41-33. The Second Miraculous Draught of Fishes

33. The Second Miraculous Draught of Fishes

John 21:1-23

It almost seemed as though St. John’s Gospel had found its solemn completion in the words (ver. 30, 31) with which the preceding chapter ended; so that this chapter appears, and probably is, in the exactest sense of the word, a postscript, —something which the beloved Apostle, after he had made an end, thought it important not to leave untold; which he may have added, perhaps, at the request of his disciples, who, having often heard delightedly the narrative from his own lips, desired that before his departure he should set it down, that the Church might be enriched with it for ever.^[1] Or, if we call John 1:1-14 the prologue, this we might style the epilogue, of his Gospel. As that set forth what the Son of God was before He came from the Father, even so this, in mystical and prophetic guise, how He should rule in the world after He had returned to the Father.

It was upon the sea of Galilee that this appearance of Christ to his disciples, with the miracle which accompanied it, took place. There “Jesus showed ^[2] Himself again to the disciples.” Doubtless there is a significance in the words, “showed Himself,” or “manifested Himself,” which many long ago observed,—no other than this, that his body after the resurrection was only visible by a distinct act of his will. From that time the disciples did not, as before, see Jesus, but Jesus appeared unto, or was seen by, them. It is not for nothing that the language is changed, or that in language of this kind all his appearances after the resurrection are related (Luk 24:34; Acts 13:31; 1Co 15:5-8). It is the same with Angels and all heavenly manifestations. Men do not see them; such language would be inappropriate; but they appear to men (Jdg 6:12; Jdg 13:3; Jdg 13:10; Jdg 13:21; Mat 17:3; Luk 1:11; Luk 22:43; Acts 2:3; Acts 7:2; Acts 16:9; Acts 26:16); are only visible to those for whose sakes they are vouchsafed, and to whom they are willing to show themselves. ^[3] Those to whom this manifestation was vouchsafed were Simon Peter, Thomas, and Nathanael, James and John, and two other disciples that are not named. It makes something for the current opinion that the Nathanael of St. John is the Bartholomew of the other Evangelists, thus to find him named not after, but in the midst of, some of the very chiefest Apostles. Who were the two unnamed disciples cannot, of course, be known. They too were not improbably Apostles, “disciples” in the most eminent sense of the word;^[4] Lightfoot supposes that they were Andrew and Philip. The announcement of Peter, “I go a-fishing” is not, as has been strangely supposed, a declaration that he has lost his hope in Jesus as the Messiah, has renounced his apostleship, and now returns to his old occupations, there being no nobler work for him in store. A teacher in that new kingdom which his Lord had set up, he is acting now in the wise manner of the Jewish Rabbis, who were wont to have a manual trade, on which to fall back in the time of need. What good service St. Paul’s skill in making tents did him is well known (2Th 3:8). Probably also they found it healthful to their own minds, to have some outward occupation for which to exchange at times their spiritual employments. In these words of St. Peter there lay a challenge to the old companions of his toil, which is alone accepted by them: “They say unto him, We also go with thee. They went forth, and entered into a ship immediately; and that night they caught nothing.” It was with them now, as it had been with the chiefest among them on a prior occasion (Luk 5:5). Already a dim feeling may have risen, up in their minds that this night was a spiritual counterpart of that other; and as that was followed by a glorious day, and by their first installation in their great work as “fishers of men,” this present ill-success of theirs may have had its part in preparing their spirits for that wondrous glimpse which should now be given them, of what that work, and what its reward, should be. Had it been, however, more than the -obscurest presentiment, they would have been more quick to recognize their Lord, when with the early dawn He “stood, on the shore.” But their eyes were holden; “the disciples knew not that it was Jesus;” He was to them but as a stranger, an early traveller, it might be, upon the shores of the lake. And in the language of such He addressed them; “Children, have ye any meat?” Chrysostom singularly enough supposes that He puts this question as one that would purchase from them of the fruit of their night’s toil, if such they had to dispose of: but rather, I should imagine, as with that natural and friendly interest, not unmixed with curiosity, which almost all take in the results of toils which are proverbially uncertain in their issue; which are now utterly without result, now crowned with largest success. “They answered Him, No.” The purpose of the question was to draw forth this acknowledgment from their lips; for in small things as well as great, in natural as well as spiritual, it is well that there should go first the confessions of man’s poverty before there come, in the riches of God’s bounty and grace.

“And He said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find” And they, not accepting it for more than the counsel of a kind and, it might be, a skilful stranger, were obedient to his word: “They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.” But this is enough; there is one disciple at least, “that disciple whom Jesus loved,” who can no longer doubt with whom they have to do. That other occasion, when at the bidding of their future Lord they enclosed so great a multitude of fishes that their net brake, rose clear before his eyes. It is the same Lord, in whose presence now they stand. And he says, not yet to all, but to Peter, to him with whom he stood in nearest fellowship, who had best right to be first made partaker of the discovery, “It is the Lord.” Each Apostle comes wonderfully put in his proper character:^[5] he of the eagle eye first detects the presence of the Beloved; and then Peter, the foremost ever in act, as John is profoundest in speculation, unable to wait till the ship shall touch the land, throws himself into the sea, that he may find himself the sooner at his Saviour’s feet (Mat 14:28). He was before “naked,” stripped, that is, for labour, wearing only the tunic, or garment close to the skin, and having put off his upper and superfluous garments;^[6] for “naked” means no more, and is continually used in this sense; but now he girded himself with his fisher’s coat,^[7] as counting it unseemly to appear without it in the presence of his Lord.^[8] Some have supposed that he walked on the sea; but we have no right to multiply miracles, and the words, “cast himself into the sea,” do not warrant this. Rather, he swam and waded to the shore,^[9] which was not distant more than about “two hundred cubits,” ^[10] that is, about one hundred yards. The other disciples followed more slowly; for they were encumbered with the net and its weight of fishes. This, having renounced the hope of lifting it into the boat, they dragged^[11] after them in the water, toward the land. “As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire of coals, and fish laid thereon, and bread”—by what ministry, natural or miraculous, has been often inquired; but we can only leave this undetermined as we find it. “Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now caught” These shall be added to those already preparing. ^[12] Peter, again the foremost, drew up the net, which was fastened, no doubt, to the ship, oh the beach. The very number of the fish it contained, “an hundred and fifty and three” is mentioned, with also the remarkable circumstance, that although they were so many and so large,—”great fishes,”—yet, differently from that former occasion (Luk 5:6), the net was not broken by their weight, nor by their struggles to escape.

