It is a notorious fact, abundantly established by certain quotations from the Old Testament and elsewhere, that the last thing regarded by the early patristic writers was context.  But in this case the context is perfectly in keeping, and to a clear and unprejudiced eye it presents no difficulty.  The Clementine writer is speaking of the origin of physical infirmities, and he says that these are frequently due, not to moral error, but to mere ignorance on the part of parents.  As an instance of this he gives the case of the man who was born blind, of whom our Lord expressly said that neither he nor his parents had sinned—­morally or in such a way as to deserve punishment.  On the contrary they had erred simply through ignorance, and the object of the miracle was to make a display of the Divine mercy removing the consequences of such error.  ‘And in reality,’ he proceeds, ’things of this kind are the result of ignorance.  The misfortunes of which you spoke, proceed from ignorance and not from any wicked action.’  This is perfectly compatible with every word of the Johannean narrative.  The concluding clause of the quotation is merely a paraphrase of the original (no part of the quotation professes to be exact), bringing out a little more prominently the special point of the argument.  There is ample room for this.  The predetermined object of the miracle, says St. John, was to display the works of God, and the Clementine writer specifies the particular work of God displayed—­the mercy which heals the evil consequences of ignorance.  If there is anything here at all inconsistent with the Gospel it would be interesting to know (and we are not told) what was the kind of original that the author of the Homily really had before him.

A further discussion of this passage I should hardly suppose to be necessary.  Nothing could be more wanton than to assign this passage to an imaginary Gospel merely on the ground alleged.  The hypothesis was less violent in regard to the Synoptic Gospels, which clearly contain a large amount of common matter that might also have found its way into other hands.  We have evidence of the existence of other Gospels presenting a certain amount of affinity to the first Gospel, but the fourth is stamped with an idiosyncracy which makes it unique in its kind.  If there is to be this freedom in inventing unknown documents, reproducing almost verbatim the features of known ones, sober criticism is at an end.

That the Clementine Homilies imply the use of the fourth Gospel may be considered to be, not indeed certain in a strict sense of the word, but as probable as most human affairs can be.  The real element or doubt is in regard to their date, and their evidence must be taken subject to this uncertainty.

* * * * *