doubt, very soon have become a medley of Christian and antichristian elements. Ver. 11 contains the ground of the prohibition. The Christian aigen, χαίρειν, (cfr. James i. 1), was, according to St. John, not to be an empty salutation of words and tongue, cfr. iii. 18, but an expression of the perfect nowwvia.6 Ecumenius says: 'Aκριβῶς ταῦτα λέγων, ὡς τῆς προσρήσεως ταύτης τοῖς ὁμοτρόποις ἡμῶν μόνοις καὶ ὁμοπίστοις ὀφειλο μένης. Τίνι γὰρ χαίρειν εὐξόμεθα ἀλλ ̓ ἢ τοῖς ὁμοτρόποις καὶ ὁμοπίστοις; And, therefore, κοινωνεῖ τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ τοῖς πονηροῖς, (viz. in the adulteration of the διδαχὴ τοῦ Χριστού).

Ver. 12. indicates that this epistle was not transmitted along with the more prolix first epistle. St. John concludes his epistolary instruction: he hopes to come himself, καὶ στόμα πρὸς στόμα λαλῆσαι, (eoram loqui, efr. Num. xii. 8; Jer. xxxii. 4, by D; the classical expression στόμα πρὸς στόμα refers to the kiss). As to the: an agà μ, (not the joy of meeting again, but joy arising from the Christian communion), Angwin, cfr. 1 John i. 4.

The precise circumstances of Kyria's Christian (izλer) sister, as well as those of her children, ver. 13, are entirely unknown. It only appears that the latter, at the time when this epistle was written, resided at the same place as St. John.

This

5 Cfr. Arrian III. 22, and Lamprid. Alex. Sev. 18. Emperor nisi honestos et bonæ famæ homines ad salutationem non admisit, cfr. cap. 25.

7 For Archeological notices relative to this, see in Hug's Introduction to the New Testament, Vol. I. p. 93, 94. 8 Xenoph. Memorab. II. 6. 32.

The wish, ver. 2, is here made use of instead of the salutation, 2 John iii. Iɛgì márτwv is, by Beza, referred to εὔχομαι, and taken in the sense of πρὸ πάντων. This construction, undoubtedly, is the most natural, and this meaning the most suitable. But how can Tɛgì Távтwv be justified, being used in the sense of Tgò Távτv? Used in this sense, it does not anywhere else occur, either in the New Testament or in the Septuagint. Beza appeals to Homer's usage: Il. Ι. 287, ̓Αλλ' ὅδ ̓ ἀνὴρ ἐθέλει περὶ πάντων ἔμμεναι ἄλAwv, cfr. ii. 831; v. 325. But, it may be doubted whether this Homeric usage ever was adopted by prose writers. It seems, that in Attic prose, it is not recognized.9 But the zon, (the Comm. dial.) which frequently did introduce into prose, phrases that only had been used by the most ancient poets, might have received it. Dionysius of Halicarnassus uses Tegi Távτwv, in one place at least, (Lib. VI. p. 375, line 36,) exactly in the same sense as Homer, λoxaγούς τε ἑτέρους καὶ περὶ παντων ἄρχοντα τὸν Σικίννιον TediaVTES. Another passage, (Lib. VI. p. 384, line 35,) is more doubtful: οἱ δὲ ἀριστοκρατοὶ περὶ πάντος θέλοντες, μὴ κινεῖσθαι ἐκ τοῦ πατρίου κόσμου τὴν πολιτείαν.10 At all events, therefore, the Homeric usage of gi

9 Steph. Thesaur, under ☛gì.

10 Another passage in Dionysius, which is pointed out by Reiske in the Index to his edition, Rhetor. p. 310. 2. is a quotation from Homer.

was not unknown, although rare, in the common dialect. But, such being the case, its occurrence in the dialect of the New Testament is still less surprising, and Piscator's conjecture, that the original reading was gò Távra, is, to say the least of it, unnecessary.11 Other interpreters, to whom the philological justification of gì Tavrov, being used instead of gò Távra, appears impossible, take gi in its usual sense, and refer it to vodovoda. Then this would be the sense: "In all things, (in every respect,) I wish that thou mayest prosper, and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth." But, the very collocation of egi Távrov makes this interpretation liable to suspicion. It is also arbitrary to refer si πάντων only to εὐοδοῦσθαι, and not to ὑγιαίνειν also; but when it is referred to both, an extremely unclear meaning is produced. Finally, also, since the spiritual prosperity is particularly mentioned, περὶ πάντων would be much limited, and have to be translated somewhat like this: "In all OTHER things." the collocation which indicates, that άr is here used without any limitation, is again repugnant to

this.

