1. As the other apostles, James, Jude, Paul, and Peter, had written Catholic epistles to the Hebrew Christians especially, it is likely, that one of the principal "pillars of the church," the greatest surety of the mother church, the most highly gifted and illuminated of all the Apostles of the circumcision, and the beloved disciple, would not be deficient likewise in this labour of love. This is true; but the labours of these Apostles might have been the very cause why St. John should delay writing.

2. Nothing could tend so strongly to establish the faith of the early Jewish converts as the remarkable circumstances of our Lord's crucifixion, exhibiting the accomplishment of the ancient types and prophecies of the Old Testament respecting Christ's passion, or sufferings in the flesh. These St. John alone could record, as he was the only eye-witness of that last solemn scene among the Apostles. To these, therefore, he alludes in the exordium, as well as to the circumstances of our Lord's appearances after the resurrection; and to these he again recals their attention in that remarkable reference to "the water" at his baptism; to "the water and blood" at his passion, and to the dismissal of "his spirit" when he commended it to his Father, and expired, ch. v. 5-9. This argument really appears to be but of little weight. The early converts had the other Gospels in their hands; and there does not seem to have been any necessity for St. John's writing ten or twenty years earlier.

3. The parallel testimony in the Gospel (John xix. 35-37), bears witness also to the priority of the epistle, in the expression, "He that saw hath testified" (μɛμαprvoŋkɛ), intimating that he had delivered this testimony to the world already; for if now, for the first time, it should rather be expressed by the present tense, μaorvos, “testifieth." And this is strongly confirmed by the Apostle's same expression, after giving his evidence in the epistle, "This is the testimony of God, which He hath testified (uɛuaotvoŋkɛ), concerning his Son” (ver. 9), referring to the past transaction, as fulfilling prophecy.—It is acknowledged that the epistle was written first: but this does not settle the date. *

Though this composition is called an epistle, nothing is to be found in it, as Bishop Horsley has observed, of the epis

* Arrangement of the New Testament, vol. ii. p. 689, &c. The late learned and ingenious editor of Calmet, Mr. Charles Taylor, has proposed an hypothesis to dispose of the difficulties attending both the exclusively early and late dates of this epistle. He supposes that there were two publications of it; one at a very early period of the church, the other toward the close of the apostolic age, after it had been revised by its author, and adapted to the then state of the church. See Fragments to Calmet, Nos. 619–622, 625–633.

tolary form. It is not inscribed to any individual, like St. Paul's to Timothy and Titus, or the second of the two which follow it, "to the well beloved Gaius"-nor to any particular church, like St. Paul's to the churches of Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, and others-nor to the faithful of any particular region, like St. Peter's first epistle " to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia"-nor to any principal branch of the Christian church, like St. Paul's to the Hebrews- -nor to the Christian church in general, like the second of St. Peter's, "to them that had obtained like precious faith with him," and like St. Jude's, "to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called." It bears no such inscription it begins without salutation, and ends without benediction. It is true, the writer sometimes speaks, but without naming himself in the first person-and addresses his reader without naming him in the second. But this colloquial style is very common in all writings of a plain familiar cast: instances of it occur in St. John's Gospel: and it is by no means a distinguishing character of epistolary composition. It should seem that this book hath for no other reason acquired the title of an epistle, but that in the first formation of the canon of the New Testament it was put into the same volume with the didactic writings of the Apostles, which, with this single exception, are all in the epistolary form. is indeed a didactic discourse upon the principles of Christianity, both in doctrine and practice: and whether we consider the sublimity of its opening with the fundamental topics of God's perfections, man's depravity, and Christ's propitiation-the perspicuity with which it propounds the deepest mysteries of our holy faith, and the evidence of the proof which it brings to confirm them; whether we consider the sanctity of its precepts, and the energy of argument with which they are enforced-the dignified simplicity of language in which both doctrine and precept are delivered; whether we regard the importance of the matter, the propriety of the style, or the general spirit of ardent piety and warm benevolence, united with a fervid zeal, which breathes throughout the whole composition-we shall find it in every respect worthy of the holy author to whom the constant tradition of the church ascribes it," the disciple whom Jesus loved."*

It

That the leading design of this epistle was to combat the doctrines delivered by certain false teachers, appears from

ch. ii. 18-26; iii. 7; iv. 1-3. And that the doctrines taught by these heretics were similar to those of the Cerinthians and the Gnostics,* is evident from the counter doctrines here delivered by St. John, as Michaelis has ably shewn.† In order to guard the Christians to whom he wrote against the pernicious errors of these infatuated men, the Apostle has insisted, most strenuously, on the humanity and divinity of Christ on the purity of the doctrines taught by his apostles, and their conformity to the teachings of their master-on the unsullied holiness of God, and his essential goodness—on the vanity of faith, separate from holy tempers and benevolent dispositions and on the importance and obligations of brotherly love.

A variety of synopses of this epistle have been proposed, with a view to illustrate the Apostle's argument. Mr. Horne has undoubtedly adopted the best of these, which is as follows, comprising six sections, besides the conclusion, which is a recapitulation of the whole.

