As to the general question of its antiquity, the evidence is peculiarly strong, and may be briefly stated.  It is needless to come further down than Eusebius, by whom it is classed among the homologoumena (c. 325).  It is quoted by Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria (247-265), by Cyprian, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, and the Muratorian Canon.  Papias (who is described by Irenaaus as VIwa,nnou me.n avkousthj Poluka,rpou d v e`tai/roj) is stated by Eusebius (H. E. iii. 39) "to have used testimonies from John's former Epistle"; and Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians (c. 115) contains an almost verbal reproduction of I John 4<sup>8</sup>.  Reminiscences of it are found in Athenagoras (c. 180) (koivnwni,a tou/ patro.j pro.j to.n ui`o,n, cf. i. 3), the Epistle to Diognetus (vi. II), the Epistle of Barnabas (hv/lqen evn sarki,, cf. 4²; ui`oj tou/ qeou/ evfanepw,qh, cf. 3<sup>8</sup>), more distinctly in Justin (qeou/ te,kna avlhqina. kalou,meqa kai. evsme,n, Dial. 123) and in the Didache (cc. x., xi.,teleiw/sai auvth.n evn th/| avga,ph| sou; parelqe,tw o` ko,smoj ou`/toj; pa/j de. profh,thj dedokimasme,noj, cf. 4¹⁸, 2¹⁷, 4¹).  They are also alleged in Hermas.  It is possible that the earliest of these indicate the currency of Johannine expressions in the Christian circles in which the writer moved rather than acquaintance with the Epistle itself.  The evidence, however, is indisputable that this Epistle, though one of the latest, if not the very latest, of the books of the New Testament, won for itself immediately and permanently an unchallenged position as a writing of inspired authority.¹

    The verdict of tradition, moreover, is equally clear and unanimous that the Fourth Gospel and the First Epistle are both the legacy of the Apostle John, in his old age, to the Church.  All the Fathers already mentioned as quoting the Epistle (excepting Polycarp, but including Irenaeus) quote it as the work of St. John.  And until the end of the sixteenth century this view was unquestioned.²

    Proceeding to consider what light the Epistle itself sheds upon the personality of the writer, we note, in the first place, that, though writer and readers are alike left nameless, and any clue to the identity of either must be merely inferential, the writing before us is one in which a person calling himself "I" addresses certain other persons as "you," and is, in form at least, a letter.  That it is more than formally so, has been denied by various critics, who have, in various ways, pronounced it deficient in genuine epistolary character, describing it as a treatise, a homiletical essay, or a pamphlet.  This criticism is unwarranted.  Although its topics are so broadly handled, the Epistle is not written in any abstract interest, theological or ethical; nor - though the movement it was designed to combat was one which threatened, on the widest scale, to imperil the very life of Christianity - is it even Catholic, in the sense of being addressed to the Church at large.  From beginning to end the writer shows himself in close contact with the special position and the immediate needs of his readers.  The absence of explicit reference to either only indicates how intimate was the relation between them.  For the writer to declare his identity was superfluous.  Thought, language, tone - all were too familiar to be mistaken.  The Epistle bore its author's signature in every line.

    Though the main characteristics of the Epistle are didactic and controversial, the personal chord is frequently struck, and with much tenderness and depth of feeling, the writer alternating between the "you" of direct address (1^3,5, 2^{1,7,12-14, 18} etc., 3^5,13 etc.) and the "we" in which spontaneous feeling unites him with his readers (1^{6,10, 31,2,14,16,18} etc., 4^7,10,11 etc., 5^14,15,18-20).  Under special stress of emotion his paternal love, sympathy, and solicitude break out in the affectionate address, "Little children "³ (tekni,a paidi,a), or, yet more endearingly, "My little children" (tekni,a evmou/).  Or, again, the prefatory "Beloved"⁴ (avgaphtoi,) gives proof how deeply he is stirred by the sublimity of his theme and by the sense of its supreme importance to his readers.  He shows himself intimately acquainted with their religious environment (2¹⁹, 4¹), dangers (2²⁶, 3⁷, 5²¹), attainments (2^{12-14, 21}), achievements (4⁴), and needs (3¹⁹, 5¹³).  Further, it is implied that the relation between them is definitely that of teacher and taught, evangelist and evangelised (1^2,3).  The Epistle is addressed primarily to the circle of those among whom the author has habitually exercised his ministry in the gospel.⁵  He is in the habit of announcing to them the things "concerning the Word of life" (1¹), that they may have fellowship with him (1³); and now⁶ that his joy may be full he writes these things unto them (1⁴).  He writes as light shines.  Love makes the task a necessity and a delight.  That joy may have its perfect fruition in aiding their Christian development, in guarding them from the perils to which it is exposed, in guiding them to the trustworthy grounds of personal assurance of eternal life, he sets himself to draw out and place before them the great practical implications of the gospel, and the tests of genuine Christian discipleship which these afford.