It is well nigh incredible that all this should have happened, or should have been recorded for us at once with this emphasis and this minuteness of detail, had the meaning which is ostensible and on the surface been the only one which it contained. There must be more here than meets the eye—an allegorical, or more truly a symbolic, meaning underlying the literal. Nor is this very hard to discover. Without pledging myself for every detail of Augustine’s interpretation,^[13] it yet commends itself to me as in the main worthy of all acceptance. He puts this miraculous draught of fishes in relation of likeness and unlikeness with the other before the resurrection, and sees in that earlier, the figure of the Church as it now is, and as it now gathers its members from the world; in this later the figure of the Church as it shall be in the end of the world, with the great incoming, the great sea-harvest of souls, which then shall find place.^[14] On that first occasion the future fishers of men were not particularly bidden to cast the net on the right hand or on the left; for, had Christ said to the right, it would have implied that none should be taken but the good,—if to the left, that only the bad; while yet in the present mixed condition of the Church, both bad and good are enclosed in the nets; but now He says, “Cast the net on the right side of the ship,” implying that now all who are taken should be good.^[15] Then the nets were broken with the multitude of fishes, so that all were not secured which once were within them;—and what are the schisms and divisions of the present condition of the Church, but rents and holes through which numbers, that impatiently bear the restraints of the net, break away from it?—but now, in the end of time, “for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken.” On that first occasion the fish were brought into the ship, itself still tossed on the unquiet sea, even as men in the present time who are taken for Christ are brought into the Church, still itself exposed to the world’s tempests; but here the nets are drawn up to land, to the safe and quiet shore of eternity.^[16] Then the ships were well nigh sunken with their burden, for so is it with the ship of the Church,—encumbered with evil-livers till it well nigh makes shipwreck altogether; but nothing of this is mentioned here.^[17] There it is merely mentioned that a great multitude were enclosed; but here a definite number, even as the number of the elect is fixed and preordained.^[18] and there small fishes and great, for nothing to the contrary is said; but here they are all “great,” for such shall all be that attain to that kingdom, being equal to the Angels.^[19] That which follows is obscure, and without the key which the symbolical explanation supplies, would be obscurer yet. What is the meaning of this meal which they found ready prepared for them on the shore, with the Lord’s invitation that they should “come and dine”? For Him, with his risen body, it was superfluous, and not needed by them, whose dwellings were near at hand. But we must continue to see an undermeaning, and a rich and deep one, in all this. As that large capture of fish was to them the pledge and promise of a labour that should not be in vain,^[20] so the meal, when the labour was done, a meal of the Lord’s own preparing, and “upon the shore,” was the symbol of the great festival in heaven with which, after their earthly toil was over, He would refresh his servants, when He should cause them to sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom. And as they were bidden to. bring of their fish to that meal, so should the souls which they had taken for life be their crown and rejoicing in that day, should help and contribute to their gladness then.^[21]

“And none of the disciples durst ask Him, Who art Thou? knowing that it was the Lord” But if they knew, why should they have desired to make this inquiry, being only hindered from that by the solemn fear and awe which was shed on them by his presence? The words, as I take it, mean that none dared show so much of unbelief and uncertainty as would have been involved in the question, “Who art Thou?” There was shed over them such a mysterious awe, such a sense of the presence of their beloved Master, witnessing for itself in the inmost depths of their spirits, that, unusual and unlike as was his outward appearance to that whereunto their eyes were accustomed, none of them, for all this, durst ask for a clearer evidence that it was He, even though it would have been a satisfaction to them to hear from his own lips that it was indeed Himself and no other.^[22] The most interesting conversation which follows hangs too closely upon this miracle to be omitted. Christ has opened the eyes of his servants to the greatness of their future work, given to them a prophetic glimpse of their successful labour and their abundant reward; and He now declares to them the sole conditions under which this work may be accomplished, and this reward inherited. Love to Christ, and the unreserved yielding up of self to God—these are the sole conditions, and all which follows is to teach this: so that the two portions of the chapter are intimately connected, and together form a complete whole. “So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me more than these?’’ In that compellation, “Simon, son of Jonas,” there was already that which must have wrung the Apostle’s heart. It was as though his Lord would say to him, “Where is that name Peter, which I gave thee (Mat 16:18; John 1:42)? where is the Rock, and the rock-like strength, which, when most needed, I looked for in vain (Mat 26:69-75)? not therefore by that name can I address thee now, but as flesh and blood, and the child of man; for all that was higher in thee has disappeared. “We read of one of the Caliphs^[23] that “he used to give his principal officers an honourable sirname suited to their qualities; when he wished to show his dissatisfaction, he used to drop it, calling them by their own names; this caused them great alarm. When he resumed the employment of the sirname, it was a sign of their return to favour.” This passage helps us, I think, to enter into the significance of that “Simon, son of Jonas” here. The question, “Lovest thou Me more than these?”^[24] is a plain allusion to Peter’s boasting speech, “Though all men shall be offended because of Thee, yet will I never be offended” (Mat 26:33); as is evident from Peter’s answer, wherein appealing to the Lord, the Searcher of hearts, that indeed he loves Him, he no longer casts any slight by comparison on the love of his fellow-disciples.^[25] The main object of the Lord in his rejoinder, “Feed my sheep,” “Feed my lambs,” is not to say, “Show then thy love in act.” but rather, “I restore to thee thy apostolic function; this grace is thine, that thou shalt yet be a chief shepherd of my flock.”^[26] It implies, therefore, the fullest forgiveness of the past, since none but the forgiven could rightly declare the forgiveness of God. The question, “Lovest thou Me?”^[27] is thrice repeated, that by three solemn affirmations he may efface his three denials of his Lord.^[28] At last, upon the third repetition of the question, “Peter was grieved;” and with yet more emphasis than before appeals to the omniscience of his Lord, whether it was not true that indeed he loved Him: “Lord, Thou knowest all things; Thou knowest that I love Thee.”^[29]

