Ephesus. It will naturally be asked what zealous Roman Catholic so early preached this appropriate doctrine? On the contrary, it was a Greek prelate, a man of singular merit and learning, and from whose writings I have drawn much-Theophylact.

21. "Seeing him."] Again a repetition of John, so peculiar to himself, by borrowing from the preceding sentence; only in this case the original word is different, but the meaning is similar.

“And what shall this man do?"] It is by no means improbable that Peter believed Jesus wished to speak to him privately, especially in relation to his former denial of him; and he therefore was desirous that no witnesses should be present to the reproach which he was conscious he deserved. His question, therefore, would run thus: "But why should John be here? I conceived you wished to speak with me alone, and that for this reason you separated yourself from the others.

22. Jesus takes the question of Peter in a very different light, supposing the words "follow me" to mean, "follow me in the manner of my death." He answered, therefore: "With respect to this person, give yourself no trouble;

you shall follow me in the manner of your death, but this man shall not. If it is my pleasure that he should attain a great age, and live to see my coming, how does that affect you? Do you make up your mind and follow me."

"Until I come."] This contemplates the future event, so frequently mentioned by the other evangelists,-the destruction of Jerusalem. In John's gospel the expression has not previously occurred; he omits the prophecies re lating to the destruction of Jerusalem, as already detailed in the preceding gospels, and assumes them therefore as already known. The contrast which Jesus draws between Peter and John, shows at once, that Peter was not to survive the destruction of Jerusalem. As this, according to Matthew, (xxiv. 34,) would take place before the end of the existing generation; that is to say, thirty-three or twenty-seven years; we can understand why Peter, when he wrote his second epistle, thirty-four years afterwards, should regard the death, announced to him by Christ, as not very remote. 2 Peter i. 14.

23. Others have understood the words, "until I come," to apply to the day of judgment; and believed therefore that John would never

die. John contradicts this erroneous statement himself, in his own life-time. It is astonishing, notwithstanding, it should have prevailed during so many centuries. Theophylact writes, 'that Christ says, if I will that he should remain till the end of the world, and then testify of me:" and he adds, "Some say, besides, that John is still alive, but that he will be slain by antichrist, when he preaches Christ with Elias. His tomb indeed is shown; but of what importance is that? He has retired from the world in a living state, and will be hereafter transferred into the existence of Moses and Elias." I can scarcely credit my own eyes when I read this, and what follows, from so venerable a person.

24. "And we know."] Or as we should say, in a detailed manner, "I hope all are aware, that it is an admitted fact amongst us, that the testimony of this disciple is to be credited." This plural has appeared very strange to some old writers, who have gone so far as to consider the two last verses, not as the authentic composition of John, but as the appendix of some elders of Ephesus: and Grotius even concludes, that the whole chapter was not written by John. The last supposition would lead to great

inconsistency, and is evidently the effect of exaggeration. But I cannot even admit this hypothesis of the elders; and I am surprised it never struck him how much this testimony would be out of place. He who will lend his testimony to the truth of what another, and that an eye-witness, has written, should not forget to say who he himself is, and to subscribe his name. What could the elders of Ephesus, who were not eye-witnesses, do more ridiculous thanwithout the subscription of their name, without our even knowing who it is that testifies-to write, at the end of an apostle's and an eyewitness's gospel, "We know, that his testimony is true." Others again break the original Greek word οιδαμεν in two, οιδα μεν, and translate it, "I know." Others again consider the

pronoun

we" as arising from the modesty of John. The first is the emendation of Polycarp Leyser ; but this is directly contrary to the style of John, who never uses the first person in the whole gospel, and whose ear must have been accustomed to the Greek prejudices against using “I” generally. The second is done by Theophylact, and appears to me the best. But neither of these explanations are happy; because it immediately follows in the third person, "that

his testimony is true." If John had been inclined to say what they make him say, he would have written: "And he knows, that his testimony is true." This reading, which would be more appropriate, is not, however, to be found in any manuscript or old translation; it remains therefore a subject of fair critical conJecture, principally on account of the parallel passage, John xix. 35, where he speaks in a similar manner of himself.

25. Another ground for rejecting these last verses of John is that the subject of them is only a repetition of John xx. 30. But a writer can repeat at different opportunities, what he knows and feels to be important; and none could be more so than the assertion of miracles, an assertion which, if not made, might be almost construed into doubt; and hence he would naturally argue that his silence is no contradiction to what others before him have stated, either in writing, or by word of mouth.

"I suppose, that even the world itself could not contain the books which should be written."] An hyperbole much in the same way as Virgil, in the 6th Æneid, v. 625-627,-" that if I had an hundred tongues, and an hundred mouths, and an iron voice, capable of comprehending