the Roman empire, or Daniel's fourth monarchy then. exifted and therefore St. John could have no need to point out to his readers any token of its arrival. The interpretation would be more fpecious, if St. John had been speaking of fuch heretics, as were predeceffors of the Pope of Rome: of the Effenes, for inftance, from whom, according to St. Paul, the great apoftacy was to take its rife, and who are still confidered as faints by the Romish Church. But St. John fpeaks of Heretics, who are condemned by the perfon called the Roman Antichrift, and whofe errors are foreign to his. Nor is Wolf's explanation more fatisfactory, who fays, that sexarn wea is equivalent to the Hebrew N

the end of the days,' and that this expreffion in the. Hebrew Bible denotes the period of the New Covenant. For though fome Jews apply this expreffion to the time of the Meffiah, the application is wholly arbitrary, fince it denotes, not a particular, but any future period, as appears from the use of it in Gen. xlix. 1. Jerem. xlviii. 47. xlix. 39. And yet I hardly think, that the interpretation of Grotius is right: for the laft hour of the. existence of Jerufalem was a matter, which did not immediately concern the greatest part of St. John's readers, who were probably heathen converts, fince the Gnoftic errors, which St. John combats, prevailed chiefly among the heathen converts, and not among the converts from Judaifm, who were infected with Ebionite

errors.

Nor do I fee how St. John could argue from the many Antichrifts, by which he means Gnoftics, to the approaching deftruction of Jerufalem. For, though Chrift himself had foretold, Matth. xxiv. 24. that many falfe Chrifts would appear, previous to that event, yet he understood impoftors, who would affume to themfelves the character of a Meffiah, whereas St. John's Antichrifts were falfe teachers in the Chriftian Church,. and probably Gnoftic adversaries of the Apoftles.

Perhaps therefore it is moft advifeable to interpret "the last hour,' 1 John i. 18. as well as the laft days; 2 Pet. iii. 3. in which St. Peter fays, that fcoffers

will come, of the laft days of the Apoftles, or of the. latter part of the Apoftolic age. The Apoftles probably forefaw that the Church would not remain undisturbed, but that in their latter days falfe teachers would arise, whom they have fometimes called Antichrifts, because falfe teachers in fact oppofe Chrift. But if we adopt this explanation, the inference, which Grotius deduced from the paffage, ch. ii. 18, namely, that the Epiftle was written before the deftruction of Jerufalem, will ceafe to be valid. For the latter part of the Apoftolic age, though it may be confidered as commencing before! the deftruction of Jerufalem, efpecially if it be true, that' St. Peter meant it in the above-quoted paffage, lafted as long as St. John lived: and therefore the expreffion used by St. John in the place to which appeal is made, leaves it undetermined, whether he wrote before or after Jeru falem was deftroyed.

. Yet, though Grotius's argument does not appear to be valid, I ftill think, for another reafon, that the opinion itself is highly probable, and that the Epiftle was really written before the deftruction of Jerufalem. St. John's Gofpel was opposed to heretics, who maintained the fame tenets with thofe, who are oppofed in this Epiftle. In the Gospel he has confuted them by argument in the Epiftle he expreffes only his difapprobation of them. I conclude therefore, that this Epiftle was written before his Gofpel; for if he had already given a complete confutation, when he wrote this Epiftle, he would have thought it unneceffary to have again declared the falfity.

Of the perfons, to whom this Epifle was written.