But

Evodovoda, cfr. Rom. i. 10. 1 Cor. xvi. 2, is, both with regard to form and signification, also known to the classical authors.12 Cfr. also 2 Chron. xiii. 12;

11 It would also be inconceivable, that the easier and more common reading węò závτwy, should have been transformed into the more difficult and rare igi Távτw, and thus entirely lost.

12 Theoph. de caus. plant. V. 6. Herod. VI. p. 407. Anton. VII. 7.

xviii. 11, and Testam. xii. Patr. p. 684. By εvodoũJa, St. John more specially means yaive, for this latter word is to be considered as an epexegetical parenthesis of the former.

St. John is well assured of Caius' spiritual prosperity, (Christian conduct.)13 For, (ver. 3,) travelling brethren, who, even at this time, had returned from Caius, and experienced his Christian charity, (ver. 5, 6,) had given a favourable account of his dλŋDɛių — his true Christianity; and St. John adds, for perspi cuity's sake, καθὼς σὺ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ περιπατείς, cfr. 2 John 4. Mugrugsiv rã dλndeía, cfr. ver. 6 and 12, is here used as in John v. 33; iii. 26, cfr. Luke iv. 22. Kaas is, instead of we, as in Acts xv. 14. Perhaps St. John had also learned from the brethren, that Caius was in bad health, or subject to multifarious vexations, (cfr. ver. 10.) The wish of ver. 2 may have a reference to some such circumstances.

Ver. 4. Ecumenius maintains that the double comparative μóregos, which occurs in the works of the poets, and of later prose writers,14 has here a particular emphasis, and this is the more probable, since St. John everywhere else makes use of the simple comparative sigov. To supply before iva, is as inadmissible here as in John xv. 13; roúrwv is here put instead of the . Neither gayuάrwv nor χαρῶν is to be supplied after τούτων, (which is instead of raúrns') but, as an indefinite pronoun, it refers to

13 x being, else with St. John, for the most part, an expression for animal life, is here used in the same sense as in Matth. x. 28, and 1 Pet. i. 9, 22,

14 Phrynich. Lob. p. 136.

iva-which more precisely determines it, cfr. John xv. 13. As to rà iμà réxva, cfr. 1 John ii. 1.

Ver. 5. From commending Caius's Christian conduct in general, St. John passes over to his Christian pinovia, by which Caius distinguished himself in his community. Πιστὸν ποιεῖς (rightly explained by Ecumenius: ğiov miotoũ åvògòs): thou doest a Christian action by whatsoever (iv)15 thou doest (of good) towards the brethren, and specially to strangers. Egyág. sis-cfr. Matth. xxvi. 10, where we find the complete phrase: ἔργον καλὸν ἐργάζ. εἰς.—Εἰς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς καὶ εἰς τοὺς ξένους, is not to be resolved as ἓν διὰ δυοῖν· more correctly καὶ εἰς τοὺς ξένους may be considered as an epexegetical apposition to εἰς τοὺς ἀδελ φούς. Καὶ is by Kai is by an Hebraism similarly put, Matth. xxi. 5. John x. 12, cfr. 1 Sam. xxviii. 3. Psal. Ixviii. 10.16

Ver. 6. Such travelling brethren (o) had publicly before the congregation (of Ephesus ?) given a favourable account of Caius's fraternal love. These, either the same, of suagrúgnoav, or some others, were now setting out on a journey to Caius. Recommending them to Caius, and exhorting him to shew again his Christian hospitality, St. John says: ous καλῶς ποιήσεις (not ποιήσας προπέμψεις 17 which reading is, from conjecture, adopted by Cod. C. by Arm. and Vulg.) προπέμψας ἀξίως τοῦ Θεοῦ, which is thus to

15 See Winer's Gramm. p. 95. 2, and 96. 3, note. 16 Gesenius's System, p. 845, note 5, y.

17 Then the sense would be: Whom you will, having treated them kindly, send further on their journey. Grotius made the conjecture ποιήσας προπέμψας, but without any good reason.

Ꮓ