17 ο Ὑμεῖς οὖν, ἀγαπητοί, προγινώσκοντες φυλάσσεσθε, ἵνα μὴ τῇ τῶν p Mark 13. 23. ἀθέσμων πλάνῃ συναπαχθέντες ἐκπέσητε τοῦ ἰδίου στηριγμοῦ· 18 αὐξάνετε δὲ ἐν χάριτι καὶ γνώσει τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ Σωτῆρος ̓Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ· αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς ἡμέραν αἰῶνος· ἀμήν.

therein recorded in St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, concern-
ing himself, and his own conduct at Antioch, is a true history;
and that he was then justly rebuked, because he was kαтeywσ-
μévos, condemned. (Gal. ii. 11.)

When St. Peter wrote this Epistle, he was near his death (2 Pet. i. 14), which took place in or about A.D. 68. He refers here to St. Paul's Epistles-to all his Epistles.

At the date of the present Epistle, all St. Paul's Epistles had been written, with the exception perhaps of the last Epistle, the Second to Timothy. See above, Chronological Table prefixed to St. Paul's Epistles, pp. xiv, xv.

St. Peter, therefore, here refutes the assumption of the Bishops of Rome, who call themselves his successors, and who allege that they themselves are infallible, and are not to be rebuked by any; an assumption grounded on St. Peter's supposed infallibility (see on Matt. xvi. 18).

"Peter wrote his present Epistle a very short time before his own and St. Paul's martyrdom; and St. Peter had read all Paul's Epistles." Bengel.

St. Peter here designates St. Paul's Epistles as ypapàs, Scriptures. He says that some men wrest them as they do "the other Scriptures” (τὰς λοιπὰς γραφάς).

The word ypapal is used about fifty times in the New Testament, and is there always applied to characterize divinely inspired writings, specially those of the Old Testament, which were received by Christ Himself as given by inspiration of God. It is never used in the New Testament to designate any other writings than those. Therefore, St. Peter here declares, that the Epistles of St. Paul are divinely inspired, and are to be received

This testimony to the wisdom of St. Paul and to the divine inspiration of his Epistles, is specially interesting and valuable as coming from St. Peter.

Some persons had endeavoured to make him a rival of St. Paul. "I am of Cephas," was said in opposition to others, who said, "I am of Paul" (1 Cor. i. 12). He was the Apostle of the Circumcision, and St. Paul of the Gentiles (Gal. ii. 7). And Peter had been once prevailed upon by the Judaizing Christians at Antioch to side with them in opposition to St. Paul. (Gal. ii. 11.) On that occasion he had been openly resisted and publicly rebuked by St. Paul; and St. Paul has fully recorded the circumstances of that resistance and rebuke in one of his own Epistles to the Christians of Asia: the Christians of one of the same regions as are recited in the inscription of St. Peter's First Epistle, and to which the Second Epistle of St. Peter was addressedGalatia. (Gal. ii. 11—21.)

St. Peter, therefore, in acknowledging St. Paul's Epistles to be Scripture, that is, as written by inspiration of God, acknowledges them to be true; and therefore he owns, that what is

3

1

INTRODUCTION

то

THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF ST. JOHN.

I. EACH of the Catholic or General Epistles has a special character.

The Epistle of St. James corrects the errors of those who imagined that a theoretical knowledge of religion, apart from practical piety, is acceptable to God'. St. Peter, in his First Epistle, builds up a system of ethical duty on the foundation of Christian Faith. In his second Epistle he condemns the false doctrines of those heretical Teachers who denied the Lord that bought them', and exposes the evil consequences of heretical teaching, in its influence on moral practice.

St. Jude, in his Epistle, completes the work of St. Peter. He recalls the attention of the Church to the warnings of that Apostle, and of his Apostolic brethren'. He displays in clearer light, and fuller amplitude, what St. Peter had revealed by the Spirit of prophecy".

II. The beloved disciple, the holy Apostle, and Evangelist, St. John, had another work to perform.

It was his special office to defend the doctrine of the INCARNATION.

That doctrine had been taught with great clearness by the Apostle St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Ephesians; as has been already shown in the Introduction to that Epistle.

St. Paul, in his solemn farewell charge to the Presbyters of Ephesus, had exhorted them to "feed the Church of God, which He purchased with His own blood," and he had given to them a prophetic warning that after his departure "many grievous wolves would enter in among them not sparing the flock, and that even of their own selves men would rise up, speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after them"."