Many have denied that there is any ground for the distinction often drawn between the two commissions, “Feed my sheep,” and “Feed my lambs.”^[30] But to me nothing seems more natural than that by “lambs” the Lord intended the more imperfect Christians, the little children in Him; by the “sheep” the more advanced, the “young men” and “fathers.”^[31] The interpretation indeed is groundless and trifling, made in the interests of Rome, as though the “lambs” were the laity, and the “sheep” the clergy; and that here to Peter, and in him to the Roman pontiffs, was given dominion over both. The commission should at least have run, “Feed my sheep” “Feed my shepherds” if any such conclusions were to be drawn from it, though an infinite deal would still require to be assumed.^[32] But “Feed my sheep” is not all. This life of labour is to be crowned with a death of painfulness; such is the way, with its narrow and strait gate, which even for a chief Apostle is the only one which leads to eternal life. The Lord would show him beforehand what great things he must suffer for his sake; for this is often his manner with his elect servants, with an Ezekiel (iii. 25), with a Paul (Acts 21:11), and now with a Peter. “When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest; but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.” A prophetic allusion is here made to the crucifixion of Peter, St. John himself declaring that Jesus spake thus, “signifying by what death he should glorify God;” and no reasonable grounds exist for calling in question the tradition of the Church, that such was the manner of Peter’s martyrdom.^[33] Doubtless it is here obscurely intimated; but this is of the very nature of prophecy, and there is quite enough in the description to show that the Lord had this and no other manner of death in his eye. The stretched-forth hands are the hands extended upon either side on the transverse bar of the cross.^[34] The girding by another is the binding to the cross, the sufferer being not only fastened to the instrument of punishment with nails, but also bound to it with cords.^[35] It cannot be meant by the bearing “whither thou wouldest not” that there should be any reluctancy on the part of Peter to glorify God by his death, except indeed the reluctancy which there always is in the flesh to suffering and pain; a reluctancy in his case,, as in his Lord’s (cf. Mat 26:39), overruled by the higher willingness to do and to suffer the perfect will of God. In this sense, as it was a violent death,—a death which others chose for him,—a death from which flesh and blood would naturally shrink, it was a carrying “whither he would not;”^[36] though, in a higher sense, as it was the way to a nearer vision of God, it was that toward which he had all his life been striving; and then he was borne whither most he would; and no word here implies that the exulting exclamation of another Apostle, at the near approach of his martyrdom (2Ti 4:6-8), would not have suited his lips just as well. The symbolical meaning which we have found in the earlier portions of the chapter must not be excluded from this. To “gird oneself” is ever in Scripture the sign and figure of promptness and an outward activity (Exo 12:11; Luk 12:35; 1Pe 1:13; Ephes. 6:14); so that, in fact, Christ is saying to Peter, “When thou wert young, thou actedst for Me; walking whither thou wouldest, thou wert free to work for Me, and to choose thy field of work; but when thou art old, thou shalt learn another, a higher and a harder lesson; thou shalt suffer for Me; thou shalt no more choose thy work, but others shall choose it for thee, and that work shall be the work of passion rather than of action. “Such is the history of the Christian life, and not in Peter’s case only, but such is its course and order in almost all of God’s servants. It is begun in action, it is perfected in suffering. In the last, lessons are learned which the first could never teach; graces exercised, which else would not at all, or would only have very weakly, existed. Thus was it, for instance, with a John Baptist. He begins with Jerusalem and all Judea flowing to him to listen to his preaching; he ends with lying long, a seemingly forgotten captive, in the dungeon of Machaerus. So was it with a St. Chrysostom. The chief cities of Asia and Europe, Antioch and Constantinople, wait upon him with reverence and homage while he is young, and he goes whither he would; but when he is old, he is borne whither he would not, up and down, a sick and suffering exile. Thus should it be also with this great Apostle. It was only in this manner that whatever of self-will and self-choosing survived in him still, should be broken and abolished, that he should be brought into an entire emptiness of self, a perfect submission to the will of God.

He who has shown him the end, will also show him the way; for “when He had spoken this, He saith unto him, Follow Me.” These words do more than merely signify in a general way, “Be thou an imitator of Me.” Such an explanation would show that we had altogether failed in realizing to ourselves this solemn scene, as it was on this day enacted on the shores of Gennesaret. That scene was quite as much in deed as in word; and here, at the very moment that the Lord spake the words, it would seem that He took some paces along the rough and rocky shore, bidding Peter to follow; thus setting forth to him in a figure his future life, which should be a following of his divine Master in the rude and rugged path of Christian action. All this was not so much spoken as done; for Peter, “turning about,”—looking, that is, behind him,—”seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved”—words not introduced idly, and as little so the allusion to his familiarity at the Paschal supper, but to explain the boldness of John in following unbidden^[37] him he sees “following” and thereupon inquires, “Lord, and what shall this man do?” He would know what his lot shall be, and what the issue of his earthly conversation. Shall he, too, follow by the same rugged path?