    Thus the writer is a person who, to his readers, is of so distinctive eminence and recognised authority that he does not find it necessary even to remind them who he is.  His whole tone towards them is affectionate, solicitous, responsible.  His relation to them is not necessarily that of "spiritual father" in the Pauline sense, but it is, at any rate, that of spiritual guide and guardian, whose province it is to instruct, to warn and exhort with all authority, as with all tenderness.  All this agrees perfectly with the traditional account of St. John's relation to the Churches of Asia Minor during the later decades of the first century.  More than this cannot be said.  Nothing has been, so far, adduced that points conclusively to an apostolic authorship.  There is one passage in the Epistle, however, which has a special bearing upon the personality of the writer, namely, the Prologue (1^1-4); and this we shall now examine so far as it relates to this question.

    ⁷"That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our own⁸ eyes, that which we gazed upon, and our own⁸ hands handled, concerning the Word of Life (and the Life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and announce unto you the Life, the Eternal Life, which was with the Father and was manifested unto us); that which we have seen and heard we announce also unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us.  And these things write we unto you, that our joy may be full."

    This is, in effect, a statement of the theme of evangelical announcement, an abstract of the report which the Christian apostle is sent to deliver "concerning the Word of Life."  And, both for the interpretation of the passage itself and for its bearing on the question of authorship, the first point to be determined is what is signified by the "Word of Life."  And here, at once, we enter upon controversial ground; for the phrase may be taken as denoting either the personal Logos of John 1^1-14 or the Christian Revelation.

    Some of the Greek commentators, followed by Westcott and others, adopt the latter alternative.  "The obvious reference is to the whole Gospel, of which Christ is the centre and the sum, and not to Himself personally" (Westcott, p. 7).  But the immense difficulty of establishing this view (though it is said to be "obvious") is sufficiently illustrated by the acrobatic feats of interpretation to which its exponent is compelled to resort.⁹  With the great majority of commentators, I conclude that the "Word of Life" here signifies the Personal Logos; and for the following reasons.  (a) The parallelism between the Prologue to the Epistle and that to the Gospel is too unmistakable to permit of different significations for a word which is so cardinal in both.  (b) In answer to the objection that elsewhere¹⁰lo,goj th/j zwh/j is applied always to the Gospel, never to the personal Christ, it is to be observed that, while there is no reason why it should not be so applied, the form of expression is here determined by the verse following (kai. h` zwh. evfanerqh), which is already in the writer's mind, and which requires th/j zwh/j as a point of dependence.  The theme of the whole Epistle, moreover, is Life.  Its whole scope is summed up in this: "These things write I unto you, that ye may know that ye have eternal life" (5¹⁸).  What then more natural than, at the outset, to place before the mind of the readers their Lord and Saviour as the "Word of Life"?  (c) There is not a clause or a word¹¹ in the Prologue that does not naturally and inevitably point to the personal Logos - Him who in the beginning was with God, and was God, and who "became flesh and tabernacled among us" (John 1^1,14).

