2. If the perfons, whom St. John recommended, had been exiles, he would not have requested Caius to fhew them a mere temporary hofpitality, and then forward them on their way. To exiles, who ftand in need of pecuniary affiftance, we render very little service by supplying them with the means of travelling further: for whither at laft are they to travel? The greatest favour which we can beftow on fuch perfons is to procure for them employment in the place where they are, and thus enable them to provide for themselves. 3. It appears from ver. 7. that the perfons, whom St. John recommended, would accept of no prefent from an heathen. Now an exile in diftrefs, who carries his religious hatred fo far, as to reject the benevolent offers of those, who entertain different fentiments from himself, is entitled to no commiferation. Such a man, if he had it in his power, would be the moft intolerant perfecutor: and therefore every favour conferred on him is an ill bestowed act of liberality, fince it confirms him in his hatred of all those who have a different religion. A man of this defcription must be left to himself, till poverty and hunger have brought him to his fenfes, and have changed the imaginary faint into a rational being. In the 12th verfe St. John highly commends Demetrius, faying, Demetrius hath good report of all men, and of the truth itfelf: yea, and we alfo bear record, and ye know, that our record is true.' Now whether this Demetrius was one of the travellers, whom the Apostle recommended, or whether he lived in the fame place with Caius, is uncertain. But the former is the moft probable, for in the latter cafe, he must have been well known to Caius, and therefore St. John would not have thought it neceffary to bear witness to his good character. In the Christian community, of which Caius was a member, there was a perfon, called Diotrephes, who affumed to himself very great authority. Whether he was orthodox, or an heretic, whether a bishop or a deacon, whether a Jewish or an heathen convert, it is wholly wholly impoffible to determine, for we know no more about him, than what is mentioned in this Epiftle. It is useless therefore to form any conjecture, fince we have no ground, on which either this or that fuppofition can be built. Equally uncertain is it, what his motive was for objecting to the reception of the Chriftian travellers whom St. John had recommended: whether he difapproved of their doctrine, or whether he was inimical to them, as being heathen converts, or according to the opinion of others, as being Jewish converts, or whether, as Heumann fuppofes, he objected to their entertainment, on account of the impoverished state of the public cheft. We have no foundation for any one of these fuppofitions: and, if I choose to indulge conjecture, I could augment the lift by as many more, for inftance, that Diotrephes was afraid the Chriftians might incur the displeasure of the magiftrates, by the reception of miffionaries, or that the miffionaries themfelves were ill chofen, or that the heathens, to whom they preached, and not the Chriftians, fhould provide for their fubfiftence, or laftly, that Diotrephes himself delivered falle doctrines, and therefore objected to thofe, who propagated the true faith. This laft conjecture is the most fpecious, and beft accords with the contents of the Epiftle. Yet, as we have a total want of hiftorical information on this fubject, it is better to confels our ignorance, than to pretend to know, what we really do not. Of this Diotrephes, St. John fays ver. тE AUTOS ETTIDEχεται τις αδελφές, και τες βελομενος κωλύει, και εκ της εκκλησιας εκβαλλει. Some commentators fupply τες αδελφές after baλ, and understand that Diotrephes ejected the travelling brethren from the church: but others, who I think are in the right, conftrue εκβάλλει with της βαλομενος, and understand that Diotrephes ejected thofe who wished to receive and entertain the travelling brethren. However, it does not thence follow, that he was a bishop : for bishops at that time had not the power of excommu nication, which was vefted in the community at large. F F 3 The The acts of authority which Diotrephes exercised must be afcribed either to his rank, or his wealth, or his eloquence, or fome other caufe, by which he gained the majority of voices, and thus effected his purpose. But if Diotrephes had fufficient influence in the community of which he was a member, to procure the ejection of those who received frangers, it is faid, that Caius, who was remarkable for his hofpitality, would