It is not very easy to determine the motive which moved this question, or the spirit in which it was asked: it was certainly something more than a mere natural curiosity. Augustine takes it as the question of one concerned that his friend should be left out, and not summoned to the honour of the same close following of his Lord with himself.^[38] Others find nothing so noble in it; that it is a question put more in the temper of Martha, when she asked the Lord, concerning Mary, “Lord, dost Thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone ?” (Luk 10:40), ill satisfied that Mary should remain quietly sitting at Jesus’ feet, while she was engaged in laborious service for Him.^[39] It is certainly possible that Peter, understanding well what that “Follow Me” addressed to himself implied, may have felt a moment’s jealousy at the easier lot assigned to John. But let it have been this jealousy, or that anxiety concerning the way in which the Lord would lead his fellow Apostle (and oftentimes we find it harder to commit those whom we love to his guiding than ourselves, and to cut off in regard of them all distrustful fears), it is plain that the source out of which the question proceeded was not altogether a pure one. There lies something of a check in the reply. These “times and seasons” it is not for him to know, nor to intermeddle with things which are the Lord’s alone. He claims to be the allotter of the several portions of his servants, and gives account of none of his matters: “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou Me” At the same time this, like so many of our Lord’s repulses, is not a mere repulse. Refusing to comply with an untimely request, it is yet never with a blank negation; and not seldom He gives even in the very act of seeming to deny; his Nay proving indeed a veiled Yea. So it was here. For assuredly the error of those brethren who drew from these words the conclusion, “that that disciple should not die” did not ground itself in the mistaking what was intended as a mere hypothetical “If I will” for a prophetical announcement. That “If I will” is no hypothetical case; Christ does not mean: “If I should choose that the laws of natural decay and death should be suspended in his case, and that thus he should live on till my return to judgment, this were nothing to thee.” Rather, even while He rebukes Peter for having asked the question, He does declare his pleasure that John should “tarry” till his coming; and this “tarry” we must not empty of its deeper meaning, which many, with the view of making all things easy here, have done—as though if meant, “tarry” in Galilee, or “tarry” in Jerusalem, while Peter was laboriously preaching the Gospel over all the world. To tarry can be taken in no other sense than that of to remain alive (cf. Php 1:25; 1Co 15:6; John 12:34). But how could Christ thus announce that John should “tarry” till He came? Two answers have been given. Augustine, whom Grotius, Lampe,^[40] and many moderns follow, understands “till I come” to signify, “till I take him away—till I summon him by an easy and natural death to myself.” But where then is the antithesis between his lot and Peter’s? However violent and painful the death of Peter may have been, yet did not the Lord in this sense “come” to him ? does He not come to every faithful believer at the hour of his departure, be his death of what kind it may? Resolve this into common language, and it is in fact, “If I will that he live till he die, what is that to thee?” Some of our Lord’s sayings may appear slight, which yet are most deep; none seem deep, and yet on nearer inspection prove utterly slight and trivial, as this so interpreted would do. Rather let us explain these words by the help and in the light of Mat 16:28. John should “tarry.” Among the twelve he was the only one who, according to that other and earlier announcement of his Lord, “should not taste of death, till he had seen the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” That great shaking, not of the earth only, but also of the heaven, that passing away of the old Jewish economy with a great noise, to make room for a new heaven and a new earth, this he should overlive, and see the Son of man, invisibly, yet most truly, coming to execute judgment on his foes. He only of the Twelve should overlive that mightiest catastrophe which the world has seen; and “tarry” far on into the glorious age which should succeed. Nor was it this only; but his whole life and ministry in the Church should be in agreement with that its peaceful end. His should be a still work throughout; to deepen the inner life of the Church rather than to extend outwardly its borders. The rougher paths were not appointed for his treading; he should be perfected by another discipline. Martyr in will, but not in deed, he should crown a calm and honoured old age by a natural death. This, which Augustine and others made the primary meaning of the words, we may accept as a secondary and subordinate. It was not, indeed, that he, or any other saint, should escape his share of tribulation, or that the way for him, or for any, should be other than a strait and a narrow one (Rev 1:9). Yet we see daily how the sufferings of different members of the kingdom are allotted in very different proportions; with some, they are comparatively few and far between, while for others, their whole life seems a constant falling from one trial to another.^[41]

He who records these words about himself notes, but notes only to refute, an expectation which had gotten abroad among the brethren, drawn from this saying inaccurately reported or wrongly understood, that he should never die; for, of course, if he had indeed “tarried” to the end. of all, then mortality would in him have been swallowed up in life, and he would have passed into the heavenly kingdom without tasting death (1Co 15:51; 1Th 4:17). And is there not something more than humility in the anxious earnestness with which he repels any such interpretation? No such mournful prerogative shall be his; not so long shall he be absent from his Lord: there lies no such sentence upon him of weary exclusion from that presence in which is fulness of joy. The Synagogue may have its “wandering Jew,” who should never die; but this, not because there rests on him a peculiar blessing, but a peculiar curse. Yet this explicit declaration from the lips of John himself, that Jesus had said no such thing as that he should not die, did not effectually extinguish such a belief or superstition in the Church. We find traces of it surviving long; even his death and burial, which men were compelled to acknowledge, were not sufficient to abolish it. For his death, some said, was only the appearance of death, and he yet breathed in his grave; so that even an Augustine was unable wholly to resist the reports which had reached him, that the earth yet heaved, and the dust was lightly stirred by the regular pulses of his breath^[42] The fable of his still living, Augustine at once rejects; but is more patient with this report than one might have expected, counting it possible that a permanent miracle might be wrought at the Apostle’s grave.^[43]

Footnotes

[1] Doubts concerning the authenticity of this chapter were first stirred by Grotius; not that he esteemed it altogether spurious, but added, probably after St. John’s death, by the Ephesian elders, who had often heard the history from his lips. Very unlike the other suspicious passage in St. John’s Gospel (John 8:1-11), there is no outward evidence of any kind against it. Every MS. and every early Version possesses it, and there was never a doubt expressed about it in antiquity. He therefore, and those who have followed him here, Clericus, Semler, Lücke, Schott (Comm. de Indole Cap. ult. Ev. Joh. Jen. 1825), can have none but internal evidences, drawn from alleged differences in style, in language, in manner of expression, from St. John’s confessed writings, on which to build an argument,—evidences frequently deceptive and always inconclusive, but here even weaker than usual. Everywhere we mark the hand of the beloved disciple. Not merely do we feel the tone of the narration to be his; for that might be explained by supposing others to be reporting what he had often told them; but single phrases and turns of language, unobserved by us at first, and till we have such motives for observing them, bear witness for him. It is he alone who uses Τιβεριάς‚ θάλασσα τῆς Τιβεριάδος (6:1, 23) for the lake of Galilee; or παιδία as a word of address from the teacher to the taught (cf. ver. 5 with 1Jn 2:13; 1Jn 2:18); πιάζειν, which occurs twice in this chapter (ver. 3, 10), is met with only three times, save in St. John’s writings, in the whole N. T.; but is so much a favourite with him, that besides these, there are six instances of its use in his Gospel alone (7:30, 32, 44; 8:20; 10:39; 11:57), to which may be added Rev 19:20. Again, ἑλκύω (ver. 6, 11) is one of his words (6:44; 12:32; 18:20), being found else but once. The double ἀμήν at the beginning of a sentence (ver. 18) is exclusively St. John’s, occurring twenty-five times in his Gospel, never elsewhere. The appellation of Thomas, Θωμᾶς ὁ λεγόμενος Δίδυμος (ver. 2; cf. 11:16; 20:24), is also exclusively his: compare too ver. 19 with 12:23 and 18:32; the use also of ὁμοίως (ver. 13) with the parallel use at 6:11. Ὀψάριον too (ver. 9, 10, 13; cf. 6:9, 11), and πάλιν δεύτερον (ver. 16; cf. 4:54), belong only to him; and the narrator interposing words of his own, as a comment on and explanation of the Lord’s words (ver. 19), is quite after the favourite manner of St. John (2:21; 6:6; 7:39). And of these peculiarities many more might be adduced.