    The subject regarding whom the announcement (avpagge,llomen, 1²) is made being the Lord Jesus Christ, the matter announced is "That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our (own) eyes, that which we beheld and our (own) hands handled."  From this, two inferences are obvious, if the words "heard," "seen," "beheld," "handled" are taken in their natural sense.  The first is that the Prologue does not in any way describe the contents of the Epistle, but must refer to some other occasion or mode of announcement.  It is true that the reference to the historic Gospel is here in absolutely the right place.  The facts in which the Divine Life has been personally revealed to human perception are the fitting and firm basis for the Epistle with all its theological and ethical developments; and, doubtless, it is the purpose to impress this upon its readers that underlies the Prologue.  But, since the Epistle itself contains no announcement whatsoever of such facts, the reference (avpagge,llomen u`mi/n, 1²) can be only¹² either to the writer's habitual oral teaching, or to the literary record of it - that is to say, the Fourth Gospel.

    The second inference is that the writer claims direct, first-hand acquaintance with the facts of the Saviour's life on earth.  The terms in which he describes the substance of his announcement are these¹³ - "what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes," so that any suggestion of subjective, visionary seeing is set aside, "what we gazed upon" (evqeasa,meqa, deliberately and of set purpose to satisfy ourselves of its actuality), "what our hands handled" (evyhla,fhsan, the most incontrovertible evidence of physical fact that human sense can furnish).  It is difficult to imagine words more studiously adapted to create the impression that the writer is one of the actual disciples of Jesus.  But we are informed¹⁴ that this "superficial impression is corrected" when the language is taken along with such expressions as John 1¹⁴, I John 3⁶, and 4¹⁴.  Turning these passages for the correction of our "superficial impression," all that we find is proof that ovra/n (I John 3⁶) may certainly, and that qea/sqai¹⁵ may possibly, be used of purely spiritual vision.  This does not go far to alter the impression that when one speaks of "what he has seen with his eyes," he intends us to understand - well, just what he has seen, or supposes that he has seen, with his eyes.

    It is asserted (ibid.) that even the "strange metaphor evyhla,phsan is not too strong for the faith-mysticism of the early Church and its consciousness of possessing a direct experience of God in Christ."  One desiderates some stronger proof for such a statement than a vivid phrase from so highly rhetorical a writer as Tacitus.¹⁶  Assuredly, if one speaks of "what his hands have handled," meaning thereby his consciousness of a spiritual experience, it is one of the most bewildering uses to which human language has ever been put; and the ordinary mind may well despair of tracing, with any certitude, the meaning of a writer so elusive.

    Besides these palpable obstacles to the adoption of the "faith-mysticism" interpretation, there are others, less obvious but not less insuperable.  How, on that theory, can we explain the sudden change from the perfect tense¹⁷ in avkhko,amen and e-wra,kamen to the aorist in evqeasa,meqa and evyhla,fhsan?  The change of tense is quite naturally accounted for by referring the aorists to a definite occasion, that, namely, on which the Lord¹⁸ invited His disciples to satisfy themselves of the reality of His Resurrection by the most searching tests of sight and touch (Luke 24³⁹,John 20²⁷).  But can it be supposed that any definable diversities as to time or mode of spiritual perception are intended to be expressed by such variations of phraseology?

    It is to be observed, moreover, that the writer assumes that, in announcing to his readers his experiences of the Word of Life, he is communicating what they do not fully possess (avpagge,llomen kai. u`mi/n, 1³).  But if these were merely spiritual experiences, he could not and would not write thus.  On the contrary, his constant assumption is that his readers have full spiritual perception of the truth (2^{13,14,20,21,27} etc.).  And, on the broadest exegetical grounds, the "faith-mysticism" theory is inadmissible.  It eviscerates the words of precisely that (anti-docetic) force of testimony they are intended to contain - not to the ideal truth of the gospel nor to the consciousness of a spiritual experience, but to the physical reality, certified by the evidence of every faculty given to man as a criterion of such reality, of the human embodiment by means of which alone the glory of the Only-Begotten of the Father was revealed to the spiritual perceptions of mankind.  Upon that testimony, together with the accompanying testimony of the Spirit, the whole anti-docetic polemic of the Epistle is based (2²⁴, 4^6,14, 5^6-8); and it is incredible that the writer intended these words to be understood in a sense in which Cerinthus himself might have appropriated them.