SECT. I. asserts the true divinity and humanity of Christ, in opposition to the false teachers, and urges the union of faith and holiness of life, as absolutely necessary to enable Christians to enjoy communion with God, ch. i. 1–7.

SECT. II. shews that all have sinned, and explains the doctrine of Christ's propitiation, ver. 8—10; ii. Î, 2. Whence the Apostle takes occasion to illustrate the marks of true faith, viz. Obeying the commandments of God, and sincere love of the brethren; and shews that the love of the world is inconsistent with the love of God, ch. ii. 3—17.

SECT. III. asserts Jesus to be the same person with Christ, in opposition to the false teachers, who denied it, ver. 18-29. SECT. IV. On the privileges of true believers, and their consequent happiness and duties, and the marks by which they are known to be the sons of God, ch. iii.

SECT. V. contains criteria by which to distinguish Antichrist and false Christians, with an exhortation to brotherly love, ch. iv.

§ i. A mark to know one sort of Antichrist—the not confessing that Christ came in the flesh, ver. 1-3.

§ ii. Criteria for distinguishing false Christians, viz.

(1.) Love of the world, ver. 4—6.

(2.) Want of brotherly love, ver. 7—12.

(3.) Denying Christ to be the true Son of God, ver. 13-15. § iii. A recommendation of brotherly love, from the consideration of the love of God in giving his Son for sinners, ver. 16—21.

*For an account of these, see the Introduction to John's Gospel, pp. 173-178, + Introduction, vol. iv. ch. xxx. sect. 3.

ante.

SECT. VI. shews the connexion between faith in Christ, regeneration, love to God and his children, obedience to his commandments, and victory over the world; and that Jesus Christ is truly the son of God, able to save us, and to hear the prayers we make for ourselves and others, ch. v. 1-16.

The conclusion, which is a summary of the preceding treatise, shews that a sinful life is inconsistent with true Christianity; asserts the divinity of Christ; and cautions believers against idolatry, ver. 17-21.

The preceding is an outline of this admirable epistle; which being designed to promote right principles of doctrine, and practical piety in conduct, abounds, more than any book of the New Testament, with criteria by which Christians may soberly examine themselves whether they be in the faith.*

Concerning the much disputed passage in ch. v. ver. 7, our limits will not permit us to speak. After all the learning and research which have been expended in support of its genuineness, we are of opinion that it is left very doubtful, and, indeed, that the arguments for its spuriousness do preponderate. The argument from the logical and grammatical structure of the verse, which has been so much relied on, has been ably examined, and, as we think, disposed of, by a recent writer in the Quarterly Review, No. 65: see also Scripture Magazine, vol. iv. pp. 86-90.

Second and Third Epistles of John.

These two epistles may be regarded as an epitome of the first one, containing very little which is not to be found in that. The similarity both in style and in sentiment between these and the first epistle is so striking, that they have been almost universally attributed to the same author. † The doubts which were formerly entertained of their genuineness have been satisfactorily accounted for, and their early reception among the canonical books is shewn from their citation by Irenæus, who was a disciple of Polycarp, and a hearer of Papias, both of whom were disciples of the Evangelists.+

*Horne's Introduction, vol. iv. p. 432. 4th edit.

This resemblance may be seen by comparing 2 Epist. 5. with 1 Epist. ii. 8.and ver. 6. with 1 Epist. v. 3.-and ver. 7. with 1 Epist. v. 5.-and 3 Epist. 12. with John xix. 35. Of John's peculiar manner of expressing things, 2 Epist. 7, and 3 Epist. 11. are examples. Eight verses out of the thirteen which the second epistle contains, may be found in the first, either in sense, or in expression. See Mill. Prolegomena, No. 153. and Whitby's Preface.

See Lardner on the Canon, vol. iii. p. 622

Commentators are much divided respecting the person to whom the second epistle is addressed. Some suppose it to have been written to an individual, others, to some particular church. The former opinion seems the most likely, from the whole tenor of the letter, and particularly from ver. 12, 13.

Macknight, after Tertullian and other ancient writers, thinks the second epistle was written to confute the errors of Basilides, which were propagated by his followers, in the latter end of the first century. These false teachers affirmed that Christ was a man in appearance only, consequently that his death and sufferings were not real; but only in appear

ance.

*

The third epistle was addressed to Gaius, or Caius; but it is quite uncertain who this Christian was. Its object was to recommend to his notice and affectionate regard certain Christians, who were travelling to preach the Gospel to the heathen; and St. John addressed him in particular, because his hospitality was already known.

There is nothing contained in these epistles from which we can fix their dates with any certainty. This in a great measure depends on the date of the first epistle; soon after which, it is generally agreed, both these were written: probably at Ephesus, over which church John is thought to have presided. +

SECTION X.

OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION.

The writer of this book affirms himself to have been John, a servant of Jesus Christ, then in the island of Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus. This will agree with no other John, of whom we have any knowledge, except the Evangelist; and accordingly, from this description of the writer, and the similarity of style which prevails between this and the acknowledged writings of that Apostle, it was universally received as his inspired production in the primitive church. It is expressly cited as such by Justin

*For a further account of the sentiments of Basilides, see the Introduction to John's Gospel, pp. 177, 178, ante.

+ See Whitby, Michaelis, Macknight, and the commentators, generally.