[2] This ἐϕανέρωσεν ἑαυτόν of his last miracle the Evangelist intends us, I cannot doubt, to bring into relation with the ἐϕανέρωσε τὴν δόξαν of his first (2:11); which being so, our Version should have preserved, as a hint of this to the English reader, the “manifested” which it there employs.

[3] Thus Ambrose on the appearing of the Angel to Zacharias (Exp. in Luc. i. 24): Bene apparuisse dicitur ei, qui eum repente conspexit. Et hoc specialiter aut de Angelis aut de Deo Scriptura divina tenere consuevit; ut quod non potest praevideri, apparere dicatur.....Non enim similiter sensibilia videntur, et is in cujus voluntate situm est videri, et cujus naturae est non videri, voluntatis videri. Nam si non vult, non videtur: si vult, videtur. And Chrysostom here: Ἐν τῷ εἰπεῖν‚ ἐϕανέρωσεν ἑαυτὸν‚ τοῦτο δηλοῖ‚ ὅτι εἰ μὴ ἤθελε‚ καὶ αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν διὰ συγκατάβασιν ἐϕανέρωσεν‚ οὐχ ὡρᾶτο‚ τοῦ σώματος ὄντος ἀϕθάρτου.

[4] St. John nowhere employs ἀπόστολος to distinguish one of the Twelve. He uses it but once (13:16), and then generally for one outsent.

[5] Chrysostom: Ὡς δὲ ἐπέγνωσαν αὐτὸν‚ πάλιν τὰ ἰδιώματα τῶν οἰκείων ἐπιδείκνυνται τρόπων οἱ μαθηταὶ Πέτρος καὶ Ἰωάννης· ὁ μὲν γὰρ θερμότερος‚ ὁ δὲ ὑψηλότερος ἦν· καὶ ὁ μὲν ὀξύτερος ἦν‚ ὁ δὲ διορατικώτερος.

[6] The word is of continual use in this sense. Thus Virgil: Nudus ara (cf. Mat 24:18), which he has borrowed from Hesiod, who will have the husbandman γυμνὸν σπείρειν‚ γυμνόν τε βοωτεῖν. So, too, Cincinnatus was found “naked” at the plough, when he was called to be Dictator, and sent for his toga that he might present himself before the Senate (Pliny, H. N. xviii. 4); and Plutarch says of Phocion, that, in the country and with the army, he went always without sandals and “naked” (ἀνυπόδητος ἀεὶ καὶ γυμνὸς ἐβάδιζεν): and Grotius quotes from Eusebius a yet apter passage than any of these, in which one says, ἤμην γυμνὸς ἐν τῷ λινῷ ἐσθήματι. The Athenian jest that the Spartans showed to foreigners their virgins “naked” is to be taken with these limitations—with only the chiton or himation (Müller, Dorians, iv. 2, 3). Cf. 1Sa 19:24; Isa 20:3; at the last of which passages the Deist Tindal, in his ignorance, scoffs, as though God had commanded an indecency, but which both are to be explained in the same manner (see Deyling, Obss. Sac. vol. iv. p. 888, seq., and the Diet, of Or. and Rom. Antt. s. v. Nudus.

[7] This seems to me the meaning; in Deyling’s words (Obss. Sac. vol. iv. p. 890): Ἐπενδύτην ad Christum iturus sibi circumjiciebat, ne minus honestus et modestus in conspectum Domini veniret. Others, however, as Euthymius and Lampe, suppose that this ἐπενδύτης was the only garment which he had on; but, as regarded even that, he was ἄζωστος, and so, in a manner, γυμνός. But going to the Lord, he girt it up; whether for comeliness, or that it might not, being left loose, hinder him in swimming. The matter would be clear, if we knew certainly what the ἐπενδύτης was;—plainly no under garment or vest, worn close to the skin, which is rather ὑποδύτης (see Passow, s. vv.); but rather that worn over all, as the robe which Jonathan gives to David is called τὸν ἐπενδύτην τὸν ἐπάνω (1Sa 18:4). This is certainly the simplest explanation-; that Peter, being stripped before, now hastily threw his upper garment over him, which yet he girt up, that it might not prove an impediment in swimming.

[8] Ambrose: Immemor periculi, non tamen immemor reverentiæ.

[9] Id.: Periculoso compendio religiosum maturavit obsequium.

[10] Ovid’s advice to the fisher is to keep this moderate distance: Nec tamen in medias pelagi te pergere sedes Admoneam, vastique maris tentare profundum. Inter utrumque loci melius moderabere finem, &c.

[11] Observe St. John’s fine and accurate distinction in the use of σύρειν here, and ἑλκύειν at ver. 6, 11; this being to draw to you (ziehen, De Wette); that, to drag after you (nachschleppen): see my Synonyms of the N. T. § 21.

[12] To the abundance and the excellency of the fish in this lake many bear testimony. Thus Robinson (Biblical Researches, vol. ii. p. 261): “The lake is full of fishes of various kinds,” and he instances sturgeon, chub, and bream; adding, “we had no difficulty in procuring and abundant supply for our evening and morning meal; and found them delicate and well-flavoured.”

[13] Augustine (Serm. ccxlviii. 1): Nunquam hoc Dominus juberet, nisi aliquid significare vellet, quod nobis nosse expediret. Quid ergo pro magno potuit ad Jesum Christum pertinere, si pisces caperentur aut si non caperentur? Sed ilia piscatio, nostra erat significatio.

