think it a good reason. The ancients used regularly but two meals; we use three. As of our three, dinner and supper have been regarded as the two principal, it has obtained not only with us, but, I believe, over all Europe, to call the first meal of the ancients, which the Greeks named to aptorov and the Latins prandium, by the first of the two, which is dinner, and the second, ro deinvov of the Greeks, and cœna of the Latins, by the last, which is supper. It is the order that has fixed the names, and not the precise time of the day at which they were eaten. This is commonly variable, and the names cannot be gradually altered with the fashions, much less can they be accommodated to every occasional convenience. Our ancestors dined at eleven forenoon, and supped at five afternoon. But it will not be thought necessary that we should call the breakfast of our fashionable people dinner, and their dinner supper, because they coincide in time with those meals of their progenitors. To introduce the name breakfast would but mislead, by giving a greater appearance of similarity in their manners to our own than fact will justify. Refresh yourselves is a very vague expression.

3" None of the disciples," ovdeis ræv påðîtāv. Vul." Nemo discumbentium," doubtless from some copy which has read άvazɛMévov. In this the Vul. has only the concurrence of the Sax. version.

2" Ventured to ask him," črókμa čerάoαι aντov. E. T. “Durst ask him." An. and Hey. say "Offered." Dod. Wes. Wor. and Wy. "Presumed." Priestley, "Thought it necessary." Bishop Pearce has justly remarked concerning the verb roludo followed by an infinitive, that it does not always, in the use of Gr. authors, sacred or profane, express the boldness or courage implied in the Eng. verb to dare, by which it is commonly rendered. But it is equally true, on the other hand, that it is not a mere expletive. When joined with a negative, as in this place, it often expresses a disinclination arising from modesty, delicacy, respect or an averseness to be troublesome in putting unnecessary questions. The words immediately following, "knowing that it was the Master," confirm the interpretation now given. The common version, “durst not," tends to convey the notion that our Lord's manner of conversing with his disciples was harsh and forbidding, than which nothing can be more contrary to truth. Did not presume is better, as it does not suggest any austerity in our Lord; but it plainly implies what is not implied in the words, that, in the historian's judgment there would have been presumption in putting the question. The word offered is a mere expletive. Thought it necessary, though yielding an apposite meaning in this place, is evidently not the meaning of izolua. The terms ventured not, in my opinion, come up entirely to the sense of the author; which is, to express a backwardness, proceeding from no other fear than that which may be the consequence of the most perfect esteem and veneration. When those spoken of

are either enemies or indifferent persons, the verb iróдua may not improperly be rendered presumed or durst. But that is not the case here. See Mr. 12: 34. N.

15. " Lovest thou me more than these ?” αγαπάς με πλεῖον τού zwv; There is an ambiguity here in the original, which, after the Eng. translators, I have retained in the version. It may either mean, 'Lovest thou me more than thou lovest these things?' that is thy boats, nets, and other implements of fishing by which thou earnest a livelihood? or, 'Lovest thou me more than these men [thy fellowdisciples] love me? In the first way interpreted, the question is neither so cold nor so foreign as some have represented it. This was probably the last time that Peter exercised his profession as a fisherman. Jesus was about to employ him as an apostle; but, as he disdained all forced obedience, and would accept no service that did not spring from choice and originate in love, he put this question to give Peter an opportunity of professing openly his love, which his late transgression had rendered questionable, and consequently his preference of the work in which Jesus was to employ him, with whatever difficulties and perils it might be accompanied, to any worldly occupation however gainful. In the other way interpreted, the question must be considered as having a reference to the declaration formerly made by Peter, when he seemed to arrogate a superiority above the rest in zeal for his Master and steadiness in his service. "Though thou shouldest prove a stumbling-stone to them all (says he, Mt. 26: 33), I never will be made to stumble." This gives a peculiar propriety to Peter's reply here. Convinced at length that his Master knew his heart better than he himself, conscious at the same time of the affection which he bore him, he dares make the declaration, appealing to the infallible Judge before whom he stood as the voucher of his truth. But as to his fellow-disciples, he is now taught not to assume in any thing; he dares not utter a single word which would lead to a comparison with those to whom, he knew, his woful defection had made him appear so much inferior. To the second interpretation I know it is objected, that our Lord cannot be supposed to ask Peter a question which the latter was not in a capacity to answer; for, though he was conscious of his own love, he could have no certain knowledge of the love of others. But to this it may be justly answered, that such questions are not understood to require an answer from knowledge, but from opinion. Peter had once shown himself forward enough to obtrude his opinion, unasked, to the disadvantage of the rest compared with himself. His silence now on that part of the question which concerned his fellow-disciples, speaks strongly the shame he had on recollecting his former presumption in boasting superior zeal and firmness; and shows that the lesson of humility and self-knowledge he had so lately received had not been lost. VOL. II.

