Chapter forty-six of his letter contains this passage:

           Remember the words of Lord Christ who said, Woe unto the man who has committed a sin. It would have been better for him if he had not been born, that he should harm those chosen by me. And whosoever shall offend my little ones, it will be better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 

           The Christians have claimed that the above passage was copied from Matthew 26:24 and 18:6 and Mark 9:42 and Luke 17:2: reproduce these verses below:

           The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

 Matthew 18:6 contains the following lines:

           But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Mark 9:42 reads:

            "And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in  me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck,  and he were cast into the sea."

 The text of Luke 17:2 is this: 

           It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

           Having reproduced the passages from Clement and the above texts of the gospels, Lardner said in his Commentaries printed 1827 vol. 2 page 37 that:

           The above two passages of Clement are his longest passages and this is why Paley confined himself to them to support the claim of authenticity for the gospels. This claim does not, however, stand to reason because Clement would at least have made a reference to the gospels had he copied any passage from them and he would also have copied the rest of the related text or, if that was not possible, the text reproduced by him should have been totally consistent and similar to the text of the gospel. However none of these conditions are met. Such being the case, there is no possibility of its have been copied from the gospel.

           1t is surprising to see Luke being referred to as the teacher of Clement, imparting to him the knowledge which he must already have had, being the companion of the disciples just as Luke was.

           In volume 2 of his commentaries, Lardner remarked about the above two passages:

           When we study the writings of those who enjoyed the company of the apostles or of the other followers of our Lord who, like the evangelists, were fully conversant with the teachings of Christ, we find ourselves very much in doubt without the evidence of a clear reference.  We are faced with the difficulty of ascertaining whether Clement copied written statements of Christ or whether he is simply reminding the Corinthians of the sayings which he and the Corinthians had heard from the Apost1es and their followers. Leclerc preferred the former opinion ,while the Bishop of Paris preferred the latter.

           If we accept that the three Gospels had been compiled prior to that time, in that case Clement could possibly have copied from them, though the word and expression may not exactly be identical. But that he actually has copied is not easy to confirm, because this man was fully acquainted with these matters even prior to the compilation of the Gospels. It is also possible that Clement would have described events already known to him without referring to the Gospels even after their compilation out of his old habit. In both the cases, the faith in the truth of the Gospels is reaffirmed, obviously so in first case, and in the second case because his words correspond to the text of the Gospels, proving that the. Gospels were so widely known that the Corinthians and Clement both had the knowledge of them.

           Through this we achieve the belief that the evangelists faithfully conveyed the words consisting of the true teachings of Christ. These words deserve the most careful preservation, though there we have a difficulty. I think that the most scholars will agree with the opinion of leclerc, however, as Paul advises us in Acts 20:35 with the words:

           ’And to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.’  

          It is, I am sure, generally acknowledged that Paul did not copy the above statement from any letter but just quoted the words of the Christ which were in his knowledge and in the know1edge of others. This does not mean that it may be accepted as a general rule but this method can possibly be applied in letters.  We know that Polycarp also used this method in his writings.  We are quite sure that he also copied from the written gospels.

           It is clear from the above statement that the Christians are not certain that Clement really copied from the canonical gospels, and any claim to this effect is only based on conjecture.

           We do not agree with the conclusion of Lardner that in both case the truth of the present gospels is proved because there can be no certainty in the presence of doubt. As the evangelists incompletely recorded the words of Christ in this particular instance, they might have done the same in other places too, and they might have not recorded the exact words used.

           Moreover, if we overlook this point for a moment, it only proves that these particular sentences are the words of Christ, it does not in any way help us to believe that all the contents of the gospels are the genuine words of Christ. The knowledge of a certain statement cannot be an argument for the acceptance of other statements. If that were the case, all the rejected gospels would have to be accepted as genuine simply because some sentences of Clement bear some similarity with them.

           We are also confident in our refutation of the claim that Polycarp also used the method of copying from the gospels in spite of his own knowledge, gained by being, like Clement, also a companion of the disciples of Jesus. Both of them are of equal status. His copying from the gospels cannot prove their genuineness.  It is, on the other hand, possible that like Paul he might have ascribed some statements to Christ.³⁵