5 And now I beseech thee, lady,' not as writing to thee a new commandment," but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.3

6 And this is the love, that we walk according to his commandments. This is the commandment, even as ye have heard from the beginning, that ye may walk in it.3

7 ('Or, 256.) For many deceivers are entered into the world, who do not confess Jesus Christ did come in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.2

8 Look to yourselves,' that we may not lose THE THINGS which we have wrought, but may receive a full reward.3

9 Whosoever (wagabanov) goeth beyond, and doth not abide in the doctrine of Christ, acknowledgeth not God. He who abideth in the doctrine of Christ, the same acknowledgeth both the Father and the Son. (See 1 John v. 12. note.)

10 If any one come to you, and do not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into roUR

versation was in all respects suitable to the gospel. In this joy the apostle manifested the disposition of a faithful minister of Christ: for such derive their greatest happiness from the faith and holiness of their disciples. John spake in the same manner concerning Caius, 3 Epist. ver. 3.; and Paul concerning his converts, Philip. iv. 1.; 1 Thess. iii. 9.

Ver. 5.-1. Now I beseech thee, lady. This sort of address suiteth a particular person better than a whole church consisting of many individuals, to which, in the opinion of some, this letter was directed. See pref. sect. 2.

2. Not as writing to thee a new commandment.]-The apostle doth not speak of a new commandment, in the sense in which our Lord uses that phrase, when he said to his disciples, John viii. 34. 'A new cominaudinent I give to you, that ye love one another: as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.' See 1 John ii. 8. note 1. But his meaning is, either that the commandment to love one another, which he gave to this lady, was not a commandment which had never been delivered to the church before; or that it was not a commandment peculiar to the gospel. The first of these I take to be the apostle's meaning; as he tells this lady, that the disciples of Christ had had this commandment delivered to them from the beginning.

3. But that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another. In inculcating this commandment so frequently and so earnestly in all his writings, John shewed himself not only a faithful apostle of Christ, but a person of an excellent heart. His own breast being full of love to mankind, he wished to promote that amiable disposition in all the disciples of Jesus. See the conclusion at the end of this epistle.

Ver. 6.-1. This is the love, that we walk according to his commandments.]-Most commentators think John is here describing the love inentioned in the preceding verse, namely, the love which Christians owe to each other. But since he tells us, that the love of which he now speaketh consists in the keeping of God's commandinents, he must mean the love of God: for he delivers the same sentiment, 1 John v. 3. 'This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments.'

2. This is the commandment ;]-that is, the commandment by way of eminence. Wherefore, though the apostle doth not tell us what this commandment is, yet by calling it the commandment, he certainly directeth us to God's great commandment to obey his beloved Son Jesus Christ, whom he sent into the world made flesh, to save sinners. To this interpretation, the reason assigned by the apostle in the next verse, for putting the disciples in mind of God's commandment, agreeth; for many deceivers are entered into the world,' &c.

3. Even as ye have heard from the beginning, that ye may walk in it.]-The apostle having, from the beginning of the gospel, declared it to be God's commandment to obey Christ, John might well tell his disciples, that they had heard it preached from the beginning in order that they might constantly obey it.'

Ver. 7-1. Who do not confess Jesus Christ did come in the flesh.)-EexIVO being the participle of the imperfect of the indica. tive, is rightly translated did come; for Jesus Christ was not on earth in the flesh when John wrote this, as the translation in our Bible, is come, imports. Had had come in the flesh, but was gone. For which reason no translation of this clause, which representeth Jesus Christ as then present, can be just. Beza, in his note on exovov, after observing that it is not the participle of the present, but of the imperfect tense, tells us, that this participle is used in

innumerable places for the aorist; and gives us an example, 3 John ver. 3. where rex is put for Tv, and is rendered accordingly, even by our translators, 'when the brethren came.' -In the Vulgate version of the verse under our consideration, exoμEVOV is rightly translated venisse.

2. This is the deceiver, and the antichrist.]-Notwithstanding these appellations are in the singular number, they do not denote any particular false teacher, but a number of such; as is plain from the precedent clause, where it is said, many deceivers are entered into the world. Perhaps the apostle used the singular number emphatically, to lead this lady to recollect our Lord's prediction concerning the false teachers who were to arise. Seel John ii. 18. note 3. iv. 3. note 2.

Ver. 8.-1. Look to yourselves.]-BATT, look attentively to yourselves, and to those around you, that they may not by any crafty methods seduce you into the paths of error and vice.

