The objection to the inference that the quotation is made from St. Mark, derived from the context in which it appears in the Clementines, is really quite nugatory.  It is true that the quotation is addressed to those ’who were beguiled to imagine many gods,’ and that ’there is no hint of the assertion of many gods in the Gospel’ [Endnote 178:2]; but just as little hint is there of the assertion ‘that God is evil’ in the quotation [Greek:  mae me legete agathon] just before.  There is not the slightest reason to suppose that the Gospel from which the Clementines quote would contain any such assertion.  In this particular case the mode of quotation cannot be said to be very unscrupulous; but even if it were more so we need not go back to antiquity for parallels:  they are to be found in abundance in any ordinary collection of proof texts of the Church Catechism or of the Thirty-nine Articles, or in most works of popular controversy.  I must confess to my surprise that such an objection could be made by an experienced critic.

Credner [Endnote 179:1] gives the last as the one decided approximation to our second Gospel, apparently overlooking the minor points mentioned above; but, at the time when he wrote, the concluding portion of the Homilies, which contains the other most striking instance, had not yet been published.  With regard to this second instance, I must express my agreement with Canon Westcott [Endnote 179:2] against the author of ‘Supernatural Religion.’  The passage stands thus in the Clementines and the Gospel:—­

Clem.  Hom. xix. 20.

[Greek:  Dio kai tois autou mathaetais kat’ idian epelue taes ton ouranon basileias ta mustaeria.]

Mark iv. 34.

... [Greek:  kat’ idian de tois mathaetais autou epeluen panta] (compare iv. 11, [Greek:  humin to mustaerion dedotai taes basileias tou Theou]).

The canonical reading, [Greek:  tois mathaetais autou], rests chiefly upon Western authority (D, b, c, e, f, Vulg.) with A, 1, 33, &c. and is adopted by Tregelles—­it should be noted before the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus.  The true reading is probably that which appears in this MS. along with B, C, L, [Greek:  Delta symbol], [Greek:  tois idiois mathaetais].  We have however already seen the leaning of the Clementines for Western readings.

When we compare the synopsis of St. Mark and St. Matthew together we should be inclined to set this down as a very decided instance of quotation from the former.  The only circumstance that detracts from the certainty of this conclusion is that a quotation had been made just before which is certainly not from our canonical Gospels, [Greek:  ta mustaeria emoi kai tois huiois tou oikou mou phulaxate].  This is rightly noted in ‘Supernatural Religion.’  All that we can say is that it is a drawback—­it is just a makeweight in the opposite scale, as suggesting that the second quotation may be also from an apocryphal Gospel; but it does not by any means serve to counterbalance the presumption that the quotation is canonical.  The coincidence of language is very marked.  The peculiar compound [Greek:  epiluo] occurs only once besides ([Greek:  epilusis] also once) in the whole of the New Testament, and not at all in the Gospels.