[14] Augustine (In Ev. Joh. tract, cxxii.): Sicut hoc loco qualiter in seculi fine futura sit [Ecclesia], ita Dominus alia piscatione significavit Ecclesiam qualiter nunc sit. Quod autem illud fecit in initio praedicationis suae, hoc vero post resurrectionem suam, hinc ostendit illam capturam piscium, bonos et malos significare, quos nunc habet Ecclesia; istam vero tantummodo bonos quos habebit in aeternum, complete, in fine hujus seculi resurrectione mortuorum. Denique ibi Jesus, non sicut hic in littore stabat, quando jussit pisces capi, sed ascendens in unam navim.... dixit ad Simonem, Due in altum, et laxate retia vestra in capturam.... Ibi retia non mittuntur in dexteram, ne solos significant bonos, nec in sinistram, ne solos malos; sed indifferenter, Laxate, inquit, retia vestra in capturam, ut permixtos intelligamus bonos et malos: hie autem inquit, Mittite in dextram navigii rete, ut significaret eos qui stabant ad dexteram, solos bonos. Ibi rete propter significanda schismata rumpebatur: hîc vero, quoniam tune jam in ilia summa pace sanctorum nulla erunt schismata, pertinuit ad Evangelistam dicere, Et cum tanti essent, id est, tarn magni, non est scissum rete; tanquam illud respiceret ubi scissum est,,, et. in illius mali comparatione commendaret hoc bonum. Cf. Serin. ccxlviii.: cclii.; and also the Brev. Coll. con. Donat. 3; Quaest. 83, qu. 8; and Gregory the Great (Horn, in Evang. 24), who altogether follows the exposition of Augustine, making indeed far more of Peter’s part, especially of his bringing of the net to land, which is easily to be accounted for, the idea of the Papacy having in his time developed itself further.

[15] This, because the. right hand is ever the hand of value; thus the sheep are placed at the right hand (Mat 25:33). Even the right eye, if needs is, shall be plucked out,—the right hand cut off (Mat 5:29-30). Again, it is threatened that even the right eye of the idol shepherd, the eye of spiritual understanding, shall be utterly darkened (Zec 11:17). Ezekiel lies on his left side for Israel, but on his right for Judah (Eze 4:4; Eze 4:6); and this because Judah, with all its sins, was not yet an apostate Church (Hos 11:12 : cf. Gen 48:17; 1Ki 2:19; Acts 7:55).

[16] Augustine (Serm. ccli. 3): In ilia piscatione non ad littus adtracta sunt retia: sed ipsi pisces qui capti sunt, in naviculas fusi sunt. Hie autem traxerunt ad littus. Spera finem seculi. Grotius has a glimpse of the same thought, when upon the words, “Jesus stood on the shore” (ver. 4), he adds: Significans se per resurrectionem jam esse in vado, ipsos in salo versari. Cf. Gregory the Great, Horn. xxiv. in Evang.

[17] Augustine (Serm. ccxlix.): Implentur navigia duo propter populos duos de circumcisione et praeputio: et sic implentur, ut premantur et poene mergantur. Hoc quod significat gemendum est. Turba turbavit Ecclesiam. Quam magnum numerum fecerunt male viventes, prementes et gementes [poene mergentes?]. Sed propter pisces bonos non sunt mersa navigia.

[18] Augustine and others have laborious calculations to show why the fishes were exactly one hundred and fifty-three, and the mystery of this number. But the significance is not in that particular number, for the number seems chosen to exclude this, herein unlike the hundred and forty-four thousand (12 X 12) of the Apocalypse (vii. 4); but in its being a fixed and definite number at all: just as in Ezekiel’s temple (ch. xl. seq.) each measurement is not, and cannot be made, significant; but that all is by measurement is most significant; for thus we are taught that in the rearing of the spiritual temple no caprice or wilfulness of men may find room, but that all is laid down according to a preordained purpose and will of God. To number, as to measure and to weigh, is a Divine attribute: cf. Job 28:25; Job 38:5; Isa 40:12; and the noble debate in St. Augustine (De Lib. Arbit. ii. 11-16) on all the works of wisdom being by number.

[19] Augustine (Serm. ccxlviii. 3): Quis est enim ibi tune parvus, quando erunt aequales Angelis Dei?

[20] Maldonatus: Missurus erat paulo post Christus discipulos suos in omnem terrarum orbem, quasi in altum ac latum mare, ut homines piscarentur. Poterant inscitiam, poterant imbecillitatem suam excusare, se homines esse litteram rudes, id est, piscandi imperitos, paucos praeterea et infirmos, quî posse se tot tamque grandes pisces capere, tot oratores, tot tantosque philosophos irretire et a sententiâ dimovere? Voluit ergo Christus exemplo artis proprise docere id ipsos suis viribus suâque industriâ facere nullo modo posse, idque significat quod totam laborantes noctem nihil ceperant; ipsius vero ope atque auxilio facillime facturos.

[21] Augustine (In Ev. Joh. tract, cxxiii.): Piscis assus, Christus est passus. Ipse est et panis qui de coelo descendit. Hinc incorporatur Ecclesia ad participandam beatitudinem sempiternam. Ammonius: Τὸ‚ Δεῦτε ἀριστεύσατε‚ αἴνιγμα ἔχει ὁ λόγος‚ ὅτι μετὰ τοὺς πόνους διαδέξεται τοὺς ἁγίους ἀνάπαυσις καὶ τρυϕὴ καὶ ἀπόλαυσις. Gregory the Great (Horn. xxiv. in Evang.) notes how the number who here feast with the Lord are seven, the number of perfection and completion.

[22] Augustine (In Ev. Joh. tract, cxxiii.): Si ergo sciebant, quid opus erat ut interrogarent? Si autem non opus erat, quare dictum est, non audebant; quasi opus esset, sed timore aliquo non auderent? Sensus ergo hic est: Tanta erat evidentia veritatis, qua Jesus illis discipulis apparebat, ut eorum non solum negare, sed nec dubitare quidem ullus auderet: quoniam si quisquam dubitaret, utique interrogare deberet. Sic ergo dictum est, Nemo audebat eum interrogare, Tu quis es: ac si diceretur, Nemo audebat dubitare quod ipse esset. Cf. Chrysostom’s striking words, In Joh. Horn, lxxxvii.

[23] In The Modern Syrians, p. 304.

[24] Πλεῖον τούτων. This might, mean—”more than thou lovest these things,” i. e. “more than thou lovest these thy nets and thy boat and other worldly gear;” plus his, as the Vulgate. But the words, so understood, yield a sense which is, at least to my mind, so utterly trivial and unworthy, as to render it not unlikely only, but impossible, that this can be the Lord’s meaning. Whitby supports this interpretation.

[25] Augustine (Semi, cxlvii. 2): Non potuit dicere nisi, Amo te: non ausus est dicere, plus his. Noluit iterum esse mendax. Suffecerat ei testimonium perhibere cordi suo: non debuit esse judex cord is alieni.

[26] The other, doubtless, is the way in which the words are more commonly understood; thus by Augustine a hundred times, as Serm. cxlvi. 1: Tamquam ei diceret, Amas me? In hoc ostende quia amas me, Pasce oves meas. But Cyril, Chrysostom, Euthymius, are with me. Thus, too, Calvin: Nunc illi tam libertas docendi quam auctoritas restituitur, quarum utramque amiserat suâ culpâ.