    It is alleged,¹⁹ however, that the words are susceptible of an interpretation which, while preserving the natural sense of "heard," "seen," "beheld," "handled," does not necessitate that the writer be held as making a strictly personal claim to these experiences.  It is noted that here, in the Prologue, the author writes in the plural number, while elsewhere in the Epistle he speaks of himself in the singular²⁰ (2^12-14, 5¹³), and uses the plural "we" only when identifying himself with his readers. And from this it is argued that all he may have intended was to give his Epistle the authority of "the collective disciples of Jesus," the emphasis being not on the persons, but on the actuality of the perception.  At furthest, this would be possible, apart from unveracity, only if the writer were one who was recognised by the Church as so peculiarly identified with the original witnesses that, without creating a false impression, he could speak of the Apostolic testimony as virtually his own.  But, except the presumption that the writer cannot have been one of the original witnesses, there is really nothing to urge in favour of this supposition.  The use of the plural here perfectly harmonises with the dignity of the passage; and the same idiom is employed in the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel (1¹⁴), where it is not denied that the testimony purports, at least, to be personal.  And there are strong arguments to the contrary effect.  The very emphatic phraseology - "what we have seen with our eyes," "what our hands handled" - makes it difficult, if not impossible, to suppose that the writer intends himself to be understood as merely producing the collective testimony of the Apostles, he himself not being of their number.  No example of any such modus loquendi is found in the New Testament, or is alleged in the patristic literature.²¹  And - what seems to be decisive the author uses in the same passage the same "plural of majesty" of his present writing,²² as well as of the testimony on which he claims to found.  So far from suggesting that the writer was merely one who could in some peculiar manner represent the original witnesses of the Incarnation, the language employed resists such an interpretation.  He who "writes these things" (1⁴), is he who announces (1⁴) his personal experiences of the incarnate "Word of Life" (1¹).  Putting aside, as morally intolerable and inconceivable, the hypothesis of deliberate misrepresentation, we really seem to be shut up to the conclusion that the writer is one of the contemporary witnesses of the Saviour's life on earth.

    To sum up, then, what has been gathered from the Epistle itself regarding the writer: -  he was intimately acquainted with and profoundly concerned in the religious state and environment of his readers, their attainments, achievements, dangers, and needs; his tone and temper are paternally authoritative and tender; the relation between them is that of teacher and taught; and, finally, he claims that his testimony to the historic Gospel is based on first-hand observation of the facts.  Thus the internal evidence agrees so completely with the ancient and unbroken tradition which assigns the authorship of the Epistle to the Apostle John that, unless this traditional authorship is disproved by arguments of the most convincing kind, it must be regarded as holding the field.  Whether the arguments brought against the Johannine authorship possess this character is a question which involves the criticism of the Fourth Gospel even more than of the Epistle, and which cannot be investigated here.

    Only a fragment of the Johannine problem - the relation of the Epistle to the Fourth Gospel - can be discussed in detail within the limits of this present study; and this discussion it will be well to reserve until we have completed our consideration of the Epistle itself.

    The Epistle does not fall under either of Deissmann's categories - the true letter, intended for the perusal only of the person or persons to whom it is addressed, and the Epistle, written with literary art and with an eye to the public.  But it does possess that character of the N.T. Epistles in general, which is well described by Sir William Ramsay (Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia, p. 24): "They spring from the heart of the writer and speak direct to the heart of the readers.  They were often called forth by some special crisis in the history of the persons addressed, so that they rise out of the actual situation in which the writer conceives the readers to be placed; they express the writer's keen and living sympathy with and participation in the fortunes of the whole class addressed, and are not affected by any thought of a wider public. . . . On the other hand, the letters of this class express general principles of life and conduct, religion and ethics, applicable to a wider range of circumstances than those which called them forth; and they appeal as emphatically and intimately to all Christians in all time as they did to those addressed in the first instance."