2. That we may not lose the things which we have wrought.]— Five of Stephen's MSS., the Alexandrian and other MSS., the Vulgate, the second Syriac, and the Ethiopic versions, for kommiv á εργασάμεθα read here απολέσητε ο ειργασασον, 'that ye may not lose the things which ye have wrought. Grotius saith, this agrees better than the common reading with what goeth before.

3. But may receive a full reward.)-The elect lady and her children were to take heed to themselves, for this, among other reasons, that the apostles who had converted thein might not lose that part of their reward which is promised to them who turn others to righteousness, Dan. xii. 3. And even although no particular reward were promised to those who are instrumental in converting others, certainly, by the apostasy of their disciples, such will lose the joy which their perseverance in faith and holiness would give them; see Heb. xiii. 17.-The person who was to receive a full reward, in consequence of this lady and her children's looking to themselves, is the apostle; for if the others apostatized, they would receive no reward at all.

Ver. 9 Whosoever goeth beyond, and doth not abide in the doctrine of Christ.-11xzvy. This word signfies to pass over, in any direction, the bounds which are prescribed to a person. Now, as the doctrine of Christ is contained within certain limits, he who teacheth a different doctrine goeth beyond these limits. And to make this plain the apostle adds, 'And doth not abide in the doctrine of Christ.' Wherefore, the person who either neglecteth to teach any part of the doctrine of Christ, or who teacheth what is not the doctrine of Christ, is equally culpable, and doth not acknowledge God.-The doctrine of Christ which the apostle had in his view here, I suppose, is the doctrine concerning Christ, that he is the Son of God sent into the world made flesh to save mankind; see 1 John ii. 23.

Ver. 10.-1. If any one come to you, and doth not bring this doc. trine, namely, the doctrine mentioned in the preceding verse. Here more is meant than is expressed. For the apostle, in this soft expression, condemned those who brought or taught a contrary doctrine. From this precept it appears, that when those who profess to be the disciples of Christ, came to any place where they were not known to the brethren who resided there, nor were recommended to them by some with whom they were acquainted, they made themselves known to them as the real disciples of Christ, by declaring their faith. It is necessary to call the reader's atten tion to this custom, because it shews the propriety of the apostle's advice to this pious lady and her children. See the following

note.

PREFACE.

SECT. I.-Of the Authenticity of the Third Epistle of John.

For the proofs of the authenticity of this epistle, see Pref. 2 John, sect. 1. To which may be added, that, in the third epistle, we find some sentiments and expressions which are used in the second. Compare ver. 4. with 2d epistle, ver. 4., and ver. 13, 14. with 2d epistle, ver. 12.

SECT. II. Of the Persons to whom this Epistle was written.

THIS short letter is inscribed to a person named Gaius, or, according to the Latin orthography, Caius; a common name, especially among the Romans. In the history of the Acts, and in the epistles, we meet with five persons of this name.-1. There is a Caius who was with St. Paul in Ephesus during the riot of Demetrius, and who is called a man of Macedonia,' and 'Paul's companion in travel,' Acts xix. 29.-2. A Caius is mentioned Acts xx. 4. called Caius of Derbe, which was a city of Lycaonia or Isauria. Probably he was a person different from the Macedonian Caius, though like him he was Paul's assistant in preaching the gospel. Caius of Derbe accompanied Paul to Jerusalem with the collection for the saints. Probably, therefore, he was chosen by the churches of Lycaonia their messenger for that effect.3. Paul, writing from Corinth to the church of Rome, speaks of a Caius with whom he lodged, Rom. xvi. 23. who was a very benevolent person, and in opulent circumstances for the apostle called him his host, and the host of the whole church of Corinth. Wherefore, as the Caius to whom John wrote his 3d epistle, was in like manner a very benevolent person, and in good circumstances, Bede, and after him Lightfoot, conjectured that he was the Caius who, in Paul's epistle to the Romans, sent his salutation to the church at Rome. -4. The same apostle mentions his having baptized one of the name of Caius at Corinth, 1 Cor. i. 14. Proba bly he was the person whom in his epistle to the Romans, which was written from Corinth, Paul calls his host and the host of the church.-5. There was a Caius to whom John wrote this third epistle. Him Estius and Heuman thought a different person from all those above mentioned, because the apostle, by numbering him among his children, ver. 4. hath insinuated that he was his convert, which they suppose he could not say of any of the Caius's mentioned above.

