confession might seem to be disproved by one passage. It is said in Strom. VII. 15. 90: [Greek: Me ti oun, ei kai parabaie tis synthekas kai ten homologian parelthoi ten pros hemas, dia ton pseusamenon ten homologian aphexometha tes aletheias kai hemeis, all' hos apseudein chre ton epieike kai meden hon hupeschetai akuroun kan alloi tines parabainosi synthekas, outos kai hemas kata medena tropon ton ekklesiastikon parabainein prosekei kanona kai malista ten peri ton megiston homologian hemeis men phylattomen, oi de parabainousi]. But in the other passages in Clement where [Greek: homologia] appears it nowhere signifies a fixed formula of confession, but always the confession in general which receives its content according to the situation (see Strom. IV. 4. 15; IV. 9. 71; III. 1. 4: [Greek: egkrateia somatos hyperopsia kata ten pros theon homologian]). In the passage quoted it means the confession of the main points of the true doctrine. It is possible or probable that Clement was here alluding to a confession at baptism, but that is also not quite certain. At any rate this one passage cannot prove that Clement identified the ecclesiastical canon with a formulated confession similar to or identical with the Roman, or else such identification must have appeared more frequently in his works.] [Footnote 62: De princip. l. I. praef. Sec. 4-10., IV. 2. 2. Yet we must consider the passage already twice quoted, namely, Com. in John. XXXII. 9, in order to determine the practice of the Alexandrian Church at that time. Was this baptismal confession not perhaps compiled from Herm., Mand. I., and Christological and theological teachings, so that the later confessions of the East with their dogmatic details are already to be found here?] [Footnote 63: That may be also shown with regard to the New Testament canon. Very important is the declaration of Eusebius (H. E. VI. 14) that Origen, on his own testimony, paid a brief visit to Rome in the time of Zephyrinus, "because he wished to become acquainted with the ancient Church of the Romans." We learn from Jerome (de vir. inl. 61) that Origen there became acquainted with Hippolytus, who even called attention to his presence in the church in a sermon. That Origen kept up a connection with Rome still later and followed the conflicts there with keen interest may be gathered from his works. (See Doellinger, "Hippolytus und Calixtus" p. 254 ff.) On the other hand, Clement was quite unacquainted with that city. Bigg therefore l.c. rightly remarks: "The West is as unknown to Clement as it was to his favourite Homer." That there was a formulated [Greek: pistis kai homologia] in Alexandria about 250 A.D. is shown by the epistle of Dionysius (Euseb., H. E. VII. 8). He says of Novatian, [Greek: anatrepei ten pro loutrou pistin kai homologian]. Dionysius would hardly have reproduced this Roman reproach in that way, if the Alexandrian Church had not possessed a similar [Greek: pistis].]