hardly have been spared. Yet Caius does not appear in this Epiftle, as a perfon who had been excommunicated. To this I anfwer, that, though Diotrephes might have fufficient influence to procure the ejection of feveral members, it does not therefore follow, that he was able to procure the ejection of every hofpitable member, especially of thofe, who were particularly loved and refpected, as Caius probably was. At any rate, I cannot agree with thofe commentators, who, to avoid this feeming difficulty, conftrue εκβάλλει with αδελφος : for the travelling brethren, who wifhed to be received and entertained in that community, were not yet members of it, and therefore it cannot be faid, that they were expelled from it. The expreffion εκβαλλει εκ της πόλεως would have fuited them, but not εκβάλλει εκ της εκκλη as, which is applicable only to thofe, who were actual members of that church. SECT. V. Of the perfon of Caius, to whom the third Epifle is addressed. EVERAL perfons of the name of Caius occur in the SE 1. In the Epiftle to the Romans, ch. xvi. 23. St. Paul mentions a Caius who lived at Corinth, and whom St. Paul calls church.' his hoft, and the hoft of the whole 2. In the first Epistle to the Corinthians, ch. i. 14. St. Paul likewife mentions a Caius, who lived at Corinth, and who had been baptized by St. Paul. This is bably the same person with the preceding, pro 3. In the Acts of the Apoftles, ch. xix. 29. is mentioned a Caius, who was a native of Macedonia, who ac companied St. Paul, and fpent fome time with him at Ephefus. This is probably a different perfon from the preceding for the defcription given of the Caius, who lived in Corinth, and was the hoft of the whole church there, does not accord with the defcription given of the Macedonian Caius, who in the very fame year travelled with St. Paul, and was with him at Ephefus. 4. In Acts xx. 4. we meet a Caius of Derbe, wha was likewife a fellow traveller of St. Paul. This perfon cannot well be the Corinthian Caius, for the host of the whole church at. Corinth hardly left the place to travel into Afia, And he is clearly diftinguished from the Macedonia Caius by the epithet Δερβαίος. Now whether the Caius to whom St. John wrote his third Epiftle, was one of the perfons juft mentioned, or whether he was different from them all, it is at present difficult to determine, becaufe Caius was a very common name. Yet if we may judge from the fimilarity of character, it is not improbable that he was the Caius, who lived at Corinth, and who is called by St. Paul' the hoft of the whole church for hofpitality to his Christian brethren was the leading feature in the character of that Caius, to whom St. John wrote, and on that very account he is commended by the Apoftle. Further, St. John's friend lived in a place, where the Apostle had in Diotrephes a very ambitious and tyrannical adverfary: and that there were men of this defcription at Corinth, is evident from the two Epiftles to the Corinthians, though St. Paul has not mentioned their names. If the third Epiftle of St. John was really fent to Corinth, the fecond Epiftle muft have been fent to fome FF 4 place place in the neighbourhood of Corinth, or even to Corinth itself, fince the miffionaries did not intend to preach in the community, but to travel further'. Perhaps, the thought will fuggeft itself, that the brethren who were gone forth to preach the Gospel, and would accept of nothing from the Gentiles were St. Paul and his companions; for they acted in this manner at Corinth. But this is not probable, because so remarkable a brother as St. Paul would have been mentioned in this Epiftle by name, if he had really been one of them. Befides, St. Paul did not accept of any prefent, even from the Chriftians at Corinth. Laftly, St. John promises Caius at the clofe of the Epiftle, that he will fhortly come to visit him. It is true, that in the ecclefiaftical annals of the firft century no journey or voyage of St. John to Corinth is now on record. But we muft not therefore conclude that he never was there for we hardly know any thing of the travels of any other of the Apoftles than St. Paul, and confequently can draw no conclufion from the filence of their hiftory. We know that St. John lived during a confiderable time at Ephefus: and fince Corinth lay almost oppofite to Ephefus, and St. John from his former occupation, before he became Apoftle, was accuftomed to the fea, it is not improbable that the journey, or voyage, which he propofed to make, was by fea from Ephefus to Corinth. |