In the ancient history of the church, we meet with three persons of the name of Caius. One of them a

bishop of Ephesus, another of Thessalonica, and a third of Pergamos; all about this time.-Whiston and Mill have said, that the bishop of Pergamos was the Caius to whom John wrote his third epistle. But, as Lardner observes, they said this on the testimony of the pretended Apostoli cal Constitutions, which in the present affair are of no authority at all. Besides, from the epistle itself it is evident, that Caius, to whom it was written, was at that time a person in a private station.

Lardner's account of Caius is, that "he was an eminent Christian, who lived in some city of Asia not far from Ephesus, where St. John chiefly resided after his leaving Judea. For, ver. 14. the apostle speaks of shortly coming to him; which he could not well have done if Caius lived at Corinth, or any other remote place." Canon, vol. iii. p. 293.

Caius being neither a bishop nor a deacon, but a private member of some church of which the apostle took the inspection, his hospitality to the brethren, and to the strangers who came to him, is a proof that he possessed some substance, and that he was of a very benevolent disposition. Grotius thought Caius a good Christian, who lived in one of the churches or cities mentioned in the Revelation. However, as John hath not suggested any circumstance by which we can distinguish his Caius from others of the same name, it is impossible to say with any certainty who he was, or where he lived.

SECT. III. Of the Apostle's Design in writing his Third Epistle, and of the Persons who are mentioned in it by name.

Ir doth not seem to have been John's design in writing to Caius, either to guard him against the attempts of the heretical teachers who were gone abroad, or to condemn the errors which they were at great pains to propagate; but only, in the first place, to praise Caius for having shewed kindness to some brethren and strangers, who, in journeying among the Gentiles, had come to the place were Caius resided; and to encourage him to shew them the like kindness, when they should come to him again in the course of their second journey. In the next place, he wrote this letter for the purpose of rebuking and restraining one Diotrephes, who had arrogantly assumed to himself the chief direction of the affairs of the church of which Caius was a member; and who had refused to assist the brethren and strangers above mentioned; and even had hindered those from receiving and entertaining them who were desirous to do it.-In the third place, the apostle wrote this letter to commend an excellent person named Demetrius, who, in disposition

and behaviour, being the reverse of Diotrephes, the apostle proposed him as a pattern whom Caius and the rest were to imitate.

Commentators are not agreed in their accounts of the brethren and the strangers, to whom Caius shewed kindness as they passed through his city. Grotius and Lampe thought these strangers were believing Jews, who had been driven out of Palestine by their unbelieving brethren, or who had been forced away by the calamities brought on that country during the Jewish war, and had come into Asia in hopes of obtaining assistance from the Christians in that province, or perhaps of obtaining a set tlement among them. Grotius supposes Diotrephes would not receive these strangers, nor even the brethren, that is, the Christians who were of his acquaintance, because they joined the rites of the law with the gospel. This, likewise, was the opinion of Le Clerc and Beausobre. Wherefore, according to these authors, Diotrephes was a Gentile convert, and zealous for the freedom of the Gentiles from the yoke of the law. But Mosheim rejects their opinion, as having no foundation in antiquity. Others think these strangers were Gentile converts, whom Diotrephes, a Jew zealous of the law, would not receive, because they did not observe the rites of Moses. That opinion Benson adopted, founding it on this circumstance, that Diotrephes did not receive John;' that is, did not acknowledge his authority as an apostle. For he thinks none but the Judaizing teachers denied the authority of the apostles.

The brethren who were hospitably entertained by Caius, were some believers who had gone from Ephesus to the church where Caius abode; for they are said to have praised his liberality, in the presence of the church over which John presided. Probably they belonged to that church as members.-Further, since the apostle desired Caius to help these brethren and strangers forward on their journey, it implieth that they had gone forth, or were going forth, on a second journey among the Gentiles, in which they proposed to visit Caius again. Estius conjectures, that John sent this letter to Caius by them.

The account given, ver. 7. of the purpose for which the brethren and strangers went forth to the Gentiles, inclines me to think they were preachers: For his name's sake they went forth.' Bede however informs us, that anciently two interpretations were given of these words. The first was, 'For his name's sake they went forth to preach the gospel; the second, For the faith and profession of the holy name of Christ, they were expelled from their native country.' Heuman adopts the latter interpretation, and often calls these strangers exiles; and saith they were Gentiles. But, as the brethren are distinguished from the strangers, and as it is said that they bare witness to Caius's love before the church, it is reasonable to think these brethren were members of the church over which St. John presided.-And with respect to the strangers, without determining in this place whether they were exiles from their own country or not, I suppose, that, having come to the place where the brethren of whom the apostle speaks dwelled, they joined them in their journey, which I think was undertaken for the sake of preaching Christ to the Gentiles. If I am right in this conjecture, the strangers as well as the brethren were preachers, as above observed. For, if they were only persons in want, it was no commendation of them, that they went forth taking nothing of the Gentiles;' because, standing in need of alms, it was their duty, not only to receive but even to ask alms, for the support of their life, from the unbelieving Gentiles; especially as, in many places, there may have been no Christians to whom they could apply for relief. Whereas, if they were preachers, they were greatly to be praised,