71

I incline rather to this second interpretation; but, as the construction will admit either, and as neither of them is unsuitable to the context and the occasion, I thought it it the safer method in a translator to give the expression in the same extent in which the evangelist has given it, and leave the choice free to his readers. It may be proper just to mention a third meaning which has been put upon the words, and of which, it must be owned, they are naturally susceptible: "Lovest thou me more than thou lovest these thy fellow-disciples?" This, in my judgment, is the least probable of them all. Our Lord was so far from ever showing a jealousy of this kind, lest any of his disciples should rival him in the affection of the rest, that it was his aim to excite them, in the warmest manner, to mutual love; urging, amongst other motives, that he will consider their love to one another as the surest evidence of their regard and affection to him, and requiring such manifestations of their love to their brethren, as he had given of his love to them, and as show it to be hardly possible that they could exceed this way. 16. “ Tend my sheep,” ποίμαινε τὰ πρόβατά μου. "Feed my sheep. This is the translation given also to the words Βύσκε τὰ πρόβατά μου in the next verse. But the precepts are not synonymous. The latter is properly, provide them in pasture: the former implies also, guide, watch, and defend them. As there is in the original some difference in every one of the three injunctions at this time laid on Peter, there ought to be a corresponding difference in the version. Yet none of our Eng. interpreters seem to have adverted to this. The Vul. must have read differently, as it has "Pasce agnos meos." But in this reading it has not the support of a single MS. and only the Sax. version.

E. T.

22, 23. "If I will that he wait my return," lav aviór diw μévεiv ëws evroμual, Vul. "Sic eum volo manere donec veniam. This version, which totally alters the sense, has no support from Gr. MSS. or fathers, or from any ancient translation but the Sax. The Cam. ver. 22. reads 'Eav avrov oého oürws péveiv; but, as it retains av, the addition of ouros makes no material change in the sense; whereas the Vul. has, in both verses, turned a mere supposition into an affirmation. Some La. MSS. read, agreeably to the Cam. "Si sic eum volo manere ;" and some, agreeably to the common Gr." Si eum volo manere.' The Jesuit Maldonat gives up the reading of the Vul. in this place entirely, and even expresses himself with an asperity which will be thought surprising, when it is considered that his argument here hurts not the Protestants, but his own friends and brethren alone. Speaking of the three La. readings given above, he says, "Prima est illa maximè vulgaris, quæ in omnes fere Latinos pervasit codices, eosque incredibili scriptorum negligentia contaminavit, Sic eum volo manere donec veniam, quid ad te? nulla prorsus specie probabilitatis," &c. Where is now the

merit which this son of Loyola boasted (when commenting on a passage liable to the like objections) of resigning entirely his own judgment in deference to the authority of the church? Ch. 8: 111. N. There, indeed, after candidly admitting the weight of the arguments on the opposite side, he replies in this manner: Sed hæc omnia minus habent ponderis quam una auctoritas ecclesiæ, quæ per concilium Tridentinum, non solum libros omnes, quos nunc habet in usu, sed singulas etiam ejus partes, tanquam canonicas approbavit." Had this good father forgotten that the reading "Sic eum volo manere," which he so disdainfully reprobates, has the sanction of the Council of Trent, for it had been the common reading of the Vul. long before, and was in all their approved editions at the time? Had he forgotten that it was first ratified by Pope Sixtus V. after the revisal appointed by him, and then by Pope Clement VIII. after a second revisal appointed by him? Not one passage in the Vul. can claim the authority of Popes and Councils, if this cannot.

25. "I imagine the world itself would not contain." I agree perfectly with those interpreters who think, that the hyperbole contained in this verse is much more tolerable than the torture to which some critics have put the words, in order to make them speak a different sense. For some apposite examples of such hyperboles, both in sacred authors and in profane, I refer the reader to Bishop Pearce. For a refutation of the opinion of Ham. who seems to think that the two last verses were not written by the evangelist but by the Asiatic bishops, and of the opinion of Gro. and L. Cl. who think that the whole last chapter is of another hand, I refer him to Wetstein.