inanity of such a use in this connection, there are several positive grounds against it: (1) There is no instance in the Old Testament, on which Clement greatly leans, and from which he evidently derived the figure, in which a creature is called the "sceptre of God"; and that for a very natural reason. Sceptre is the permanent, distinctive symbol of regal authority and power, in their totality. Another may be a monarch's sword, or rod, or right hand, but not his sceptre, without having, de facto, the monarch's own power, without being, so far as possible, the monarch himself. In the Old Testament to take away the sceptre, is to reduce the holder thereof to the rank of subject from that of ruler. For example, in Zech. x. 11 we read "the sceptre of Egypt passes away."

(2) Men who are God's "rod" or "sword" or other instrument, are so designated in virtue of some one particular work or office intrusted to them for a particular time; . whereas Christ is spoken of here as "sceptre," independently of any particular work, as though it were his natural, permanent position. And he who was and is the sceptre comes to redeem, humbling himself by undertaking his mission in the form of a servant. The dignity of God's messengers consists precisely in their being his messengers, whatever may be the outward circumstances of their activity. The fact that Christ "might have come in pomp and dignity," and that his not coming thus was an humiliation, implies clearly that he had a dignity arising from the sceptre, apart from even so glorious a mission as that of redemption.

The term has also been explained in analogy to dwdexáσκήπτρον σкηжтρоν in c. 31, and σKTтρov in c. 32. These words are there equivalent to púλn, as in several passages of the Old Testament, signifies tribus. And as in c. 29 Jacob, to whom pertained the Swdeкáokкηπтρоν, that is, from whom the twelve tribes, or σкnπтра, came, is called God's herit age, so Christ too is called God's σкnπтρоv, or heritage. Were this analogy admissible at all, the idea would have to

be considerably modified in view of the words of c. 32, where the derivation of the Lord Jesus from the flesh is adduced as one of God's marvellous gifts. Plainly, if an honor were conferred on God's heritage Israel, by the mere casual descent of Christ; and if, at the same time, Clement meant to represent Christ as God's heritage in employing the word aкπтроv, it must be in an extraordinary sense. Israel was privileged above all men, was God's son; and yet he is honored by the mere fleshly descent of Christ: Christ must then, surely, be God's Son, God's heritage, in an absolute sense. We are thus, by another route, led to a conception of Christ as lofty as could be desired, short of styling him God. But it is very unlikely that Clement should have employed the terms in this sense.

Either his thought would have been similar to that just expounded, and that is very improbable, or he would have spoken with a confusedness which the general tone of his epistle does not warrant us in attributing to him. The most natural explanation is the one suggested by a preceding remark, that "sceptre" is the essential, permanent symbol of regal power and authority. Clement viewed Christ, accordingly, as the personal symbol, vehicle, organ, embodiment, representative of the majesty and authority of God, without whom God can no more be truly thought of, than a monarch without sceptre. Such a conception would be quite in harmony with the representations of the New Testament; for example, with Col. i. 16: "By him were all things created." If, then, Clement held Christ to be clothed with divine regal power, it is quite intelligible that he should have been able to appear in pomp; that his dignity was not derived from his mission; that he could humble himself in the manner described. We have here, in another independent form, the same thought as is expressed in Philippians ii. 68: "who being in the form of God humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

f. The next point bearing upon Christ's relation to the

Father, is Clement's use of the word kúpios, as a designation of Christ as well as God. It occurs in a great variety of connections. As a general rule, it is true, he uses the term SEOTÓTηs of God, and never applies it to Christ; which might seem to imply that Kúpios was a mere title of office, or was used loosely, as we use master, lord. But a more careful examination shows that he uses kúpios and deσπóτns interchangeably of God, and that consequently, in view especially of other circumstances, his application of kúpios to Christ is surprising, save on one supposition. That he draws no such precise distinction between the two words is sufficiently evident from cc. 33, 53, and 54, among many others. In c. 33, we read ὁ δεσπότης ἀγαλλιᾶται ἐπὶ τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ ; and he subsequently says, plainly referring to the same subject, ὁ κύριος, ἔργοις ἑαυτὸν κοσμήσας, ἐχάρη. Now, either δεσπότης and κύριος are to Clement identical in force and meaning, or, supposing Christ to be kúpios, that creative activity which in the one case is predicated of God, is predicated in the other of Christ.

