s
Epistle (ii. 2; iv. 10), that in the Gospel there is no mention of
"antichrists" (as in {256} ii. 8), and that the word "Paraclete" is in
the Gospel applied to the Holy Ghost, while it is here applied to our
Lord (ii. 1). But the idea of propitiation is expressed in the
description of our Lord as "the Lamb of God" (John i. 29), the mention
of antichrists is uncalled for in the Gospel, and by naming the Holy
Ghost "another Paraclete" our Lord gave St. John the best possible
reason for calling Christ Himself by the same title. The description
of our Lord as "the only begotten Son" (iv. 9) is an important point of
contact with John i. 14, 18. The language about "light" and
"darkness," "God" and "the world," the "new commandment," the "love" of
God, being "born of God," "eternal life," "abiding in Christ," recalls
the Gospel at every turn.

The Epistle, however, does contain some phrases and ideas which are not
to be found in the Gospel. Such are "love perfected," "a sin unto
death," "the lust of the eyes," "to come in the flesh," "to walk in the
light," "to do lawlessness," "to be from above." Yet they fit quite
naturally with the language and theology of the Gospel. Therefore
there does not seem to be any sufficient reason for holding that it was
the work of another writer. F. C. Baur and Hilgenfeld thought it to be
the work of a second forger of that mysterious band to which they
attributed such versatility and success. And several more recent
critics who have denied the authenticity of the Gospel, have maintained
with Baur that the Epistle is the work of a second forger. But these
negations have led to no assured result. They are seen to be fruitless
as soon as we realize that these critics have been quite unable to
agree whether the Epistle was composed before the Gospel or after it.
Some consider that it was a theological balloon sent to try the
credulity of Christian readers before the Gospel was despatched.
Others consider that there are "overwhelming indications" to prove that
the Epistle is only a poor imitation of the Gospel. Renan and Davidson
favoured the former view, F. C. Baur and C. Weizsaecker the latter. At
the present time the majority {257} of critics, both Christian and
non-Christian, believe that it was written by the writer of the fourth
Gospel.

[Sidenote: To whom written.]

It seems to be a pastoral letter addressed to all the members of the
apostle's flock, intended therefore for