[Footnote 58: This has been contested by Caspari (Ztschr. f. Kirchl. Wissensch. 1886, Part. 7, p. 352 ff.: "Did the Alexandrian Church in Clement's time possess a baptismal confession or not?"); but his arguments have not convinced me. Caspari correctly shows that in Clement the expression "ecclesiastical canon" denotes the summary of the Catholic faith and of the Catholic rule of conduct; but he goes on to trace the baptismal confession, and that in a fixed form, in the expression [Greek: he peri ton megiston homologia], Strom. VII. 15. 90 (see remarks on this passage below), and is supported in this view by Voigt, l.c. p. 196 ff. I also regard this as a baptismal confession; but it is questionable if it was definitely formulated, and the passage is not conclusive on the point. But, supposing it to be definitely formulated, who can prove that it went further than the formula in Hermas, Mand. I. with the addition of a mere mention of the Son and Holy Spirit. That a free _kerygma_ of Christ and some other matter were added to Hermas, Mand. I. may still be proved by a reference to Orig. Comm. in Joh. XXXII. 9 (see the passage in vol. I. p. 155.).] [Footnote 59: [Greek: He kyriake didaskalia], e.g., VI. 15. 124; VI. 18. 165; VII. 10. 57; VII. 15. 90; VII. 18. 165, etc.] [Footnote 60: We do not find in Clement the slightest traces of a baptismal confession related to the Roman, unless we reckon the [Greek: Theos pantokrator] or [Greek: eis Th. p.] as such. But this designation of God is found everywhere and is not characteristic of the baptismal confession. In the lost treatise on the Passover Clement expounded the "[Greek: paradoseis ton archaion presbyteron]" which had been transmitted to him.]