not consist in denying the essential difference between moral good and evil, but in affirming, that Christ having purchased for his people an absolute freedom from the laws both of God and men, they were not bound by any rules of morality, but were at liberty to do what they pleased; so that being incapable of sinning they were not subject to punishment. This doctrine leading its abettors to all manner of licentiousness, our Lord had good reason to say of the Nicolaitans, Rev. ii. 6. that he hated their deeds; and also their doctrine, ver. 15.

The licentious doctrines and abominable practices of the Nicolaitans, being adapted to the corrupt inclinations of the wicked, were eagerly embraced by many, in the latter part of the apostle John's days. He, therefore, judged it necessary in this epistle, to condemn these doctrines and practices, in the plainest and strongest terms. See chap. i. 8.-10. ii. 1.—3. iii. 4. -For a more particular account of the Gnostics, taken from Mosheim, see pref. to the Coloss. sect. 2. paragr. 3. from the end.

SECTION IV.

Of the Time when, and the Place where, John wrote his First Epistle.

But

Grotius, Hammond, Whitby, and Benson, think John wrote his first epistle before the destruction of Jerusalem. Benson fixes it to A. D, 68. answering to the 14th year of the emperor Nero, not long before the destruction of Jerusalem. This opinion he founds on chap. ii. 18. where the apostle says, young children it is the last hour; by which Benson understands, the last hour of the duration of the Jewish church and state. Lampe, who supposed this epistle was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, thought the apostle might say, It is the last hour, not only before, but after Jerusalem was destroyed.— Wall in his note on these words, after mentioning that Grotius and Hammond interpreted them of the time immediately preceding the destruction of Jerusalem, which happened A. D. 69. adds, "Nor are St. John's words, like those of any one who

was foretelling that event, but rather of one who was speak"ing of the present state of the Christian religion."-The commentators who suppose this epistle was written before Jerusalem was destroyed, appeal likewise in support of their opinion to chap. ii. 13. Fathers, I write to you, because ye have known him from the beginning. For this, they think, could be

said only to persons who had seen and conversed with Christ; of which description there might be many alive, at the time Jerusalem was destroyed.

Other commentators assign a much later date to this epistle. – Mill and Le Clerc place it A. D. 91. or 92.-Basnage A. D. 98.-Beausobre and L'Enfant in the end of the first century when John was very old: on which account, they think, he called himself in his second and third epistles, The Elder.— Du Pin was of the same opinion.-Whiston thought this and the other two epistles, were written A. D. 81, or 82.-Lampe places the first epistle after the Jewish war was ended, and before the apostle's exile into Patmos.-Lardner also places it after the Jewish war, A. D. 80. or later.

My opinion is, that John wrote his first epistle before the destruction of Jerusalem. 1. Because the expression, It is the last hour, may more naturally be understood of the last hour of the duration of the Jewish state, than of any later period; especially since the apostle adds, And as ye have heard that the antichrist cometh, so now there are many antichrists; whence we know that it is the last hour: plainly alluding to our Lord's prediction concerning the false teachers, who were to arise before the destruction of Jerusalem.-2. The expression, Ye have known him from the beginning, applies better to the disciples, immediately before Jerusalem was destroyed, than to the few who may have been alive at the late date assigned to this epistle. For thirty-five years after our Lord's ascension, when Jerusalem was destroyed, there may have been many living, who had seen and conversed with him, during his ministry on earth. Whereas in the year 98. or even in 92. there could not be many alive, who were of that description.

In proof however of the late date of John's first epistle, it is alleged, that the heretics who are said by the ancient fathers to have propagated the errors and practised the vices condemned in it, did not arise till after the destruction of Jerusalem. But, though it were true, that Basilides, Cerinthus and the rest, who are mentioned by the fathers as holding the errors, and following the vicious practices, condemned in this epistle, did not arise till after Jerusalem was destroyed, the errors and vices, for which they were infamous, certainly existed in the church before that catastrophe. For James speaks of them as prevalent in his time. See the preface to his epistle, sect. 4. And John represents the false teachers, whom he terms antichrists, as the

very persons who were foretold by Christ to arise before Jerusalem was overthrown, 1 John ii. 18. I am, therefore, of opinion, that Basilides and the rest were mentioned by the fathers, not because they were the authors of the heresies ascribed to them, but because they propagated them with great industry and success.

As we do not know the precise time when, so neither do we know, with any certainty, the place where John wrote his first epistle. Grotius thought it was written in Patmos, during the apostle's exile there, which he places before the destruction of Jerusalem. But if it was written before that event, which I think is the truth, it is more reasonable to suppose, that it was penned in Judea, about the time the apostle observed the encompassing of Jerusalem with armies, and the other signs of its approaching destruction foretold by his master; which led him to conclude that the last hour of the Jewish state was come, and to write this letter, to prevent the Christians in Judea from being seduced, by the false Christs and false teachers, who, according to our Lord's prediction, had arisen. If I am right in this conjecture, the persons addressed in the second chapter under the denomination of little children, young men, and fathers, were the Christians of different standings in the church, who were living in Judea and the neighbouring countries, at that time, for whose salvation the apostle had the most anxious concern especially as he speaks of the persons he calls fathers as having seen Christ. However, they were not the only persons for whom this epistle was intended. It was written for the benefit of Christians in general, to preserve them in the truth and to prevent them from following the vicious practices of the false teachers, who had then arisen, or who might afterward arise. But of these things, more in the following section, where the opinions, both of the ancients and moderns, concerning the persons to whom John's first epistle was written, shall be explained.