Again, in c. 54, also, kúptos is either used of God, or the earth and its fulness are said to be Christ's; which would be a plain transference of one of God's main characteristics to Christ. Further, the identity of Kúpios and deσπóτns is clear from a comparison of cc. 36 and 53. In the former, quoting the Old Testament, he says, elev o SEOTTÓTηS; whereas in the latter, quoting from the same source, he says, ElπTEV O KÚρLOS. It is, lastly, sustained by the circumstance that, in introducing his quotations from the Old Testament and in speaking himself of God, he generally, though, as we have shown, not invariably, uses deσπóτηs (cc. 24, 33, 36, 40). If he had any definite reason at all for this procedure, it was a desire to secure variety of expression; for, with his general tendencies, it is exceedingly unlikely that he meant to be more accurate than the Old Testament. Nor have we any reason for thinking that deσTórns was required by the usage of the time.

Now this application of the same term to Christ as is

applied to God in the Old Testament, which Clement deemed inspired, is of itself striking enough; but especially so when the two are designated kúpios almost in the same breath, as in cc. 13 and 16. From the "Martyrium Polycarpi," c. 8, where Polycarp is represented as refusing to say Kúρios Kaîσap, it would appear that, by the Christian church of that day, kúpιos was regarded as, at all events to some extent, a distinctive title of Christ, a title indicative of his divine dignity. Taking this circumstance in connection with Clement's usage and the usage of the Old Testament, whose authority he recognized, divine dignity would appear to be ascribed to Christ.

There is a further incidental identification of God and Christ in c. 2, where we read, "content with the viaticum of God, and giving diligent heed to his words..... and his [God's] sufferings were before your eyes." That Clement here had in view the sufferings of Christ, there can surely be no question; if so, is it not perfectly obvious that, even if in no precisely formulated shape, he must have connected Christ with God much as the orthodox church has always done? In all ages it has been common, in a popular way, to say interchangeably, "God has suffered," "Christ has suffered"; but solely because Christ was believed to be so one with God that what he did was done by God.

Other passages, as for example the doxologies in cc. 20, 50, 58, 59, might be adduced under this rubric, which, though not very important by themselves, all point in the direction of the clearer declarations just discussed.1

2. Christ's pre-existence, character, and endowments. a. The existence of Christ prior to his appearance on earth is directly implied in c. 22, where he is represented as exhorting us, through the Holy Spirit, in the words of Psalm xxxiii. 11-18; and there is no reason whatever for

1 The words To κатà σáρка, according to the flesh, in c. 32, are also significant. As to the flesh, he was descended from Israel; as to the spirit-as to his higher nature-from whom? The most natural reply is, from God. In what sense? Not as men may be said to be descended from God; otherwise, where the contrast, what the distinction, between Jesus and other Jews?

supposing, either that Christ had spoken these words on earth, or that Clement arbitrarily put them into his mouth. He clearly believed him to have spoken in Old Testament times. Here, too, is a conjunction of God and Christ of a remarkable character, seeing that the Old Testament scriptures are, throughout, represented as the word of God (see, for example, cc. 13, 45, 53); the word of Christ and the word of God are treated on the same footing.

The words τὸ σκήπτρον τῆς μεγαλοσύνης οὐκ ἦλθεν ἐν κόμπῳ Kaiтeρ dvváμevos K. T. X., from the sixteenth chapter, already referred to, contain also a hint of his pre-existence. For, to speak of his being able to appear on earth otherwise than he did, if he then first came into existence, would be absurd; especially so, to say that he thus humbled himself. How could he humble himself, if he had not previously held a higher position?

b. There are several scattered allusions, from which we can very naturally deduce that Clement regarded Christ as sinless; this, at all events, is their most obvious expla nation.

In c. 36 we are said to gaze, in him, on the faultless and most excellent countenance of God; and how could this be the case if Christ, even regarded merely as a medium, were imperfect? According to c. 39, even the angels are not beyond the reach of blame when compared with God; yet Christ is greater, higher than the angels. Again, in c. 16, the words of Isaiah liii. are applied to Christ: "there was no guile in his mouth; he suffered for our sins; he bore our sins, not his own," and so forth. Whatever view may be taken of the original application of these words, it is enough for our purpose to know that Clement deemed them to have been realized in Christ; and he could scarcely have indicated his perfect innocence and purity in stronger terms. Further, we are said to be "sanctified through our Lord Jesus Christ" (c. 1); he is "the gate of righteousness, and they are blessed who enter into it, and are found walking in holiness and righteousness." But he who was