y
little children" (ii. 1). On the whole, it seems probable that it was
written rather later than the Gospel. This is suggested by the
teaching about the second coming of Christ. Both in the Gospel and in
the Epistle we find mentioned or implied a present and a future passing
from death to life, and a spiritual presence of Christ now and another
hereafter. But in the Epistle it is the future coming of Christ which
is more prominent (ii. 28; iii. 2; iv. 17). In the Revelation, A.D.
96, it is still more prominent. The Epistle suggests that St. John's
readers were already acquainted with the discourses in his Gospel. The
heresy described, and the fact that the heretics are already _outside_
the Church, point to a comparatively late date. We can hardly place it
before A.D. 85.

[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]

This Epistle contains no reference to any outward dangers. Domitian's
persecution had not yet affected the Church, and the controversy with
Judaism had closed. There is no trace of any conflict between Jew and
Gentile, and St. John, in asserting the truth of the incarnation of the
Son of God, is not opposing any heresy resembling that of those
semi-Christian Jews of the 2nd century who declared Christ to be
_merely_ the best of men. He is combating a form of error taught by
Cerinthus, who said that {259} Jesus was a man born of Joseph and Mary,
and that on this man there descended a divine element named Christ, who
left him before the crucifixion. Thus _Christ_ never suffered, though
the _Jesus_ who seemed to be Christ did suffer. In face of these false
views St. John asserts the truth. He asserts that One who is both
Jesus and Christ came in the flesh (iv. 2), and that He came, that is,
was manifested as Christ, both in the water of His baptism and the
blood of His cross (v. 6). By this blood He cleanses man from sin (i.
7). We may be sure of His help, for He lives as our Advocate with the
Father. To deny that Jesus is the Christ is to deny the Father, to
deny God altogether (ii. 22; iv. 3). St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp
inveigh in similar language against the Docetists, who flourished
between A.D. 110 and 120. It is important to notice that St. John's
opponents do not appear to have been Antinomian in conduct. He says,
"Every one that doeth sin, doeth also lawlessness; and sin is
lawlessness" (iii. 4). If he had been blaming Antinomianism it would
have been more natural to say, "Every one