ginning of twilight, it is not necessary for me to repeat. In consequence of the word "now," (non) being introduced, we must understand the time meant, to have been from the very beginning of twilight, as opposed to night. The translation expresses, that day was just beginning to appear. From hence we can understand why the disciples did not immediately recognise Jesus standing at the distance of 350 feet from them, but that afterwards, when it began every minute to be clearer, John knew him.

5. " Meat."] In Greek the same as fishes, as explained by Wetstein and Thomas Magister. I wish to observe with respect to the ninth verse in order to remove the objections which some have expressed, that eight persons should have only one fish, that the Greek word signifies fishes in the plural. But even were it not so, one fish might still satisfy eight people, by allowing half a pound to each, for many fishes weigh above four pounds.

7. It would appear that the recollection of similar circumstances induced John to conjecture it was Jesus, for we find in Luke v. 4-7, that Peter had, at the command of Jesus, hauled a most copious draught; and this recurring to

his mind, he was enabled, by the perpetually increasing daylight, to recognise him.

"His fisher's coat.] It would seem, according to the description of Theophylact, and of Niebuhr, in his Travels in Arabia, to be the same fisher's coat which is used by the fishermen in Phoenicia and Syria. The drawing of it in Niebuhr's first volume, (plate 56,) shows how easily it may be girt round the body, and that it creates no hindrance in swimming.

11. “An hundred and fifty and three."] Accurately detailed, according to the manner of John, and not in round numbers. In these 153 fishes, we are not to seek any mystery, much less that which has been fancied by some writers, namely, that they comprehended the different kinds of fish then known; at which a natural historian, who is acquainted with so many more species, would only smile. Besides, this relates only to the lake of Tiberias, and, of course, not to the sea, where there are so many more fishes, as whales for instance. But in John's gospel we find none of these weaknesses; they have been superadded by his modern commentators. One thing only is certain, that the disciples counted the fishes. This extraordinary notion arose from the quickness of

Jerome; this learned man did not write, but dictated as fast as he could, and hence arose several mistakes. In commenting upon the forty-seventh chapter of Ezekiel, he says, "those who have written upon the nature and properties of animals, and, amongst others, Oppianus Celix, a learned poet, state that there are 153 sorts of fishes, all of which were taken by the apostles, and none remained untaken." Evidently he had in his eye this passage of John.

12. "Dine."] The Greek word äpirov does not signify properly the dinner, but the breakfast, taken, according to our reckoning, at nine in the morning. The dinner was, as we have observed, Luke xxiv. 29, towards the afternoon; upon this occasion the disciples, who had been at work all night, took their breakfast very early in the morning.

"None durst ask him."] It would have been a very senseless question; as they all knew him, no one permitted himself this freedom.

14. "The third time."] Namely, when Jesus appeared, not to the women, not to individual disciples, but to several disciples collected in one spot.

15, 16, 17.] In the Greek there is here a

change of words, which I cannot render into English, without some difficulty and some obscurity. Thus two words must be translated "love," two others, "feed," two others again, sheep or even lambs." Some commentators have endeavoured to trace a distinct meaning in this difference of expression, and to show, that to feed, in one sense, signifies “abundance," in another "prudence;" and that to

66

love," when in the shape of a question, demonstrates superlative, but that when embodied in an answer, it evinces an inferior degree of affection. The probable reason why John changed the words, was to avoid the inconvenience of repetition, and to make those words synonimous, between which no difference could, in common sense, be supposed to exist. Both the Greek and the French language have this in common, that they both dislike repeating the same words, only with this difference, that the French language is obliged to have recourse to circumlocution, whilst the Greek relies upon its copiousness for the insertion of a corresponding signification. It may easily be perceived, that this question, three times repeated, of Jesus, bears a gentle, but sensible allusion to the treble denial of Peter. Jesus does not reproach him with

his failure, but only reminds him here of his superior duty.

15. "Lovest thou me more than these."] The question refers to Matthew xxvi. 33, where Peter, unconscious of his own weakness, exclaims: "Though all men shall be offended, because of thee, yet will I never be offended.” Peter, who might be sensible of this, does not answer, "I do love thee more than these," but simply, "thou knowest that I love thee." Le Clerc conceived that Jesus asked Peter, if he loved him more than the other disciples, because he swam out of the ship to meet him. In this case Peter might have cheerfully answered in the affirmative. But Whitby supposes that Jesus asked him, "whether he loved him more than these nets," forgetting Peter had forsaken his net to follow Jesus; and the answer would have been still more inconsistent, for by leaving out the nets, and saying simply, "I love thee," it would imply he loved his nets

more.

"Feed my lambs."] Both in Luther's translation and in our own, these words have been so rendered, as if Peter was first to feed the

lambs, and then the sheep.

The Greek word

signifies properly the young males to the end of