Epistle as St. John's. Olemcnt of Alexandria speaks of it as St. John's, and apparently commented on both it and the Third Epistle (Eusebius, • Hist. Ecot,' VI. xiv. 1). Dionysius of Alexandria thinks that his not naming himself in these Epistles is in accordance with St. John's common practice. A passage in St. Cyprian's works seems to show that the Second Epistle was accepted as St. John's by the African Church in the third century. Ori gen, Eusebius, and Jerome all speak with caution about the two shorter Epistles. 'fhey know of their existence, but also know that some are inclinE:d to attribute them to another author. Eusebius, however (' Dern. Evan.,' III. iii. p. 120), seems himself to have believed that they were by the apostle. But they are absent from the Old Syriac Version, and appear to have been rejected as not apostolic by the theologians of Antioch. Thus it is precisely the earliest witnesses who are favourable to the apostolic authorship; and at no time do the doubts as to their apostolicity appear to have been general. And if the evidence as a whole appears to be meagre, we must remember these facts. (1) These Epistles were probably written tlte very last of all the books in the New Testament. Many of the other books had acquired a considerable circulation before these were in existence. (2) They are pi-ivate letters, addressed, not to Churches, but to individuals, and therefore were likely to remain in obscmity for a consider- able time. We may compare the public and official letters of a bishop now with his private letters. The one kind are published and generally circulated at once; the others, if published at all, not until long after his death. (3) The comparative insignificance of these letters would lead to their remaining generally unknown for some time. They are very short, and not of very general interest. ( 4) An immense amount of early Christian literature has perished, and with it, no doubt, much evidence respecting these Epistles (see Salmon, 'Introduction to New Testament,' pp. 282-287, 3rd edit.). But the somewhat meagre external evidence is strengthened by thti internal. Here the insignificant character of the Epistles is a strong point in their favour. Who would care to forge such slight productions? And would a forger have been content with calling himself' the elder ' ? Would he not have said ' the apostle' or ' John the apostle'? And if they are the bonajide writings of some other person, whether another John or not, why has the author taken suoh minute pains, especially in the Second Epistle, to write like St. John? The style of his Gospel and First Epistle is imitated with the greatest care and skill throughout. The student has only to take a good reference Bible, and place the passages side by side in parallel columns, to see whether far the most satisfactory hypothesis is not that of the common tradition, that Gospel and Epistles all come from one and the same author, and that author the Apostle St. John.
II. THE OCCASION OF THE EPISTLES. Like most of the Epistles in the New Testament, all these three letters are 11 pecial and occasional. They are not written, us books commonly aro at iv INTRODUCTION TO
the pr<'sent time, to elucidate some subject in whioh the writer is specially illtorested, without much reference to current events. They are produced for a special occasion, to meet an existing difficulty and danger, The First Epi~tle is written to grapple with the insidious seductions of antinomian Gnosticism, as they threatened the Church at large, The Second Epistle <l,•al8 with the same danger as it affected a particular family. The third treats of a corresponding danger arising from lawlessness of another kind- high-handed rebellion 11gainst apostolic authority. Thus, while the First Epistle in certain aspects forms a contrast to the other two, in other aspects the first two Epistles form a contrast to the third. The First Epistle is catholic, or geueral,-it is addressed to the Church at large; the other two are not. The First Epistle is a companion to the Gospel, and lays the foundations of Christian conduct as a whole. The other two have no special relation to the Gospel, and deal with only one or two points of conduct, viz. tbe duty of hospitality, and its limits; and the treatment of those who promote heresy and schism. But, on the other hand, the first two letters contrast with the third, in that they treat of e. specious and subtle evil which was poisoning the Church from without; while the other trea,ts of open and violent anarchy which was troubling the Church from within. Humanly speaking, we may say that, but for the pressure of Gnosticism upon the Church, the First and Second Epistles, and perhaps also the Gospel of St. John, would never have been written; and again that, but for the turbulence of Diotrephes, the Third Epistle would never have been written. The turbulence of Diotrephes speaks for itself. It is amazing as being directed against a person like St. John, the last remaining representative of the apostolic body; but otherwise it is simply a typical instance of the self- willed and domineering ecclesiastic, of which the history of the Church can show so many examples. But the Gnosticism which called forth the first two Epistles requires a few words of explanation. Gnosticism, although it often had much in common with Ebionitism and Judaism, was not, like these, the open enemy of Christianity. It professed to give its approval and patronage to the gospel. The gospel was very good a.s far as it went; but the Gnostics had "a more excellent way." They understood the gospel better than the apostles themselves. It was a mistake to suppose that the historical facts and moral precepts of the Scriptmes were to be taken literally. It was a still greater mistake to snppose that the Scriptures contained all that was necessary for man's spiri- tual well-being. There was a higher knowledge, a more profound gnosis; and this the Gnostic could attain to and impart. Illumined by this, men would see that everything else was comparatively of unimportance. The philosopher whose mind was enlightened by this esoteric knowledge need not trouble himself much about his conduct. His soul was steeped in light. Good actions could not greatly increase his enlightenment; bad actions could not seriously detract from it. Indeed, there were many things THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN. v