And in writing to his own son in the faith, Timothy, whom he had placed as Bishop at Ephesus, St. Paul first reminds him that "God willeth all men to be saved"," and that the One Mediator between God and men "gave Himself a ransom for all "," and then exhorts him to behave himself aright"in the house of God which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth (and without controversy great is the Mystery of godliness); Who was manifested in the flesh "" and then he proceeds to warn Timothy that "some will depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits "."

10

St. John, who lived and died at Ephesus, continued, maintained, guarded, and completed this work of St. Paul; and St. John's writings show the truth of St. Paul's prophecy.

He had to encounter false Teachers whose rise had been predicted by St. Paul.

No one could be better qualified for this work than St. John.

He had been admitted to the nearest intimacy with the Incarnate Word. He had leaned on His breast at supper". He saw Him die on the cross, and beheld His side pierced, and there came forth blood and water 13.

St. John, who had seen these things, had testified of them in his oral teaching. And probably he had already written the record of them in his Gospel, before he published his Epistles". St.

1 See above, Introduction to that Epistle, pp. 1-3.

See above, Introduction to that Epistle, p. 43. Cp. pp. 69, 70. 32 Pet. ii. 1.

4 See above, Introduction to that Epistle, pp. 70-72.

$ Jude 17.

62 Pet. ii. 1.

7 Acts xx. 28-30.

81 Tim. ii. 4.

10 1 Tim. iii. 15, 16.
12 John xiii. 25.

1 Tim. ii. 6. 111 Tim. iv. 1. 13 John xix. 34.

14 It cannot indeed be proved, that the Gospel of St. John was written before his Epistles; but for various reasons this seems to me more probable now, than when p. 266 of the Introduction to the Gospel was written. See below on i. 1, and Guerike, Ein

John's Gospel affords the best help to the study of his Epistles. And the reader is requested to refer to the Introduction prefixed to his Gospel', as serving, in some respects, for an Introduction to his Epistles also.

St. John's life was providentially prolonged by the Head of the Church, in His love to her, in order that the beloved disciple might bear testimony to the fundamental doctrines of the Godhead and Incarnation of Jesus Christ; and that he might also pronounce a judicial sentence, with all the weight of his Apostolic authority, on the wickedness of denying any of those doctrines; and might deliver to all of every age a warning against those Teachers who impugn any of these articles of the Faith; and might provide a refuge for the faithful under the peaceful shelter of his Apostolic name'.

This he has done in his Epistles.

Ancient writers, dating almost from the age of St. John, bear witness to these statements.

The most important testimony of Christian Antiquity to this effect is that of S. Irenæus, which will be quoted presently. He came from the neighbourhood of Ephesus, the country in which St. John passed the latter part of his life, and in which he died. He had conversed with S. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna; and S. Polycarp had conversed with St. John and other Apostles'. The testimony therefore of S. Irenæus concerning the design of St. John's Epistles is of great weight.

III. Certain Heresies affecting the doctrine of Christ's two Natures and one Person had sprung up in Apostolic times.. The Jews, who looked for a temporal kingdom of Christ, could not reconcile their minds to the doctrine, taught in the Gospel, of a suffering Messiah. They were ashamed of the cross of Christ: they shrank from the scoffs of the Heathen taunting the Christians with worshipping a man, who died the death of a slave.

Those Jews also, who did not rightly understand the doctrine of the Divine Unity, were not prepared to accept that other cardinal article of the true Faith, that Jesus Christ is God.

Accordingly, when the Gospel was presented to the minds of those among them who could not gainsay the proofs of its truth as a Revelation from God, they endeavoured to accommodate it to their own preconceived opinions. Such persons were no longer willing to be called Jews; they assumed the name of Christians. But they were not sound Christians; and some among them are condemned by St. John.

The difficulties just specified beset the Jewish mind when it contemplated the Gospel, as preached by the Apostles.

IV. There was also another embarrassment which perplexed many inquirers, Пólev тò kakóv; Whence is evil? How came it into the world?

This question had produced the Magian Philosophy, with its two independent Principles, and antagonistic Powers; and it engendered also the Gnostic Theories of emanations, or æons; according to which, the Demiurge or Creator was a different Person and Agent from the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; and the Law and the Prophets were severed from the Gospel.

