there might be cases in which it would be presumption to expect any interposition of Providence.

17. In some versions it is, There is a sin unto death.

20.* That is, Jesus has communicated to us the true doctrine concerning God, as he came to shew us the Father, [John xiv. 8, 9,] and at the same time to announce to us, from him, the promise of eternal life to all his faithful followers.

21. As he had said that the Christians only were of God, and that the Heathen world lay in wickedness, he concludes with admonishing his younger converts more especially to avoid all communication with the religious rites of the Heathens.

PARAPHRASE.

Whosoever, in opposition to the Gnostics, believes that the man Jesus is the Christ, is of the true church, and with all genuine Christians of the sons of God; and whoever, as such, is a real lover of the Father, will love his children. But the only proper evidence of our love of God, is our keeping his commandments, and this is by no means a painful task. All the temptations to vice that the world exhibits, may be overcome by him who has a true love of God, and faith in his promises; and this victory is gained by all

"We are,' says St. John, in him that is true, by his Son Jesus Christ :' that is, we are in the communion of the true God, by means of the goodness of Jesus Christ his Son, who was pleased to make him known to us, and to mark to us the method of serving him in a way that would be acceptable to him. 'He is,' adds he, the true God and life eternal; that is, this God whom Jesus Christ hath made known to us, is the true God, alone worthy of our adorations and of our homage, and life eternal; he it is who can procure to us a life eternal and infinitely happy.' Abauzit, p. 165. See Haynes (Ch. xvii. ad fin.), p. 71.

"That the true God is not the Son of God, but the Father, who, by our Saviour, is styled the only true God, is proved from the ancient reading of these words, thus: The Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know the true God, and we are in his true Son Jesus Christ.' This God, of whom the Son of God hath given us this knowledge, (as our Lord hath told us, John xviii. 3,) is the true God, and the knowledge of him is eternal life.' Thus the disciple accords well with his Master, and only teacheth what he had learnt from him.” Whitby's Last Thoughts (Pt. ii.), in Matthews's Recorder, II. p. 173. See Harwood, N. T. Gr.; Newcome in Impr. Vers.; Belsham's Inquiry, pp. 232, 233.

↑ Vers. 20, 21. "The meaning is: This is the true God, whom the Son of God has given us an understanding to know, and in whom we are by his means. This is the true God, and the way that leads to him: this is having the Father and the Son (2 John 9); that is to say, this is the true religion, and the way to eternal life, (viz. the worship of the true God by and through his Son Jesus Christ, who is the way, the truth, and the life). Beware of idol-worship. No writer, before the time of the Council of Nice, interprets the words This is the true God, concerning Christ." Clarke (S. D.), 410. See Doddridge; Bowyer; Lindsey's Scquel, pp. 201, 202; Wakefield's Enquiry, pp. 147, 148.

sincere Christians, who believe that the man Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

That Jesus was really a man, and not in appearance only, was evident from the water and the blood which flowed from his side, when it was pierced with the spear; for not only did water come from the wound, but blood also. The spirit of God also bore witness to the same truth, that Jesus was the Son of God, at his baptism, and the testimony of the Spirit may surely be relied on. There are, therefore, three things that bear the same testimony to Jesus being the Christ the Spirit at his baptism, and the water and the blood at his crucifixion; and all these three establish the same important truth: the first, that Jesus was the Son of God, and the two last, that he was truly man. If we scruple to admit the testimony of man, as that of myself, who was present at the crucifixion, we cannot object to that of God, concerning his own Son. Every real Christian is as well satisfied of this, as if he was conscious of it himself.

If we believe not God, we charge him with deceiving us, in giving a false testimony concerning his Son. What God has declared is, that through his Son Jesus, he gives to us eternal life. Every true Christian, and no other person, will attain to this life.

These things I address to you who are Christians, that you may be satisfied that you are heirs of this eternal life, and may entertain this belief with the strongest faith and the most lively joy. Another consequence of our faith is, our obtaining from God every reasonable request. If, for example, we attend a sick brother, whose disorder, like other evils, comes, directly or indirectly, from sin, but not of such a nature as there is reason to think he must die in consequence of it, our prayers may be the means of his recovery; though there are, no doubt, cases of such a nature as excludes all hope, and, therefore, it will be more advisable to forbear such prayers. Every violation of the rules of virtue, is a breach of some law of God; but all are not equally heinous. No true Christian, however, will sin wilfully and habitually; and a true child of God will not yield to the snares of the devil; and we, who are of the true church, know that we are of the family of God, while the world in general lies in wickedness. We also know that Christ came to communicate to us the true knowledge of his Father, and as we have fellowship with him, we have the same with the Father also, who is the true God; and by

this means, we attain to eternal life. Since, as I have observed, Christians alone are of the family of God, and the Heathen world lies in wickedness, the enemies of God, and exposed to condemnation, let me conclude with earnestly admonishing my younger converts to abstain, as becomes Christians, from every thing that belongs to the Heathen worship, whatever they may suffer in consequence of it.

II. JOHN.

THESE two smaller epistles of John, are supposed to have been written between A. D. 80 and 90.* Both the subjects and the language are so much the same with those of the former epistle, that there cannot be a doubt of their having the same author.

1. This second epistle is supposed by some to have been addressed to a church, but by others, to a particular woman of eminence, in the church; her name, according to some, being Eluta, and according to others, Kuria.† Ihat it was addressed to a particular woman, I think much the most probable, and which of these two words was the name, and which the epithet, or whether both of them be not epithets, is of little consequence.