In this question, it is of some importance to observe, that if John wrote his first epistle in Judea, about the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, and delivered it to the Christians living in that country, as I suppose he did, it will account for its being universally received as his, in the first age, notwithstanding it appeared without any inscription, and did not bear his name in any part of it. For, as he lived among the people for whom it was more immediately intended, and delivered it to some of them personally, they must all have known it to be his.-Be

sides, after he settled at Ephesus, he had frequent opportunities, during his long abode there, to acknowledge that epistle as his, in the presence of persons who inquired concerning its authenticity, and who no doubt reported his acknowledgement to others. Thus the testimony of the brethren in Judea, to whom this epistle was originally delivered, joined with the apostle's own acknowledgement, published in Asia by the Christians there, could not fail to establish its authenticity, in such a manner as to occasion its being universally received as his, before the apostle's decease. But the second and third epistles of John, being written in the latter part of his life, he did not survive long enough, to establish their authenticity universally, by his own acknowledgment. Besides, being written to private individuals, we may suppose they remained sometime concealed in their possession, and did not come abroad so as to occasion much inquiry concerning them, whilst the apostle was alive. This, I suppose, was the reason that the second and third epistles of John, were doubted of by many in the early ages; whilst the first was received universally as his, immediately on its publication.

SECTION V.

Of the Persons for whose Use the First Epistle of John was written.

Lardner, Can. vol. 3. p. 273. saith of this epistle. “As the "writer does not at the beginning prefix his name, nor any "where else mention it in the epistle; so neither does he des"cribe, or characterize the persons to whom he writes, by the "name of their city, or country, or any such thing."

Augustine, Cassiodorius, and Bede, inform us, that the first epistle of John was anciently called, the epistle to the Parthians: as if it had been written to the Jewish believers in the country of Parthia; which Estius saith lay between the Tigris and the Indies. For in that country, as Josephus informs us Antiq. lib. xxiii. c. 12. there were many Jews, of whom, it is probable, some were converted to Christianity. For Luke, speaking of the Jews, who came to Jerusalem to worship at the feast of Pentecost, which immediately followed our Lord's ascension, and who heard the apostles preach after the Holy Ghost had fallen on them, mentions first of all, Parthians.

Estius, following the tradition preserved by Augustine, was of opinion, that as Peter wrote his epistle to the strangers of the

dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, so John wrote his first epistle to the strangers of the dispersion in Parthia, and the neighbouring countries; and to persons of all ages in these countries, as he himself testifies, chap. ii. 13. 14. 18. because he had a concern for the salvation of all.

Whiston, in his commentary on John's epistles, saith, " None "of these three epistles of St. John were written to the Par"thians, as some later Latin writers have supposed: but rather "to the Christians or churches of Asia near Ephesus." This opinion he supports, "by the perfect silence of all true anti68 quity, as to St. John's ever preaching in Parthia; and from "the account which we have in Eusebius from Origen, that "Parthia was St. Thomas's province, and Asia St. Johns: As "also from the account in the Recognitions ix. 29. That

Thomas really preached the gospel in Parthia, without a syl"lable of St. John, thereto relating. All which," says he,

makes it plain, that this pretended direction of any of St. "John's epistles to the Parthians, stands on no good authority "at all. And it is not improbable, that the occasion of this << error, was barely a false reading in some ancient manuscripts "where рos apds, to the Parthians, was read for wapdeves, to "the virgins: which latter inscription might easily be applied "to the first epistle. For as it is chiefly addressed to young "Christians, yet uncorrupted both as to fleshly and to spiritual "fornication, such as in St. John's revelations are called "apevol, virgins: so was the second epistle, anciently affirmed "by some to be written to the virgins as we learn from Cle❝ment of Alexandria in Cassiodorius," that is, as Lardner observes, from Clement's Adumbrations on the Catholic epistles, translated by order of Cassiodorius. But as L'Enfant hath remarked, there is nothing in the second epistle which suits virgins, more than other Christians.

Oecumenius, in his comment upon the last verse of this Epistle, says it was written to the whole church in general. And in the proem to his commentary upon the second epistle, he calls the first a catholic epistle; and says, "That epistle is not writ❝ten to a certain person, nor to the churches of one or more "places, as the blessed Peter's to the Jews in their dispersion; "nor as James, before him, to the twelve tribes of the Jewish "people. But he writes to all the faithful in general, whether "assembled together, or not; for which reason there is no in"scription to that epistle, as there is to the other two."-" To