himself sinful could never, surely, be styled the "gate of righteousness" to others. His righteousness is evidently conceived of as of the highest order and degree. Further, such expressions as, your εὐσέβεια is ἐν Χριστῷ (c. 1), πολιτεύεσθαι κατὰ τὸ καθῆκον τῷ Χριστῷ (c. 3), seem to involve, to say the least, a subordination of our moral state and life under his, that amounts to something very like sinlessness. Naturally, too, all the points referred to under the first rubric, and that will be brought forward under the next, point in the same direction.

3. The relation of Christ to men.

Clement's epistle contains a great variety of utterances bearing on this point. In the most natural way, and as if the matter were too obvious to admit of doubt, he represents men as dependent on Christ for every species of spiritual good. Grace is spoken of, in cc. 1, 8, 30, 31, 50, as xúpis ȧπò Оεоû or xúpis coû; in cc. 16 and 59, on the other hand, we read ὑπὸ τὸν ζυγὸν τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ [Χριστοῦ], and in c. 59, ή χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ; so that he was deemed by Clement to be, along with God, the source of xápis; that is, to all appearance, of the same xápis. Again, in c. 1 he is set forth as the medium through which men receive χάρις : χάρις ὑμῖν ἀπὸ Θεοῦ διὰ Χριστοῦ. The expression in the sixteenth chapter, εἰ γὰρ ὁ κύριος οὕτως ἐταπεινοφρόνησεν τί ποιήσομεν ἡμεῖς οἱ ὑπὸ τὸν ζυγὸν τῆς Xápitos avтoû di avtoû êXDóvtes, “we who come, through him, under the yoke of his grace," is worthy of note. He brings us under his own dominion, under the dominion of his own grace, and is not merely the instrument or agent of bringing us under the dominion of God's grace; and yet, as we see from other passages, this same xápis is identical with the xúpis amò coû. Again, in c. 20 a similar thought is expressed in different words: ὁ μέγας δημιουργὸς — εὐεργε τῶν τὰ πάντα ὑπερεκπερισσῶς δὲ ὑμᾶς ..... διὰ τοῦ κυρίου μv Xρioтov. Through Christ we are sanctified (c. 1); he is the ὁδὸς ἐν ᾗ εὕρομεν τὸ σωτήριον ἡμῶν — ὁ προστάτης καὶ βοηθός (c. 36); ἡ ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ πύλη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐν Χριστῷ (c.

48); there is μία κλῆσις ἐν Χριστῷ (c. 46); we are κληθέν τες ἐν Χριστῷ (c. 32); ἐκλελεγμένοι ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Xpioтov (cc. 50, 58); we are all members of each other and tà μéîŋ toû Xpioтoû; nothing, however, being clearer than that Clement does not mean that Christ bears the same relation to us as do our fellow men; we are тò Tоíμviov тOÛ Xρioτoû (cc. 44, 54, 57); Christ is kúpios μŵv (c. 20, et pass.); Christ's is the Basileia (c. 50); our Tíoris, our mai deía, our ȧyáжη, our exis, are each and all in Christ (cc. 21, 22, 49, 57). Besides these, there are other allusions to the practical relation of Christ to humanity, which, though not of great significance in themselves, harmonize well with, and therefore acquire force from, the other features of the picture sketched by Clement.

In the passages just adduced, Clement plainly puts Christ into a relation to the spiritual redemption and life of man, such as no merely human being could occupy. Individual expressions might, indeed, be used respecting men, and sometimes are, relatively to external matters; but if we were to substitute the name of a human being, even though idealized, for Christ's name, wherever the latter is referred to, the incongruity would at once become obvious; it would at once be plain that the Christ of Clement was not a mere man. To discuss in detail every one of these utterances would lead us too far; nor is it necessary. What has been advanced by such writers as Gess, relatively to the teachings of the same class in the New Testament is applicable to the words of Clement, so far as they coincide therewith; and to a very large extent they do coincide.

Let us now sum up Clement's utterances regarding Christ, and see what conclusion we are warranted in drawing.

In the first place, Christ is placed in a relation to God such as neither angels nor men occupy, and is designated by names which are elsewhere used of God; in the second place, he pre-exists and is sinless; in the third place, he is assumed to be both the source and the medium of the highest spiritual, divine blessings. Evidently then, in

Clement's eyes, Christ stood nearer to God than is possible for any creature; so near that the outlines of the one fade away into those of the other. He does not, indeed, distinctly identify him with God; he does not, in so many words, style him divine; there is no good reason for believing that he held any definite doctrine regarding Christ's nature and attributes; but still Christ fills almost the whole of his horizon, and he implies a unity between him and God, such as can only be satisfactorily expressed in some such formula as that of the church. We are justi fied, then, in maintaining that if Clement had been compelled by antagonists to make the subject a matter of special logical reflection, he would unhesitatingly have adopted the doctrine held by the church throughout the ages. The reasons for the indefiniteness which marks his expressions regarding the person of Christ we shall have occasion to notice in another connection.

