(5) Ethical error. —In his denunciations of ethical error there is no reason to suppose that the writer has a different class of opponents in view. He could not have connected his ethical and christo- logical theses as he has, if the two sources of danger had been separate. At the same time, in his practical warnings as well as in his christo- logical teacliing his words have a wider reference than one particular body of opponents. There is no reason to suppose that any of the opponents had been guilty of the grosser sins of tlie tiesh. The phrase iTnOvixia r^s aapKos (2") does not imply this. And the Epistle is not directed against Antinomianism, as has been sometimes wrongly inferred from 3^. ft would seem that they claimed a superior knowledge of God to which ordinary Christians could not attain, while disregarding some at least of the requirements of the Christian code, especially the love which shows itself in active service for the brethren. They hardly recognized the obligation of tlie new command of Jn l.SH While condemning lawlessness (cf. S'*) — and many of tliem no doubt recognized the obliga- tions of the INIosaic Law— they failed to see that all falling short of the ideal revealed as possil>le in the human life of Jesus is disobedience to God'.s highest Law. The indifference of conduct, as com- pared with other supposed qualihcations, as e.g. descent from Abraham, or possession of the ' pneu- matic' seed, is clearly part of their ethical creed. In this sphere also a mixture of Judaizing and
Gnostic tendencies such as may reasonably be attributed to Cerinthianism will explain the lan- guage of the Apostle in which the ethical short- comings of the opponents are denounced.
3. Relation to the Gospel. — The authorship of the Epistles is closely connected with the question of the authorship of the CJospel. It is impossible to attempt here even a summary of the controversy. The relation, however, of the longer Epistle to the Gospel and to the shorter Epistles must be con- sidered. The similarity of style and content is so marked that the obvious explanation of common authorship might seem to need no further dis- cussion. But the views of an increasing number of competent critics cannot be neglected. Holtz- mann's articles (JFTh vii. [1881], viii. [1882]) are still the fullest and fairest statement of the views of those who reject the idea of common authorship. A rough estimate makes the vocabulary of the Epistle 295 words, of which 69 only are not found in the Gospel. The general impression formed by reading verses or chapters of the documents ia probably a safer guide. There can be no doubt as to the prevalence of characteristic and distinctive words and phrases common to both. The similar- ity extends to common types of phrases variously tilled up. Attention has often been called to the following points of similarity in style : the carrying on of the thought by the use of o^ . . . dWd, by disconnected sentences, by the positive and negative expression of the same thought ; the use of the demonstrative, iv roiJTcp, etc., followed by an explanatory clause to emphasize a thought ; the repetition of emphatic words. Such phenomena leave us with the choice between an author, vary- ing his own phrases and forms of expression, and a slavish imitator.
The similarity extends to content as well. The leading ideas — the reality of the Incarnation, the life which springs from Christ and is identified with Him, abiding in Christ and in God, the send- ing of the Son as the proof of God's love, the birth from God, the importance of witness, many well- known pairs of opposites — are equally prominent in both writings. They find that kind of similar but varied expression which suggests an author doing what he would with his own, rather than the work of a copyist. And the differences, though real, are not greater than are naturally explained by diffei"ences of time, circumstances, and object. The question of priority has also been the subject of long controversy. The priority of the Epistle has been maintained on the following grounds :
(1) The introductory verses are said to present an earlier stage of the Logos doctrine than the Prologue of the Gospel. The personal Logos is a stage not yet reached. Even if this is true, the facts might equally well be explained by the theory that in the Epistle we have a further accommoda- tion to the growing Monarchianism of a later period. And if we take the whole Epistle into account, it is clear that the ' personal differentia- tion ' of Father and Son is stated in the Epistle as definitely as in the Logos doctrine of the Gospel. And it is far easier to explain the opening expres- sions of the Epistle as a summary of that Prologue than vire versa.
(2) The diXXos irap6.K\-qTo$ of Jn 14'® has been explained by the doctrine of the Epistle which presents Christ as ■n-apa.K'KrjTos. But the two ideas are different, and not mutually exclusive. The fiXXos of the Gospel finds its natural exi)lanation in the approaching withdrawal of the bodily presence of the speaker.
(3) The Epistle shows an immediate expectation of the Parousia which the author of the Gospel ia said to have abandoned, substituting the Presence of the Spirit for the hope of the Coming. Again,