JOHN, THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF.
(1) Authenticity. For the authenticity of the first epistle very ancient testimony may be ad duced. Papias, the disciple of John, quotes some passages from it. Polycarp, also, another disciple of John, quotes a passage from this epistle (ad Philipp., c:7. So, also Irenmus (Adv. ther, 16; v :8).
The author of the first epistle describes himself, at its commencement, as an eye-witness of the life of our Lord. The style and language manifestly harmonize with those of the author of the Gospel of John. The polemics, also, which in chapter ii : 18-26, are directed against the Docetic Gnostics, in chapter iv :1-3, agree with the sphere of action in Asia Nlinor in which the Evangelist John was placed. We may, therefore, suppose that the epis tle was written to Christian congregations in Asia Minor, which were placed under the spiritual care of the apostle. It is generally admitted that chapter i :2 refers to the Gospel. If this is correct, the apostle wrote this epistle at a very advanced age, after he had written his gospel. The epistle breathes love and devotion, but also zeal for moral strictness (iii :6-8; v :16). There is a remarkable absence of logical connection in the form of separate expressions, and in the transitions from one thought to another. Some writers have been inclined to find a, reason for this in the advanced age of the writer. Old age may, perhaps, have contributed to this characteristic, but it is chiefly attributable to the mental peculiarity of the apostle, (2) Time and Place of Writing the First Epistle. On this head nothing certain can be de termined. It has been conjectured by many inter preters, ancient and modern, that it was written at the same place as the Gospel. The more ancient tradition places the writing of the Gospel at Ephe sus, and a less authentic report refers it to the island of Patmos. Hug (Introduction) infers, from the absence of writing materials (3 John t3), that all John's Epistles were composed at Patmos! The most probable opinion is that it was written somewhere in Asia Minor, in which was the ordinary residence of the Apostle (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii :23), perhaps, according to the tra dition of the Greek church, at Ephesus ; but for this we have no historieal warrant (Lficke's Com mentary).
It is equally difficult to determine the time of the writing of this Epistle, although it v.-as most prob ably posterior to the Gospel, which scems to be re ferred to in John i:4. Some are of opinion that the Epistle was an envelope or accompaniment to the Gosepl, and that they were consequently writ ten nearly simultaneously (Hug's hared.). It has been argued by several, from chapter ii :18 (iaxcirn 6pa tarty, it is the last time), that the Epistle was written before the destruction of Je rusalem.
Various, indeed, have been the hypotheses re garding the persons to whom this Epistle was written, but it is by no means improbable, from the absence of Old Testament references, that it was addressed to Gentile converts, of which there were several congregations in Asia Minor.
(3) Object and Desigia. The main object and design of this Epistle has been generally per ceived to consist in the refutation of certain er rors and heresies in the churches subject to St. John's episcopate. But opinions are divided as to who the teachers of these heresies were, whether Jews, Ebionites, Gnostics, Docetze, Cerinthus and his followers, or finally the disciples of John the Baptist. This polemical object appears, however, to form but a secondary part of the design of John, his main object being rather to enforce the necessity of progressive sanctification, genuine brotherly love, and the renunciation of the world. The design of the Epistle is didactic rather than polemical.
Another portion of this Epistle seems directed against a certain class of antinomian Christians, who perverted Christian liberty into antichristian licentiousness and libertinism, and decided what was sinful or otherwise, not according to the posi tive law of God, but by their own internal feel ings—thus confounding light and darkness, God and the world. This vital error was rather to be found among the heathen than the Jewish Chris tians, and was probably founded on a perversion of St. Paul's doctrine of justification by faith. (See Augustine, Tractat. x, in Ep. Johannis ad Parthos; Luther's Zwiefache Ausleg. ed. Walch. vol ix ; Whiston's Commentary on the 3 Cath. Epist. of St. John.) There has been no subject connected with Bib lical literature which has attracted more attention than this epistle, in consequence of the contro versies which have existed since the commence ment of the sixteenth century, respecting the once contested but now rejected passage in 1 John v:7, 8. It is sufficient here to say that the disputed passage is found in no Greek manuscript save two, both belonging to the fifteenth century; and that it has not once been quoted by any of the Greek, Latin or Oriental fathers. It is now generally omitted in all critical editions of the New Testa ment, as it is in the R. V. (See Dean Turton's Vindication of the Literary Chariacter of Professor Porson from the Animadversions of the Right Rev. Thomas Burgess, D. D., etc., published un der the name of Crito-Cantahrigiensis, 1827.) The Memoir of the Controversy Respecting the Heav enly IVitnesses (183o), by the Rev. NV. Orme, contains interesting critical notices of the princi pal writers on both sides of this much agitated question. Dr. Tregelles, in Journ. Sacr. Lit., April, 1858, p. 167, sq., exposes the misstatements of Dr. Turnbull ; Candlish, Lectures. W.W. JOHN, THE SECOND AND THIRD EPIS