V. The Heresies produced by these causes, and which sprung up especially among the Jewish Christians, in the age of St. John, concerning the Person and Nature of Christ, and against which the Apostle wrote, were mainly four

6

1. The heresy of those who affirmed that Jesus was a mere man; this was the heresy of Ebion. 2. The heresy of those who said that Jesus was a different being from Christ; and that Christ was an æon or emanation, who was sent into the world to reveal the knowledge of the true God, and to free the souls of men from the power of the Demiurge or Creator of matter; and descended into the man Jesus at His baptism, and departed from Him before His crucifixion. This was the heresy of Cerinthus.

3. The heresy of those who asserted that Christ had no real human body, but that He suffered merely in appearance. This was the heresy of the Doceta1, and of their leader Simon Magus.

4. The heresy of those who said that the world was not created by Him, or by the Father, but by some rival powers; and who affirmed that there was no necessity for abstaining from idolatry, or for incurring any danger in behalf of the Faith. These were the Nicolaitans and others.

VI. They who taught these doctrines are called deceivers and antichrists by St. John in his two Epistles', as is observed by S. Irenæus, who speaks at large concerning these errors in his great work against Heresy'.

1. A summary of the remarks of S. Irenæus on this important subject may be presented to the English reader in the words of Bp. Bull;

"All the Gnostics, of whatever denomination, did in reality deny the true Nativity, Passion, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, although not all in the same way. This is a learned observation of Irenæus, who was a most careful investigator of the doctrine of the Gnostics, in the third book of his Treatise, where, after showing how the Apostle John, in the very beginning of his Gospel, glances at the Cerinthians and Nicolaitans, he proceeds presently to those words of the Apostle', and demonstrates that neither the Cerinthians, nor any other sect of the Gnostics, did sincerely acknowledge the Incarnation, the Passion, or the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

"These are the words of Irenæus. According to those heretics, neither was the Word made Flesh, nor Christ, nor the Saviour. For they maintain, that the Word and Christ did not even come into this world, and that the Saviour was neither Incarnate, nor suffered, but that He descended like a dove upon Jesus, and having declared the unknown Father, ascended again into the pleroma. But He who was incarnate and suffered, some of them affirm, was that Jesus who is of the Gospel dispensation, who, they say, passed through the Virgin Mary, as water through a tube; others assert, that He, who suffered, was the Son of the Demiurge, or Creator, upon whom that Jesus descended, who is of the Gospel dispensation; others again say, that Jesus was indeed born of Joseph and Mary, and that upon him Christ descended, who is from above, being without flesh, and incapable of suffering.

"According, however, to no view entertained by these Heretics, was the Word of God made Flesh. For if one carefully search into the theories of them all, he will find, that there is introduced a Word of God, and a Christ that is on high, without flesh, and incapable of suffering. For some of them think that He was manifested, as transfigured into the form of man, but say that He was neither born, nor incarnate; whereas others suppose that He did not even assume the form of man, but descended as a dove upon that Jesus who was born of Mary. The Lord's disciple, St. John, therefore, showing that they are all false witnesses, says, 'And the WORD was made FLESH, and DWELT AMONG US"."

5999

2. The reader may be also glad to be reminded here of the remarks made by another learned

11 John ii. 18. 22. 26; iv. 3. 2 John 7.

2 Irenæus iii. 16. 5, Propter quod et in Epistolâ suâ sic testificatus est nobis Joannes Filioli, novissima hora est; et quemadmodum audistis, quoniam Antichristus venit, nunc Antichristi multi facti sunt, &c., et ex nobis exierunt' (1 John ii. 18); and S. Irenæus applies these words to those, like Cerinthus, who said that Jesus was only a "receptacle of Christ, and that Christ descended like a dove into Jesus ;" and he says that these Antichrists whom he has mentioned do indeed in name confess Jesus Christ, but in fact deny Him by separating Jesus from Christ; and he applies to them the words of St. John in his First and Second Epistles, 1 John iv. 1, and 2 John 7, 8. See Iren. iii.

16. 8.