[27] It will be observed that when the Lord first puts the question to Peter, it is ἀγαπᾷς με; that Peter changes the word, and replies, ϕιλῶ σε (ver. 15); again the second time ἀγαπᾷς appears in the Lord’s question, and ϕιλῶ in Peter’s reply (ver. 16); till on the third time Jesus leaves the ἀγαπᾷς which He has twice used, and asks the question in Peter’s own word, ϕιλεῖς με; in which Peter again for the third time replies (ver. 17). There is nothing accidental here, as will be plain from a short consideration of the relation in which ἀγαπᾶν and ϕιλεῖν stand to one another. There exists in them nearly the same difference as in the diligere and amare of the Latin (see Döderlein, Lat. Synon. vol. iv. p. 89, seq.; and my Synonyms of the N. T. § 12); the Vulgate marking by help of these Latin equivalents the alternation of the words. Ἀγαπᾶν = diligere (=deligere) has more of judgment and deliberate choice; ϕιλεῖν = amare, of attachment and peculiar personal affection. Thus the ἀγαπᾷς on the lips of the Lord seems to Peter at this moment too cold a word; as though his Lord were keeping him at a distance; or at least not inviting him to draw as near as in the passionate yearning of his heart he desired now to do. Therefore he puts it by, and substitutes his own stronger ϕιλῶ in its room. A second time he does the same. And now he has conquered; for when the Lord demands a third time whether he loves Him, He does it with the word which alone will satisfy Peter, which alone claims from him that personal attachment and affection, with which indeed he knows that his heart is full. Ambrose, though he does not express himself very happily, has a right insight into the matter (Exp. in Luc. x. 176): Illud quod diligentius intuendum, cur cum Dominus dixerit, Diligis me? ille respondent: Tu scis, Domine, quia amo te. In quo videtur mihi dilectio habere animi caritatem, amor quendam aestum conceptum corporis ac mentis ardore, et Petrum opinor non solum animi, sed etiam corporis sui signare flagrantiam.

[28] Augustine (In Ev. Joh. tract, cxxiii.): Redditur negationi trinae trina confessio; ne minus amori lingua serviat quam timori: et plus vocis elicuisse videatur mors imminens, quam vita praesens. Enarr. in Psa 37:13 : Donec trinâ voce amoris solveret trinam vocem negationis. Serm. cclxxxv.: Odit Deus praesumtores de viribus suis; et tumorem istum in eis, quos diligit, tamquam medicus secat. Secando quidem infert dolorem; sed firmat postea sanitatem. Itaque resurgens Dominus commendat Petro oves suas illi negatori; sed negatori quia praesumtori, postea pastori quia amatori. Nam quare ter interrogat amantem, nisi ut compungat ter negantem? Serm. ccxcv. 4: Ter vincat in amore confessio, quia ter victa est in timore praesumtio. Cf. Enarr. ii. in Ps. xe. 12. So Cyril, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Apollinaris, and Ammonius: Διὰ τριῶν τῶν ἐρωτήσεων καὶ καταθέσεων ἐξαλείϕει τὰς τρεῖς ϕωνὰς τῆς ἀρνήσεως‚ καὶ διὰ λόγων ἐπανορθοῖ τὰ ἐν λόγοις γενόμενα πταίσματα. Not otherwise the Church hymn—
Ter confessus ter negatum,
Gregem pascis ter donatum,
Vitâ, verbo, precibus.

[29] Augustine (Serm. ccliii. 1): Contristatus est Petrus. Quid contristaris, Petre, quia ter respondes amorem? Oblitus es trinum timorem? Sine interroget te Dominus: medicus est qui te interrogat, ad sanitatem pertinet, quod interrogat. Noli tædio affici. Expecta, impleatur numerus dilectionis, ut deleat numerum negationis.

[30] The lectio recepta makes the order in Christ’s threefold commission to Peter that he should feed the flock, to “be the following: ἀρνία (ver. 15), πρόβατα (ver. 16), and again πρόβατα (ver. 17), Tischendorf, on the authority of A C, for the last πρόβατα reads προβάτια, which word, never else occurring in the N. T., would scarcely have found its way here into the text unless it had belonged to it of right. Yet at the same time the three words in the order in which they thus appear, ἀρνία‚ πρόβατα‚ προβάτια, fail altogether to make a climax; and one is tempted to suspect that προβάτια and πρόβατα have changed places; for if this could be admitted, all then would follow excellently well. Remarkably confirming this conjecture, first made, I believe, by Bellarmine, St. Ambrose (Exp. in Luc. x. 176), expounding Christ’s words here, uses the Latin equivalents exactly in this order; first agnos=ἀρνία, then oviculas=προβάτια, and lastly oves =πρόβατα; nor is this an accident, but he makes a point of this ascending scale, saying on that third injunction, “Feed my sheep:” Et jam non agnos, nec oviculas, sed oves pascere jubetur. It is further noticeable that the Vulgate has not one agnos and two oves, which would be the equivalent to our received reading, but two agnos and one oves, which is much nearer that which is conjectured. In the Peschito, justly celebrated for its verbal accuracy, there is a difference made, exactly answering to Ambrose’s agnos, oviculas, and oves.

[31] Wetstein: Oves istae quo tempore Petro committebantur, erant adhuc teneri agni, novitii discipuli a Petro ex Judaeis et gentibus adducendi, Quando vero etiam oves committit, significat eum ad senectutem victurum, et ecclesiam constitutam et ordinatam visurum esse.

[32] See Bernard, Be Consid. ii. 8; and a curious letter of Pope Innocent (Epp. ii. Ep. 209) on the whole series of passages in Scripture, and this among the number, on which the claims of Romish supremacy rest: the series begins very early, namely with Gen 1:16.

[33] Eusebius, Hist. Ecc 2:25; Ecc 3:1.