HIS queftion is ftill more difficult to decide, than

TH

the preceding. In the Latin verfion it was formerly called the Epiftle of St. John to the Parthians: and this title was adopted by fome of the ancient fathers, and in modern times has been defended by Grotius. But if St. John had intended this Epiftle for the ufe of the Parthians, he would hardly have written it in Greek, but would have ufed either the language of the country, or, if he was unacquainted with it, would have written at leaft in Syriac, which was the language of the learned in the Parthian empire, and efpecially of the Chriftians. We know from the hiftory of Manes, that even the learned in that country were, for the most part, unacquainted with the Greek language: for to Manes, though he united literature with genius, his adverfaries objected, that he understood only the barbarous Syriac. And that a Greek book would not have been understood in the Parthian empire, appears likewife from what Jofephus fays in the Preface to his hiftory of the Jewish war, § 2, where he declares, that a work intended for the Parthian Jews, must be written, not in Greek, but in Hebrew. However, it is worth while to examine, whence the fuperfcription ad Parthos' took its rife. Whifton conjectures that an ancient Greck fuperfcription of this Epiftle was weos wagters, because the Epistle is chiefly addreffed to uncorrupted Chriftians, that this title was falfely copied wees wagles, whence was derived the Latin fuperfcription ad Parthos.' But this conjecture is without foundation: for fince the faithful are not called in a fingle inftance throughout the whole Epiftle by the name of wagleves, it is very improbable that the title wees wagleras was ever affixed to it. I would rather fuppole therefore, that the frequent ufe in this Epiftle

of

of the words Light' and Darkness,' terms, which occur in the Perfian philofophy, and on the fame occafions, as thofe, on which St. John has ufed them, gave rife to the opinion, that St. John wrote it with a view of correcting the abufes of the Perfian philofophy: whence it was inferred that he defigned it for the use of the Chriftians in the Parthian empire. And that St. John really defigned his Epiftle as a warning to thofe Chriftians who were in danger of being infected with Zoroastrian principles, is very probable: though the language of the Epiftle will not permit us to place St. John's readers in a country to the eaft of the Euphrates.

Lightfoot fuppofes that the Epiftle was written to the Corinthians: but he has not fupported his opinion by any arguments. Benfon thinks, that it was fent to the Christians, who refided in Galilee, a fhort time before the deftruction of Jerufalem: but, as St. John, ch. v. 21. cautions his readers against idolatry', they hardly refided in Galilee, where idolatry was not practifed.

Lampe, who appeals to Theodoret, contends', that it was not defigned for any particular community, but that it was written for the ufe of Chriftians of every denomination. And this is really the moft probable opinion, fince the Epiftle contains no reference to any individual church. The only difficulty attending this opinion lies in the name Epiftle,' because the frequent ufe, in an Epiftle, of the terms Light and Darkness, taken in the Perfian sense of these words, feems to imply that it was written to perfons of a particular defcription. But if we call it a treatise, this difficulty will cease: and in fact the name Epiftle' is improperly applied to it, fince it has nothing, which entitles it to this appellation.

The Gnoftics, against whom St. John wrote, probably made use of Zoroastrian terms, though their doctrines were not wholly the fame as thofe of the Zoroastrian philofophy.

In the following fection I fhall endeavour to fhew that this pa fage applies to the Gnoftics.

Prol. in Evangel. Johannis, p. 105.

E

It does not begin with the falutation, which is ufed in Greek Epiftles, and with which St. John himself begins his. two laft Epiftles: nor does it contain any falutations, though they are found in almost all the Epiftles of the Apoftles. It is true that St. John addreffes his readers in the fecond perfon: but this mode of writing is frequently adopted in books, and efpecially in prefaces. For inftance in Wolf's Elements of Mathematics, the reader is addreffed throughout in the second perfon. I confider therefore, that, which is commonly called the first Epistle. of St. John, as a book or treatise, in which the Apostle declared to the whole world his difapprobation of the doctrines maintained by Cerinthus and the Gnoftics. However, as I do not think it worth while to dispute about words, I have retained the ufual title, and have called it the first Epiftle of St. John.

TH

SECT. III.

Of the contents, and defign of this Epiftle.

HAT the defign of this Epiftle was to combat the doctrine delivered by certain falfe teachers, appears from ch. ii. 18-26. iii. 7. iv. 1-3.: and what this false doctrine was, may be inferred from the counterdoctrine delivered by St. John, ch. v. 1-6. The Apoftle here afferts that Jefus is the Chrift,' and that he was the Chrift, not by water only, but by water and blood.' Now these words, which in themselves are not very intelligible, become perfectly clear, if we confider them as oppofed to the doctrine of Cerinthus, who afferted that Jefus was by birth a mere man, but that the Eon, Chrift, defcended on him at his baptifmn, and left him before his death. But if what St. John fays, ch. v. 1-6. was opposed to Cerinthus, the Antichrifts VOL. IV.

C c

of