lace where I find this expression) [Greek: eis
oligous ek ton apostolon agraphos paradotheisa kateleluthen], ibid
[Greek: he gnostike paradosis]; VII. 10. 55: [Greek: he gnosis ek
paradoseos diadidomene tois axious sphas autous tes didaskalias
parechomenois oion parakatatheke egcheirizetai]. In VII. 17. 106 Clement
has briefly recorded the theories of the Gnostic heretics with regard to
the apostolic origin of their teaching, and expressed his doubts. That
the tradition of the "Old Church," for so Clement designates the
orthodox Church as distinguished from the "human congregation" of the
heretics of his day, is throughout derived from the Apostles, he regards
as so certain and self-evident that, as a rule, he never specially
mentions it, or gives prominence to any particular article as apostolic.
But the conclusion that he had no knowledge of any apostolic or fixed
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 compil