3 Hanc fidem annuntians Joannes Domini discipulus, volens per evangelii annuntiationem auferre eum qui à Cerintho inseminatus erat hominibus errorem, ut confunderet eos et suaderet, quoniam unus Deus qui omnia fecit per Verbum suum; et non, quemadmodum illi dicunt, alterum quidem fabricatorem, alium autem Patrem Domini; et alium quidem fabricatoris filium, alterum verò de superioribus Christum, quem et impassibilem perseverasse, descendentem in Jesum filium fabricatoris, et iterum revolasse in suum Pleroma; et initium quidem esse Monogenem, Logon autem verum filium Unigeniti; et eam conditionem, quæ est secundùm nos, non à primo Deo factam, sed à virtute aliquâ valdè deorsum subjectâ, et abscissâ ab eorum communicatione, quæ sunt invisibilia et innominabilia. Abstulit autem à nobis dissensiones omnes ipse Joannes dicens, In hoc mundo erat, et mundus per ipsum factus est, et mundus eum non cognovit. In sua propria venit, et sui eum non receperunt. Secundùm autem Marcionem et eos, qui similes sunt ei, neque mundus per eum factus est: neque in sua venit, sed in aliena; secundùm autem quosdam Gnosticorum ab angelis factus est iste mundus, et non per Verbum Dei. Secundùm autem eos, qui sunt à Valentino, iterum non per eum factus est, sed per Demiurgum. Hic enim

operabatur similitudines tales fieri, ad imitationem eorum quæ sunt sursum, quemadmodum dicunt: Demiurgus autem perficiebat fabricationem conditionis. Emissum enim dicunt eum à matre Dominum et Demiurgum ejus dispositionis, quæ est secundùm conditionem, per quem hunc mundum factum volunt, quum Evangelium manifestè dicat, quoniam per Verbum, quod in principio erat apud Deum, omnia sunt facta: quod Verbum, inquit, caro factum est, et inhabitavit in nobis.

"Secundùm autem illos, neque Verbum caro factum est, neque Christus, neque qui ex omnibus factus est, Salvator. Etenim Verbum et Christum nec advenisse in hunc mundum volunt; Salvatorem verò non incarnatum neque passum; descendisse autem quasi columbam in eum Jesum qui factus est ex dispositione, et cùm adnunciasset incognitum Patrem, iterum ascendisse in Pleroma. Incarnatum autem et passum quidam quidem eum, qui ex dispositione sit, dicunt Jesum, quem per Mariam dicunt pertransisse, quasi aquam per tubum: alii verò Demiurgi filium, in quem descendisse eum Jesum qui ex dispositione sit: alii rursum Jesum quidem ex Joseph et Mariâ natum dicunt, et in hunc descendisse Christum, qui de superioribus sit sine carne et impassibilem existentem." Secundùm autem nullam sententiam hæreticorum, Verbum Dei caro factum est. Si enim quis regulas ipsorum omnium perscrutetur, inveniet quoniam sine carne et impassibile ab omnibus illis inducitur Dei Verbum, et qui est in superioribus Christus. Alii enim putant manifestatum eum, quemadmodum hominem transfiguratum; neque autem natum neque incarnatum dicunt illum: alii verò neque figuram eum assumpsisse hominis; sed quemadmodum columbam descendisse in eum Jesum, qui natus est ex Mariâ. Omnes igitur illos falsos testes ostendens discipulus Domini, ait: Et Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis." S. Irenæus, iii. cap. xi. p. 462.

4 John i. 14.

5 Bp. Bull, Def. of Nicene Creed, iii. 1. See also Dr. Burton, Bampton Lectures, 1829, Lect. vi. pp. 158–160.

English Theologian, Dr. Waterland, who has illustrated this subject with special application to the
Epistles of St. John.

Those remarks, together with the observations of the two English Prelates quoted in this Introduction, may serve as preparatory to a profitable study of this Epistle.

"If we examine this Epistle, we shall perceive"-says Dr. Waterland-"that a great part of it was levelled, not so much against Jews, or Pagans, as against false Christians; against the heretics of that time, Simonians perhaps, or Cerinthians, or Ebionites, or Nicolaitans, or all of them.