§ 6. The Personality and Work of the Holy Spirit.

Clement's allusions to the Holy Spirit are tolerably numerous, considering the length and design of his epistle; they are characterized, however, by the previously-noticed vagueness in a doctrinal point of view.

The expression πveûμa äyɩov occurs, in all, eight times; in one instance we read πνεύμα κυρίου (c. 21).

(1). His personality in general, and personal existence prior to the coming of Christ, seem to be implied in cc. 13, 16, 22, and 45, to which we shall refer separately. In the thirteenth chapter, a quotation from Jeremiah is introduced by the words λέγει γὰρ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ; similarly also, in c. 16, a quotation from the prophet Isaiah. Now, in cc. 8, 10, 18, 33, and elsewhere, God is represented as thus speaking, or Jesus Christ; what, therefore, can lie nearer than to suppose that as they are personal, so the Holy Spirit, to whom the same act is ascribed, is personal? It is true, the bare expression тò πveûμa Xéyeɩ would prove little by itself; for we read in c. 13, noìv yàp o ayos λóyos, which, from a

comparison of c. 56, there can be little doubt is equivalent to ἡ γραφή, i.e. φησὶν (cc. 34, 35), or to τὸ γραφεῖον λέγει (c. 28); and it might be argued that as a personal act is attributed to ypapń, which is obviously impersonal, the attribution of a personal act to τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγιον does not prove it to be personal. But there are two other circumstances to be taken into consideration. The ascription of the same τὸ λέγειν to both πνεῦμα and γραφή neither requires both to be impersonal, nor both personal. That would be proving too much; for then we might argue that Oeos and 'Inooûs were also impersonal. Now it is, a priori, obvious that ypapý is impersonal; but it is by no means so certain that veûμa also is impersonal. The question then arises: Are there any presumptions to the contrary? A personification of ʼn ypapń is intelligible enough, for it has a clearly-defined external existence; but as a mere personification πνεῦμα would lack all reality. What is this πνεῦμα ? we should have to ask. That Clement should use spirit in any pantheistic sense is utterly improbable. Is πνεῦμα, then, another term for God or Christ- the Spirit of God, as we say the spirit of man? If this had been his meaning, it is likely that, with his realistic turn of mind, he would have said τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ or ̓Ιησοῦ. His addition of τὸ ἅγιον strengthens the inadmissibility of this supposition. Further, when he writes "the holy scripture saith," he means that "God or Christ saith," because he regarded scripture as God's word; but what of Tò πveûμа? especially of Tò πVEÛμa Tò ayιov? If it mean anything, it must mean either God or the third person of the Trinity; and as we can see no reason why he should not have said God or Christ, as in other places, it is probable, particularly in view of the pas sages next to be noticed, that, even if in a vague way, the Holy Spirit hovered before his mind as a personal being. In c. 22 Jesus is represented as exhorting us through the Holy Spirit, in the words of Psalm xxxiii. The Holy Spirit is here conceived as Christ's agent in relation to man, in perfect agreement with the New Testament and the doc

trine of the church. In c. 46 we find the remarkable words, "have we not one God and one Christ, and one Spirit of grace which is poured out upon us?" To conclude, here, that as God and Christ are personal, so also is the Spirit, would not surely be putting too great pressure on Clement's words; on the contrary, the conclusion seems necessary. That the personality of the Spirit may have been indistinctly present to his mind, is suggested also by his use of von in c. 21, instead of πveûμa: "for God is a searcher of the thoughts and desires; whose breath is in us; and when he wills he takes it away"; for he says πvoǹ aйToû, and not τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ. The passage τὰς ἀληθεῖς ῥήσεις πνεύματος TOû ȧyíov is not quite so clear as some already referred to, but still points in the same direction. Such expressions as ĚKXVOIS πVEÚμATOs άyíov, in c. 2, though apparently impersonal, are, rightly understood, not inconsistent with the church doctrine of the Spirit. Further evidence that Clement viewed the Holy Spirit as a person is derivable also from the operations attributed to him.

2. Three operations are ascribed to the Spirit: the inspiration of the scriptures, the influencing of sinners, and the strengthening of believers.

The passages quoted above, from cc. 8, 13, 16, 45, plainly teach that he inspired the writers of the Old Testament. In c. 22 Christ is described as remonstrating with and persuading men to seek the Lord, through the Holy Spirita decided hint towards the doctrine of the Spirit's work in the conversion of sinners. And in c. 42 the apostles are said to go forth to their work of evangelization with the full certainty of the Holy Ghost. Now, notwithstanding the vagueness which must be allowed to be characteristic of Clement's allusions to this subject, what impression do we receive on the whole? The answer will depend considerably on the point of view of the individual inquirer; but still one thing must be conceded, that his utterances are thoroughly compatible with a recognition of the personality of the Holy Spirit in the church's sense; nay more, that