Neither do the arguments of ‘Supernatural Religion’ succeed in proving that there is no connection with St. John in such sentences as, ’There is one God who manifested Himself through Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word’ (Ad Magn. c. viii), or who is Himself the door of the Father (Ad Philad. c. ix).  In regard to the first of these especially, it is doubtless true that Philo also has ‘the eternal Word,’ which is even the ‘Son’ of God; but the idea is much more consciously metaphorical, and not only did the incarnation of the Logos in a historical person never enter into Philo’s mind, but ’there is no room for it in his system’ [Endnote 276:1].

It should be said that these latter passages are all found only in the Vossian recension of the Epistles, and therefore, as we saw above, are in any case evidence for the first half of the second century, while they may be the genuine works of Ignatius.

* * * * *

The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, which goes very much with the Ignatian Epistles and the external evidence for which it is so hard to resist, testifies to the fourth Gospel through the so-called first Epistle.  That this Epistle is really by the same author as the Gospel is not indeed absolutely undoubted, but I imagine that it is as certain as any fact of literature can be.  The evidence of style and diction is overwhelming [Endnote 277:1].  We may set side by side the two passages which are thought to be parallel.

Ep. ad Phil. c. vii.

[Greek:  Pas gar hos an mae homologae Iaesoun Christon en sarki elaeluthenai antichristos esti; kai hos an mae homologae to marturion tou staurou ek tou diabolou esti; kai hos an methodeuae ta logia tou Kuriou pros tas idias epithumias, kai legae maete anastasin maete krisin einai, outos prototokos esti tou Satana.]

1 John vi. 2, 3.

[Greek:  Pan pneuma ho homologei Iaesoun Christon en sarki elaeluthota ek tou Theou estin.  Kai pan pneuma ho mae homologei tou Iaesoun ek tou Theou ouk estin, kai touto estin to tou antichristou, k.t.l.]

This is precisely one of those passages where at a superficial glance we are inclined to think that there is no parallel, but where a deeper consideration tends to convince us of the opposite.  The suggestion of Dr. Scholten cannot indeed be quite excluded, that both writers I have adopted a formula in use in the early Church against various heretics’ [Endnote 277:2].  But if such a formula existed it is highly probable that it took its rise from St. John’s Epistle.  This passage of the Epistle of Polycarp is the earliest instance of the use of the word ‘Antichrist’ outside the Johannean writings in which, alone of the New Testament, it occurs five times.  Here too it occurs in conjunction with other characteristic phrases, [Greek:  homologein, en sarki elaeluthenai, ek tou diabolou].  The phraseology and turns of expression in these two verses accord so entirely with those of the rest of the Epistle and of the Gospel that we must needs take them to be the original work of the writer and not a quotation, and we can hardly do otherwise than see an echo of them in the words of Polycarp.