact that St. Matt.,
according to the Vulgate Version, represents these women as coming
to the tomb on the _evening_ of the Sabbath (Vespere sabbati),
disappears, if we admit that the Vulgate rendering of the Greek
phrase, ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων is incorrect, or, at least, misleading, and
should rather be post sabbatum, as the phrase is explained by Mald.,
Cornely (iii. p. 301, note S), Kuin., Bloomf., and the majority of
commentators. Certainly we are convinced that Magdalen did not visit
the tomb on Saturday evening; for had she done so, she must have
learned that the tomb was guarded and the stone that closed it
sealed, and she and her companions would not come as they did on
Sunday morning, saying to one another: “Who shall roll away the
stone for us?” Had she been at the tomb on Saturday evening, she
could not have hoped to be allowed to roll away the stone, which was
sealed and guarded; or, if she hoped for this permission from the
soldiers, then there would have been no room for the difficulty as
to who should roll away the stone, as the soldiers, if they
permitted its removal, might be counted upon to remove it for women.

134 It is the common belief that Jesus appeared first of all to the
Blessed Virgin, though the appearance to Magdalen is the first
mentioned in the Gospels. Estius and some other great commentators,
however, deny that He appeared to the Blessed Virgin, and hold that
as he appeared in order to confirm the faith of those to whom he
appeared, there was no need that He should appear to the Blessed
Virgin.

135 “Unde secundum naturam suam palpabile est corpus gloriosum, sed ex
virtute supernaturali hoc ei competit ut cum vult non palpetur a
corpore non glorioso.”—St. Thomas, _Summ. Theol._, Suppl., q. 83,
art. 6.

136 “Si quis dixerit verba illa Domini Salvatoris: Accipite Spiritum
Sanctum; quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eis; et quorum
retinueritis, retenta sunt: non esse intelligenda de potestate
remittendi et retinendi peccata in Sacramento Poenitentiae, Sicut
Ecclesia Catholica ab initio semper intellexit; detorserit autem,
contra institutionem hujus Sacramenti, ad auctoritatem praedicandi
evangelium, anathema sit.”—Sess. xiv., Can. 2, _De Poen._

137 This reading, however, is not certain, some critics read the perfect
ἀφεώνται (remissa sunt). So Tisch., Treg., Westc. & Hort., and
Lachm.

138 Some, who admit the authenticity of verses 1‐23, deny that of verses
24 and 25.

139 The miraculous draught of fish in chapter xxi. was not intended to
confirm the faith of the disciples, which now needed no
confirmation, but to typify the fecundity of the Church over which
Peter was about to be placed.

140 By “clausulam” he means the last two verses of the chapter.

141 So, too, Hesych. and Lidd. and Scott take φιλέω as stronger than
ἀγαπᾷω, so that the two words correspond to “amare” and “diligere”
respectively, as the Vulgate makes them. The distinction between the
two Latin words is well recognised. Thus Cicero (Ep. Fam. xiii. 47),
writing to one friend about another says: “Ut scires illum a me non
_diligi_ solum verum etiam _amari_.”

142 _I.e._, belonging to him in virtue of his office.

143 _I.e._, extending _directly_ over all the faithful, and not merely
mediately through their several bishops. (See Franz., _De. Eccl.
Thes._, x. iii. 2 c.)

144 “Crux enim solebat ita a cruciariis portari, ut brachia ligno
transverso funibus extensa alligarentur.”—Corl.