There is much of dignity and modesty in the apostle calling himself an elder. It was the title assumed by Peter in his first epistle. [v. 1.]

3. That is, the true and beloved Son of God.

4. By walking in the truth, there cannot well be a doubt but that this apostle, whose principal object in writing, was to oppose the Gnostic heresy, meant their adhering to the Catholic Church.

7. This precisely marks the Gnostics, who said that Jesus and the Christ were different persons, or that Jesus had not real flesh, but only the form of a human body, not subject to pain or death.

9. Christ and the Father being in strict union, a separation from the true Church of Christ is a separation from the Father, and an union with it, is an union with both.‡

* See Lardner, VI. p. 607; Doddridge's Introd. VI. pp. 381, 382.

+ See Le Clerc; Lardner, VI. pp. 593–597; Doddridge; Bengelius in Bowyer. Ver. 10. "Thus the Jews, as Lightfoot and Whitby observe, were forbid to say God speed to an excommunicated person, or to come within four cubits of an heretic. But the apostle must not be here understood as excluding the common offices of humanity to such persons, for that is contrary to all the general precepts of benevolence to be found in the gospel." Doddridge.

11. The apostle could hardly have expressed his disapprobation of the Gnostics more strongly than in this manner. It was the practice of the Jews with respect to the persons whom they excommunicated.

13. This language is much more natural concerning a particular person, than a church. One of the sisters, probably, resided where the apostle did, and the other, to whom the epistle is addressed, at some distance.

III. JOHN.

1. THIS third epistle of John is addressed to a person of the name of Gaius,* or Caius, who must have been a respectable and wealthy member of some church in the neighbourhood of Ephesus, where the apostle resided, and of which Diotrephes was the bishop.

2. This may be rendered in all respects, as well as above all things.†

4. By walking in the truth, no doubt this apostle meant adhering to the Catholic Church, and not joining the Gnostics.+

6-8. The persons who had been entertained by this Gaius, must have been some who, like the apostle Paul, preached among the Gentiles, and bore their own expenses, so that they had the more reasonable claim to the rights of hospitality, when they met with Christians.

9, 10. We see how soon a haughty, overbearing spirit got into the Christian Church, but knowing so little of the circumstances of this particular case, we cannot say what degree of blame attached itself to the conduct of this Diotrephes. The apostle evidently thought it highly reprehensible. By casting out of the church, is probably meant, in this place, his refusing to receive these strangers, and thereby compelling them to apply to other churches for relief. The custom of excommunicating persons who did not belong to the church, in which the excommunication was pronounced, did not begin so early, and the receiving and entertaining strangers, though it might be deemed un

This name occurs Acts xix. 29; xx. 4; Rom. xvi. 23; 1 Cor. i. 14. See Lardner, VI. pp. 597, 598. + Doddridge. "Above all persons.' Hallett, I. pp. 61, 62. On vers. 6, 7, see Theol. Repos. IV. pp. 243, 244. § See Lardner, VI. pp. 599–607.

necessary, will never be deemed a plausible ground of excommunication, at any time.

12. This Demetrius was probably the person who carried this epistle.*

JUDE.

THIS epistle of Jude was probably written on the same occasion, and about the same time,t with the second of Peter, being evidently designed to guard Christians against the practices and principles of the Gnostics.

1. We know but little concerning this apostle, but that he was otherwise called Lebbeus and Thaddeus, that he was the brother of that James who is called the brother of Jesus, and that they were the sons of Alpheus, or Cleopas. Where this apostle lived, or how he died, we are not informed, but probably he continued in some part of Judea till the the breaking out of the war.‡

3. Here we clearly see that the object of this epistle was to preserve the Christians in their adherence to the proper Church of Christ, established by the apostles, in opposition to others who made innovations,§ and these we know were, in those times, the Gnostics only. All the characters by which he describes those whose opinions and practices he censures, were either avowedly maintained by them, or generally ascribed to them.

4. At first, the Gnostics were, of course, members of the common Christian churches; but afterwards, in consequence of holding opinions very different from those of other Christians, it was found convenient for them to form separate societies; and it is probable that this was at first

* On vers. 5—14, see Lardner, VI. pp. 603–607.

† See Ibid. pp. 624-627; Doddridge's Introd. VI. pp. 401, 402; Michaelis's Introd. Lect. (Sect. cxlvi.), p. 317; Impr. Vers.

"Origen Comm. in Matt. p. 488, Euseb. Lib. vi. 14, mention Jude as a writing whose authority was not owned. Sophronius says that it was rejected by many, because the author had used the authority of a spurious book of Enoch. See Jerom. Ep. 103, ad Paulinum.

"Grotius observes, that Jude does not style himself an apostle, as the apostles used to do, even in their epistles to private persons. Besides, if the epistle had been apostolical, it would have been trauslated into the other languages, and received by all the churches, which it was not, wherefore Grotius thinks it was writ by Jude, the Bishop of Jerusalem, in Adrian's time, about the year 180. See Euseb Lib. iv. 5. The epistle is writ chiefly against the Carpocratians, of whose enormous behaviour, in putting out the candles, &c. at the love-feasts, see Clemens Alexand. Strom. III. p. 480." N. T. 1729. See Lardner, II. p. 482; Bowyer.

See Blackwall (S. C.), II. pp. 200-202.

|| See John xvii. 3. "Bishop Lucifer (A. D. 854) omits the word God, saying the only Lord, as do many Greek MSS." Lardner, IV. p. 373.