4. Characteristics.—Though ranked among the Catholic epistles, this writing has nothing of the character of an epistle ; it more resembles a free homily. The general strain is admonitory, and the author seems to have written as he would have spoken had those whom he addresses been present before him. There does not seem to be any exact plan in the book ; one great thought pervades it, the reality of Christ's appearance in the flesh, and the all-sufficiency of his doctrine for salvation, a salvation which manifests itself in holiness and love ; but the author does not discuss these topics in any systematic or logical form ; he rather allows his thoughts to flow out in succession as one sug gests another, and clothes them in simple and earnest words as they arise in his mind. Some have imputed a character of senility to the work on this account, but without reason. Under a simple and inartificial exterior there lies deep thought ; and the book is pervaded by a sup pressed intensity of feeling that recals the youthful Boanerges in the 'aged apostle. The mighty power that is in it has drawn to it in all ages the rever ence and love of the noblest minds, especially of those who more particularly take up Christianity as a religion of love, a religion of the heart' (Liicke, p. 55).
5. Relation to the Fourth Gospel.—The close affinity between this epistle and John's gospel has been already alluded to ; in style, in prevailing for mulm of expression, in spirit, and in thought, the two are identical. This has led to the suggestion that both, in a sense, form one whole, the epistle being according to some a prolegomenon to the Gospel, according to others, its practical conch! sion, and according to others its commendatory ac. companiment. The probability is that both were written at the same period of the author's life, and that they both contain in writing what he had been accustomed to testify and teach during his apostolic ministry. But whether any closer relation than this exists between them must remain matter en tirely of conjecture.
6. Design.—That the apostle sought to confirm the believets for whom he wrote in their attach ment to Christianity, as it had been delivered to them by the ambassadors of Christ, is evident on the surface of the epistle. It is clear also that he had in view certain false teachers by whose arts the Christians were in danger of being seduced from the faith of Jesus as the incarnate Son of God, and from that holy and loving course of conduct to which true faith in Jesus leads. But who these
false teachers were, or to what school they be longed, is doubtful. It is an old opinion that they were Doketae (Tertullian, De came Christi, i. 24; Dionys. Al. ap. Euseb., H. E. vii. 25); and to this many recent inquirers have given in their adher ence. Liicke, who strenuously defends this view, attempts to shew that Doketism was in vogue as early as the time of John by an appeal to the case of Cerenthus, and to the references to Doketism in three of the epistles of Ignatius (Ad Smyrn. 2, ff. ; Ad Trail. ix. ; Ad Eph. vii.) b'ut the doctrine of Cerinthus respecting the person of Jesus Christ was not Doketic in the proper sense ; and the passages cited from Ignatius are all subject to the suspicion of being interpolations, as none of them are found in the Syriac recension. Liicke lays stress also on the words iv o-apicl iX7iNi5Oora (iV. 2 ; COMp. 2 John vii.) as indicating an express antithesis to the doc trine of the Doketics that Christ had come only in appearance. It may be doubted, however, whether this means anything more than that Christ had really come, the phrase iv o-apri Ot.beiv being probably a familiar technicality for this among the Christians. It may be questioned also whether the passage should not be translated thus : 'Every spirit which confesseth Jesus Christ having [who has] come in the flesh is of God,' rather than thus, Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come,' etc. (for ku.oXoyav with the accusative see John ix. 22 ; Acts xxiii. S ; Rom. x. 9 ; Tim. vi. 12) ; and in this case even the appearance of allusion to a contraiy doctrine vanishes (see Bleek, p. 593). It may be added that had John intended to express a direct antithesis to Do ketism he would hardly have contented himself with merely using the words Iv o-apia, for there is a sense in which even the Doket would have ad mitted this. Besides the Doketx, other heretical parties have been sug-gested, viz., the Judaisers, the Johannites, or disciples of the Baptist, the Gnostics as such, and even the Montanists. All this, how ever, is mere conjecture. Perhaps we shall best enter into the force of the Apostle's admonitions if we view them without relation to any known school of formal heresy.
Commentaries.—Aug-ustine, Tract x. in yoannis Ep. ad .Parthas ; Bullinger, 1532 ; Semler, 1792 ; Ballenstadt, IS02 ; Rickli, 182S. For commen taries on all the three Epistles of John, see end of next article.—W. L. A.