when, in imitation of the apostle Paul, they supported themselves by their own labour, and took nothing from their Gentile converts on the score of maintenance, lest it might have marred the success of their preaching. In short, if these brethren and strangers had not been preachers, the apostle could not with propriety have said, ver. 8. We therefore ought to receive such, that we may be joint labourers in the truth.' For the terms labourers and joint labourers are always, in the apostolical writings, applied to preachers of the gospel, or to those who in some way or other assisted the preachers of the gospel. These things Lardner did not attend to when he said, "I see nothing that should lead us to think preachers are spoken of, but only persons in want."

Commentators are no less divided concerning the character and office of Diotrephes.-Erasmus in his paraphrase saith, Diotrephes was the author of a new sect. This likewise was Bede's opinion. But, as other learned men have well argued, if Diotrephes had been a corrupter of the Christian doctrine, the apostle without doubt would have cautioned Caius, and all the members of his church, to have avoided him, as he desired the elect lady to avoid the false teachers of whom he wrote in his letter to her. But this, as Lamy observeth, he did not do. He only reproved the pride of Diotrephes, his contempt of the apostle's authority, but especially his ordering the members of his church not to shew kindness to the brethren and the strangers who applied to them for relief..

It is the opinion of many, that Diotrephes was a bishop in the church where he resided, and of which Caius was a member. In support of their opinion they observe, first, That he is said to have hindered those from receiving the brethren and the strangers, who were willing to shew them kindness; and to have cast them out of the church, who, contrary to his orders, continued to entertain them. Next, they take notice that the apostle said to Caius, ver. 9. 'I would have written to the church; but Diotrephes, who loveth to rule them, doth not receive us.' The apostles wrote most of their letters to the churches, that is, to the whole body of Christians living in a particular place, and sent them to the bishops and elders of these churches, to be by them read in the public assemblies for the instruction of their people. But, as Diotrephes did not acknowledge John's authority, he had reason to fear, that if he had written to the church, and had sent his letter to Diotrephes to be read by him publicly to the brethren, he would have suppressed it by virtue of his episcopal authority; or, if it had been read to the church without his consent, he would have rendered it ineffectual by means of his adherents.

Heuman thought that Diotrephes was a deacon; and that, having the charge of the church's stock, he had it in his power to refuse relief to the brethren and strangers who applied to him; and that by so doing he cast them out of the church, that is, obliged them to depart. But Lardner, who supposeth Diotrephes to have been a bishop, argueth, that as he loved to rule every thing in his church according to his own pleasure, his office as bishop enabled him to restrain the deacons from employing any part of the church's stock in relieving the brethren and the strangers.

Demetrius, who is so highly praised by the apostle in this letter, is thought to have held some sacred office in the church of which Caius was a member. But Benson rejects this opinion, because, on that supposition, Caius must have known him so well as to need no information concerning his character from the apostle. Benson therefore believed him to be the bearer of this letter, and one of the brethren who went out to preach to the Gentiles. But whoever Demetrius was, his character and

behaviour were the reverse of the character and behaviour of Diotrephes. For the apostle speaks of him as one who was esteemed of all men, and whose behaviour in every respect was conformable to the gospel; in short, one to whom the apostle himself bare the most honourable testimony. This high character of Demetrius, John wrote to Caius, that he and all the members of the church might imitate him rather than Diotrephes, whose arrogance, uncharitableness, and contempt of the apostle's authority, were so great, that he threatened to punish him for these enormities when he visited Caius; which he promised to do soon, that he might have an opportunity of speaking with Caius face to face concerning that imperious man.

SECT. IV. Of the Date of the Second and Third Epistles of John.

Or the time of writing the second and third epistles of John, nothing, as Lardner observes, can be said with

certainty. But he tells us," Mill places them about the same time with the first; that is, in the year 91 or 92. Whiston supposeth that they were all three written about the year 82 or 83. I imagine that St. John was somewhat advanced in age, and that he had resided a good while in Asia before he wrote any of these epistles; consequently I am disposed to think that these two were not writ sooner than the first. And as it was before argued, that the first epistle was written about the year 80, these two may be reckoned to have been writ between the years 80 and 90." Thus far Lardner, Can. vol. iii. p. 313.

