along with the Clementines, the omission of the second [Greek:  amaen],—­’Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ ([Greek:  on mae eiseathaete eis taen basileian ton ouranon]).  It is out of the question that this only should have been present to the mind of the writers; and, in view of the repetition of Nicodemus’ misunderstanding by Justin and of the baptism by water and Spirit in the Clementine Homilies, it seems equally difficult to exclude the reference to St. John.  It is in fact a Johannean saying in a Matthaean framework.

There is the more reason to accept this solution, that neither Justin nor the Clementines can in any case represent the original form of the passages quoted.  If Justin’s version were correct, whence did the Clementines get the [Greek:  hudati zonti k.t.l.]? if the Clementine, then whence did Justin get the misconception of Nicodemus?  But the Clementine version is in any case too eccentric to stand.

The last passage is the one that is usually considered to be decisive as to the use of the fourth Gospel.

Hom. xix. 22.

Hence too our Teacher, when explaining to those who asked of him respecting the man who was blind from his birth and recovered his sight, whether this man sinned or his parents that he should be born blind, replied:  Neither this man sinned, nor his parents; but that through him the power of God might be manifested healing the sins of ignorance.

[Greek:  Hothen kai didaskalos haemon peri tou [Endnote 293:1] ek genetaes paerou kai anablepsantos par’ autou exetazon erotaesasin, ei ohutos haemarten ae oi goneis autou, hina tuphlos gennaethae [Endnote 293:1] apekrinato oute ohutos ti haemarten, oute oi goneis autou, all’ hina di autou phanerothae hae dunamis tou Theou taes agnoias iomenae ta hamartaemata.]

John ix. 1-3.

And as he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth.  And his disciples asked him, saying, Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?  Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents:  but that the works of God should be manifested in him.

[Greek:  Kai paragon eiden anthropon tuphlon ek genetaes.  Kai aerotaesan auton oi mathaetai autou legontes, Rhabbei, tis haemarten, ohutos ae oi goneis autou, hina tuphlos gennaethae; apekrithae Iaesous, Oute ohutos haemarten oute oi goneis autou, all’ hina phanerothae ta erga tou Theou en auto.]

The author of ‘Supernatural Religion’ undertakes to show ’that the context of this passage in the Homily bears positive characteristics which render it impossible that it can have been taken from the fourth Gospel’ [Endnote 293:2].  I think we may venture to say that he does indeed show somewhat conspicuously the way in which he uses the word ‘impossible’ and the kind of grounds on which that and such like terms are employed throughout his work.