"The two principal errors which St. John there censures, were, the denial of Christ's being come in the flesh, and the disowning that Jesus was Christ'. The Doceta, as they were afterwards called, the followers of Simon Magus, denied Christ's real humanity, making Him a mere phantom, shadow, or apparition. And the Cerinthians, making a distinction between Jesus and Christ, did not allow that both were one Person. Against those chiefly St. John wrote his Epistle. He speaks of Antichrists newly risen up, which could not be intended of Jews or Pagans, who had opposed the Gospel all along; and he speaks of men that had been of the Church, but had apostatized from it; 'they went out from us, but they were not of us'.'

"Let us now proceed to the explication of those passages in St. John's Epistle which relate to our purpose.

"The Apostle observes, that the Word of Life (or the Word in whom was Life') was from the beginning; conformable to what he says in the entrance to his Gospel, and in opposition both to Cerinthus and Ebion, who made Jesus a mere man, and who either denied any pre-existing substantial Logos, or at most supposed him to stand foremost in the rank of creatures. The Apostle further styles the same Logos, Eternal Life', to intimate his eternal existence, in opposition to the same heretics. He adds, which was with the Father, parallel to what he says in his Gospel, was with God"

St. John proceeds to declare the reality and efficacy of the Vicarious Atonement made by the Son of God dying on the Cross for the sins of the whole world. "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not: and if any man sin-or rather, have sinned (áμáρтŋ)—we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous, and He is the Propitiation for our sins, and not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world";" and he says, In this was manifested the love of God towards us, because that God sent His only-begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another 10",

"In the second chapter of the Epistle (says Waterland) the Apostle describes the antichristian heretics of that time as denying that Jesus is Christ, which amounted to the same with denying the Father and the Son"; because whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father 12. Cerinthus denied that Jesus was Christ, dividing Christ from Jesus; and he, of consequence, denied the Son, because he allowed not that Jesus was personally united with the Word, the eternal Son of God; nor that the Logos which he speaks of, was the only-begotten of the Father, being Son only of the only-begotten, according to his scheme; so that he totally disowned the divine Sonship, both of Jesus and Christ, and by such denial denied both the Father and Son ".

"The Apostle goes on to say, Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. Where again he manifestly strikes at the Cerinthian and Ebionite principles, which allowed not Jesus to be the Son of God, in any true and proper sense, such as St. John lays down in several places of his writings, but particularly in the entrance to his Gospel ".

11 John iv. 3. Compare 2 John 7.

21 John ii. 22.

3 1 John ii. 18. 22; iv. 3. 2 John 7.

4 1 John ii. 19.

5 John i. 4.

61 John i. 1.

71 John i. 2. Compare 1 John v. 20.

revelato Evangelio, nemo potest Deum Patrem ritè colere aut
credere, nisi qui Deum Filium simul amplectatur." Bull, Judic.
Eccl. c. ii. sect. 5, p. 296.

13 "Dum enim Cerinthiani negabant Jesum esse Christum per
veram scilicet perpetuamque unionem, Christum insuper Filium
Dei verum et unigenitum inficiebantur; perinde hoc erat ac si et
Patrem et Filium negassent, cùm, ut rectè Joannes dicit, Qui

8 Conf. Tertull. contra Prax. c. xv. Bp. Bull, Judic. Eccles. Filium negat, nec Patrem habeat.-Eo ipse enim, dum negabant

c. ii. sect. 5, p. 295.

91 John ii. 1-3.

10 1 John iv. 9-11.

11 1 John ii. 22.
12 1 John ii. 22.

"Apostoli verba commune Cerinthi et Ebionis dogma manifesti perstringunt, nam illi ambo Jesum esse verum Dei Filium ante Mariam, adeoque ante res omnes creatas ex Deo Patre natum omninò negabant, ac proinde, Apostolo judice, neque Deum Patrem reverâ confessi sunt; siquidem à

Jesum esse Christum, nec ipsum quoque Christum pro Dei Filio
agnoscebant, non poterant non multò magis negare. Jesum esse
Filium Dei." Buddæi Eccles. Apostol. p. 445.

14 "Non est dubitandum, quin Apostolus his verbis confessionem
exigat illius Filii Dei, quem ipse ex parte supra in hâc Epistolâ
prædicaverat, et pleniùs in Evangelio suo declarat, nempe Filii
Dei, qui sit Dei Patris Aóyos, qui in principio erat, et apud
Deum erat, et Deus ipse erat, per quem omnia facta sunt, &c.-
Hujusmodi verò Dei Filium Jesum nostrum esse, non confessus