In the preface to the first epistle, I have attempted to shew from the epistle itself, that it was written about the time of the destruction of Jerusalem: But there is nothing in the second and third epistles leading us to think they were written so early. We may therefore fix their date as late as Lardner hath done; or even later, when John was so old as with much propriety to take the title of the elder, or aged apostle, by way of eminence.

To encourage Caius to persevere in that virtuous course by which he had obtained the love of all who knew him, John, in the inscription of this letter, declared his own love to him, on account of the uncommon good ness of his character and actions, ver. 1.-and prayed to God to prosper him in his spiritual concerns, ver. 2.-and told him what joy it gave him, when the brethren who had been assisted by him, brought him the welcome news of his perseverance in the true doctrine of the gospel, ver. 3.-because the apostle's greatest joy was to hear that his disciples walked in the truth, ver. 4.— Next, he praised Caius as acting agreeably to the gospel, when he shewed kindness to the brethren and to the strangers who had applied to him for succour in their straits, ver. 5.-And to encourage him to persevere in these charitable Christian offices, he told Caius, that the brethren and strangers, when they returned, bare an honourable testimony to his love publicly before the church over which John presided. And as they were, at the time this letter was written, making a second journey among the Gentiles, he told them, if he helped them forward a second time, in a manner worthy of God whom they served, by succouring them he would still do a good work acceptable to God, ver. 6.-because these brethren and strangers, for the sake of publishing the name of Christ and the doctrine of the gospel among the Gentiles, were gone forth, as formerly, with a resolution of taking nothing on the score of maintenance from the Gentiles, notwithstanding they greatly benefited the Gentiles by preaching the gospel to them, ver. 7.-For which cause, all who had the furtherance of the gospel at heart, he told him, were bound to shew such persons kindness, that they might be joint labourers with them in spreading and establishing the truth, ver. 8.

Next, he told Caius, that he would have written the same exhortation to the church of which he was a member; but he had abstained from writing, because Diotrephes, who ruled every thing in that church according to his own humour, did not acknowledge his apostolical authority thereby insinuating, that Diotrephes probably would have suppressed any letter which the apostle might

NEW TRANSLATION.

VER. 1. The elder to Caius the beloved, whom I love in truth.2

write, ver. 9.-He added, that because Diotrephes did not acknowledge his authority, he would, when he came among them, put him in mind of his deeds; his prating against the apostle with malicious words, his not receiving the brethren and the strangers who had applied to him in their straits for relief, his hindering the members of his church from assisting them, who were disposed to do it, and his casting those out of the church who had persevered in assisting them, contrary to his arbitrary orders. By this, I think, the apostle threatened to exercise his miraculous power in punishing Diotre phes for his evil deeds, ver. 10.-But, beloved, said he, do not imitate what is evil in Diotrephes, but what is good in Demetrius, one of your own church: For he who doth good actions is begotten of God; but he who doth evil actions hath not seen God-he hath no right knowledge of God, ver. 11. He then told Caius, that Demetrius was every way worthy of being imitated, because he was praised not only by all good men, but by the gospel itself, his temper and actions being conformable to the precepts of the gospel in every respect. To these honourable testimonies John added his own approbation of Demetrius's character, which Caius knew to be a true testimony, because he knew that the apostle never praised any person from flattery, ver. 12.-He told him farther, that he had many things to write to him concerning the unchristian temper and conduct of Diotrephes; but he would not commit them to paper, lest his letter, falling into other hands, might be shewed to that imperious man, and enrage him against Caius, ver. 13.-But he hoped to visit Caius soon, and then would speak to him mouth to mouth freely concerning Diotrephes. In the mean time, to testify his esteem of Caius, he gave him his apostolical benediction, together with the salutation of all the faithful who were with him; and whom he named the friends, because they were the friends of Christ, and lived in strict friendship with each other. Lastly, he desired Caius in his name to wish health and happiness to all the faithful in his church, whom he termed the friends, because they also were the friends of Christ, and lived in the strictest friendship with each other, ver. 14.

COMMENTARY.

Ver. 1.-1. The elder.]-This appellation signifies the aged apos tle. See Pref. to 2 John, sect. 1. penult paragi.

2. To Caius (see Pref. sect. 2.) the beloved, whom I love in truth.] -See 2 John, ver. 1. note 5.