members of the church of Jerusalem, were well founded, it would not prove that all, or even the greatest part of them, held the doctrine of the mere humanity of Christ. For in comprehending the whole body of the Hebrew Christians under the appellation of Ebionites, Origen himself acknowledgeth in the third section of the same second book, that he wrote incorrectly, since he there distinguishes the Hebrew Christians into three sects, one of which, he tells us, discarded the law entirely; consequently they were not Ebionites, but orthodox Christians. The same distinction Jerome hath made in his commentary on Isaiah ix. 1, 2, 3. where he speaks of Hebrews believing in Christ, and as a class of people distinct from them mentions Nazarenes, who observed the law, but despised the traditions of the Pharisees, thought highly of Paul, and held the doctrine of our Lord's divinity. See also his Comment. on Isaiah viii. 14.— 21.-More than this, although it were granted, for argument's sake, that the brethren of the church of Jerusalem, generally believed the doctrine of Christ's mere humanity, it will not prove that the apostles by whom they were instructed were of the same opinion, unless we think the Hebrew Christians could not be enticed by false teachers to forsake their first faith. This, it is presumed, no one will affirm who recollects that the Laodiceans are an example of a whole church declining from its first faith, even in the days of the apostles, Rev. iii. 14.-18.-Lastly, in this question it is of importance to know that the doctrine of the proper Ebionites concerning the mere humanity of Christ, was deemed heretical by the church in the days of Irenæus, who wrote his books against heresies in the year 176 or 177. For in the list which he hath given of heretics, lib. 1. he places the Ebionites between the Cerinthians and the Nicolaitans, both of them acknowledged heretics. And in his third book he refutes, by testimonies from the scriptures, the opinion of those who affirmed that Christ was a mere man engendered of Joseph; which was precisely the opinion of the proper Ebionites. Now if the Ebionæan doctrine concerning the person of Christ, was esteemed by the church heretical so early as in the time of Irenæus, it could neither be the doctrine of the apostles nor of the first Christians.-Upon the whole, the argument of the Socinians to prove that both the apostles and the first Christians were Unitarians, taken from the members of the church of Jerusalem being called Ebionites by the ancients, is by no means conclusive.

Besides the heretics above mentioned, there was a third sort who troubled the church in the apostle's days, named Nicolaitans, Rev. ii. 15. These, the ancient Christian writers called Gnostics; because, misunderstanding our Lord's words, John xvii. 3. This is the life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent, they affirmed that nothing was necessary to eternal life, but the knowledge of the true God and of his Son Jesus Christ. With them, therefore, knowledge was the highest, and indeed the only Christian virtue; and therefore, whoever possessed the knowledge of God and of Christ, was sure of salvation, whatever his character and actions might be. Farther, because the apostle Paul, in his epistles, had taught the doctrine of justification by faith without works of law, these heretics affirmed, that Christ had set men free from the obligation of the law of God as a rule of life; consequently that in the gospel dispensation believers being under no law whatever, they sinned not by any thing they did, however contrary it might be to the laws, whether of God or of men. According to them, the only thing incumbent on believers, in order to their obtaining eternal life, was to abide in Christ; by which they meant, abiding in the knowledge and profession of the gospel. This impious doctrine, the Nicolaitans anxiously propagated, for the purpose of alluring wicked men to become their disciples, that they might draw money from them, which they spent in gratifying their lusts. Accordingly our Lord, in his epistle to the church of Pergamos, Rev. ii. 14. represents the Nicolaitans as holding the doctrine of Balaam, who, (as Peter expresses it, 2 Pet. ii. 15. loving the hire of unrighteousness,) taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit whoredom.-Farther, because these ungodly teachers, whilst they inculcated the most immoral doctrines, pretended to be inspired, our Lord gave them the name of Jezabel Ahab's wife, who, being addicted to sorcery and divination, was a great favourer of the prophets of Baal. Perhaps also the Nicolaitans, to gain the reputation of inspired teachers, imitated the prophets of Baal in their extasies.-Our Lord's condemnation of the doctrines and practices of these impostors, we have in the following passage, Rev. ii. 20. Thou sufferest that woman Jezabel, who calleth herself a prophetess, to teach, and to deceive my servants to commit whoredom, and to eat things sacrificed to idols.-Concerning this class of false teachers, it is proper to remark, that their error did

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. 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. But 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