2. If the perfons, whom St. John recommended, had been exiles, he would not have requested Caius to shew them a mere temporary hospitality, and then forward them on their way. To exiles, who stand in need of pecuniary affiftance, we render very little service by fupplying them with the means of travelling further: for whither at last 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 most 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 thofe who have a different religion. A man of this description 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 itself: 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 Apoftle 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 entertain. ment, on account of the impoverished state of the public cheft. We have no foundation for any one of these fuppofitions: and, if I chofe 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 themselves 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 falfe doctrines, and therefore objected to thofe, who propa gated the true faith. This laft conjecture is the most fpecious, and beft accords with the contents of the Epistle. Yet, as we have a total want of hiftorical information on this fubject, it is better to confefs our ignorance, than to pretend to know, what we really do

not.

Of this Diotrephes, St. John fays ver. Te autos Exideχεται τις αδελφες, και τις βελομενος κωλύει, και εκ της εκκλη σιας εκβάλλει. Some commentators fupply της αδελφος after exaλ, and understand that Diotrephes ejected the travelling brethren from the church: but others, who I think are in the right, conftrue εκβάλλει with τις βελομένως, and understand that Diotrephes ejected those who wished to receive and entertain the travelling brethren. How ever, it does not thence follow, that he was a bishop: for bishops at that time had not the power of excommunication, which was vefted in the community at large.

The acts of authority which Diotrephes exercised must be ascribed 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 ftrangers, it is faid, that Caius, who was remarkable for his hofpitality, would hardly have been fpared. Yet Caius does not appear in this Epiftle, as a person 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 αδελφες : for the travelling brethren, who wished 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 εκβάλλει εκ της πολεως would have fuited them, but not exaλ EX TNS EXUXNGas, which is applicable only to thofe, who were actual members of that church.

SECT. V."

Of the perfon of Caius, to whom the third Epiftle is addreffed.

EVERAL perfons of the name of Caius occur in the

S New Teftament.

1. In the Epistle to the Romans, ch. xvi. 23. St. Paul mentions a Caius who lived at Corinth, and whom

St.

St. Paul calls his hoft, and the host of the whole church.'

2. In the firft Epiftle 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 probably the fame perfon with the preceding.

.

3: 3. In the Acts of the Apoftles, ch. xix. 29. is mentioned a Caius, who was a native of Macedonia, who accompanied St. Paul, and spent fome time with him at Ephefus. This is probably a different person 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 description 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, who was likewife a fellow traveller of St. Paul. This perfon cannot well be the Corinthian Caius, for the hoft of the whole church at Corinth hardly left the place to travel into Afia. And he is clearly diftinguished from the Macedonian Caius by the epithet Δερβαιος.

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, because 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 host of the whole church:' for hofpitality to his Chriftian 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 adversary: 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

F. F 4.

place

place in the neighbourhood of Corinth, or even to Corinth itfelf, 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 Gofpel, and would accept of nothing from the Gentiles were St. Paul and his companions; for they acted in this manner át Corinth. But this is not probable, because fo 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 promifes Caius at the clofe of the Epiftle, that he will fhortly come to vifit him. It is true, that in the ecclefiaftical annals of the first century no journey or voyage of St. John to Corinth is now on record. But we must 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 almoft oppofite to Ephefus, and St. John from his former occupation, before he became Apostle, was accustomed to the fea, it is not improbable that the journey, or voyage, which he proposed to make, was by fea from Ephefus to Corinth.

Ver. 6. ες καλως ποιησεις προπεμψατο

CHAP.