[34] Theophylact: Τὴν ἐπὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ ἔκτασιν καὶ τὰ δεσμὰ δηλοῖ. The passages most to the point in showing that this would naturally, be one of the images which one who, without naming, yet wished to indicate, crucifixion, would use, are this from Seneca. (Consol. ad Marciam, 20): Video istic cruces non unius quidem generis;.....alii brachia patibulo explicuerunt; and Tertullian (Be Pudic. 22): In patibulo jam corpore expanso; who says again, with allusion to the stretching out of the hands in prayer: Paratus est ad omne supplicium ipse habitus orantis Christiani. And the following phrase occurs in Arrian, Epictetus, iii. 26: ἐκτείνας σεαυτὸν‚ ὡς οἱ ἐσταυρωμένοι. The passage adduced by some from Plautus—
Credo ego tibi esse eundum extra portam,
Dispessis manibus patibulum quum habebis—
is not quite satisfying; since this is most probably an allusion to the marching the criminal along, with his arms attached to the fork upon his neck, before he was himself fastened to the cross; or perhaps not to be followed up by actual execution at all, but only as itself anignominious punishment (see Becker, Gallus, vol. i. p. 131; and. Wetstein, in loc).

[35] So Tertullian (Scorp. 15): Tune Petrus ab altero cingitur, cum. cruci astringitur; or perhaps it may be, as Lücke suggests, the girding the sufferer round the middle, who otherwise would be wholly naked on the cross. He quotes from the Evany. Nibod. 10: Ἐξέδυσαν οἱ στρατιῶται τὸν Ἰησοῦν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ‚ καὶ περιέζωσαν αὐτὸν λεντίῳ.

[36] Chrysostom (In Joh, Horn,: 88): Ὅπου οὐ θέλεις· τῆς ϕύσεως λέλει τὸ συμπαθὲς καὶ τῆς σαρκὸς τὴν ἀνάγκην‚ καὶ ὅτι ἄκουσα ἀποῤῥήγνυται τοῦ σώματος ἡ ψυχή. Cf. Augustine’s beautiful words, Serm. ccxcix., and Serm. clxxiii. 2: Quis enim vult mori? Prorsus nemo: et ita nemo ut beato Petro diceretur, Alter te cinget, et feret quo tu non vis.

[37] Bengel: Ut autem in coenâ ilia ita nunc quoque locum quaerebat, et se familiariter insinuabat, propemodum magis, quam Petrus libenter perferret.

[38] Serm. ccliii. 3: Quomodo ego sequor, et ipse non sequitur? This, too, is Chrysostom’s explanation. Jerome’s (Adv. Jovin. i. 26) is slightly different: Nolens deserere Johannem, cum quo semper fuerat copulatus. In later times it was often understood, as that in Peter’s words spoke out the jealousy of the practical life for the contemplative. The first thinks hardly of the other, counts it to be a shunning of the cross, a shrinking from earnest labour in the Lord’s cause,—would fain have it also to be a martyr not merely in will, but in deed (see the very interesting extracts from the writings of the Abbot Joachim, in Neander, Kirch. Gesch. vol. v. p. 440).

[39] It is partly no doubt their general character, as developed through the Gospel history, but mainly this passage, which has caused the two Apostles, St. Peter and St. John, to be accepted in the Church as the types, one of Christian action, the other of Christian contemplation; one, like the servants, working for its absent Lord; the other, like the virgins, waiting for Him: the office of the first, the active labouring for Christ, to cease and pass away, because the time would arrive when there should be no more need for it; but of the other, the contemplation of God, to remain (μένειν) till the Lord came, and not then to cease, but to continue for evermore. Thus Augustine in a noble passage, of which I can only give a fragment or two (In Ev. Joh. tract, cxxiv.): Duas itaque vitas sibi divinitus praedicatas et commendatas novit Ecclesia, quarum est una in fide, altera in specie; una in tempore peregrinationis, altera in aeternitate mansionis; una in labore, altera in requie; una in via, altera in patriâ; una in opere actionis, altera in mercede contemplationis;.... una bona et mala discernit, altera quae sola bona sunt, cernit: ergo una bona est, sed adhuc misera, altera melior et beata. Ista significata est per Apostolum Petrum, ilia per Johannem. Tota hîc agitur ista usque in hujus seculi finem, et illic invenit finem: differtur ilia complenda post hujus seculi finem, sed in futuro seculo non habet finem. Ideo dicitur huic, Sequere me: de illo autem, Sic eum volo manere donec veniam, quid ad te ? Tu me sequere.....Quod apertius ita dici potest, Perfecta me sequatur actio, informata meae passionis exemplo; inchoata vero contemplatio maneat donec venio, perficienda cum venero. All this remarkably came up again in the twelfth century in connexion with the Evangelium aeternum (see the passage of Neander referred to in the note preceding).

[40] Si nolo eum morte violentâ tolli quasi ante diem, sed manere in placidâ senectute superstitem usque dum veniam et morte naturali ilium ad me recipiam, quid istud ad te?

[41] See a sermon by St. Bernard (In Nativ. 8S. Innocent. 1): Et bibit ergo Johannes calicem salutaris, et secutus est Dominum, sicut Petrus, etsi non omni modo sicut Petrus. Quod enim sic mansit ut non etiam passione corporeâ Dominum sequeretur, divini fecit consilii; sicut ipse ait, Sic eum volo manere, veniam. Ac si dicat: Vult quidem et ipse sequi, sed ego sic eum volo manere.

[42] In Ev. Joh. tract, cxxiv.: Cum mortuus putaretur, sepultum fuisse dormientem, et donec Christus veniat sic manere, suamque vitam scaturigine pulveris indicare: qui pulvis creditur, ut ab imo ad superficiem tumuli ascendat, flatu quiescentis impelli. Huic opinioni supervacaneum existimo reluctari. Viderint enim qui locum sciunt, utrum hoc ibi faciat vel patiatur terra, quod dicitur; quia et revera non a levibus hominibus id audivimus..

[43] See Tertullian, De Animâ, 50; Hilary, Be Trinit. vi. 39; Ambrose, Exp. in Ps. cxviii. Serm. xviii. 12; Jerome, Adv. Jovin. i. 26; Neander, Kirch. Gesch. vol. v. p. 1117. This superstition aided much the wide-spread faith of the Middle Ages in the existence of Prester John in further Asia. Even as late as the sixteenth century an impostor was burnt at Toulouse, who gave himself out as St. John; and in England some of the fanatical sects of the Commonwealth were looking for his return to revive and reform the Church.—The erroneous reading Sic [for Si] eum volo manere, which early found its way into the Latin copies, and which the Vulgate, with the obstinate persistence of the Romish Church in a once-admitted error, still retains, may have helped on the mistake concerning the meaning of Christ’s words.