The Christology in the Apostolic Fathers

Front matter

FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER

A DISSERTATION

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE DIVINITY SCHOOL IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

CHAPTER I. Gop THE FATHER SUPREME AND THE CENTER OF INTEREST The subordination of Christ most pronounced

In this division are the writings of Clement of Rome, the Didache, and the Fragments of Papias.

II. Curist THE CENTER OF INTEREST

Less emphasis upon the idea of subordination. Vast extension of Christ’s authority. Conjoined with God in certain important functions on a basis of virtual equality. Prayer offered to Christ. Christ called God.

In this division are the writings of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Second Clement.

III. THE APPEARANCE OF THE COSMOLOGICAL FUNCTION OF CHRIST

Christ the Creator and Maintainer of the universe. Universal dominion ascribed to Christ. The idea of subordination recedes.

In this division belong the writings of Barnabas, Hermas, and the Epistle to Diognetus.

CONTENTS PAGE

PE PREACE prea ce VM Vy Deter gh oe SMe le 2 at Vane aed PTECLOGRAPH VE My owes mr ater co Sul MOD deci eees ett CHAPTER I. Gop THE FATHER SUPREME AND THE CENTER OF INTEREST Introductory : A. The Letter of Glenent is the ‘Carinthian ; The Author : (1) The letter bears en name ef the cHirch at Rone (2) Ancient testimonies to Clement as the author (3) Clement a namesake of Flavius Clemens (4) Clement, whether a Jew or a Gentile The Date .. _- Sagittal ee We an be; (1) In the reign ‘ot Damian (2) In the reign of Nero or Hadrian (3) External and internal evidence The Object - .- .> 2 (1) A Pe eras in ifs Aen at Gonuth Eiders expelled (2) Their restoration the aim of the letter Behe wach ane, by We aay ord Vie aun et 2 The Date . é : Z : BND: (zt) Abundance nf print iaaterial (2) Absence of second-century movements (3) Ancient testimonies (4) Two methods of interpretation Place of Origin : Ta pane Cates | Sav eS (1) First known at lexandtia. (2) Objection to this origin (3) External evidence C. The Fragments of Papias Ty eS raga naz BOR alerts MN Vis, te) (1) The author (2) His five books and the Fragments (3) Christological material

I. The Christology in the First Epistle of Clement. . . . 4 1. The Relation of ChristtoGod . . . Ne (1) Distinction between, Christ and God by use of ditles (2) The rank given to Christ by titles and ascriptions (a) Power of Christ (b) The pre-existence of Christ (c) The holiness of Christ (d) The knowledge of Christ

Vv a = vi

Contents

(3) The conjoining of Christ with God (4) Subordination of Christ to God

. The Human Nature of Christ

(1) Little emphasis upon this aspect of Cliret (2) His human descent, body, and soul

Preface

From the christological point of view, the writings known as the Apostolic Fathers have been found to fall into three stages of development. In the first group, God the Father is supreme and is the center of interest. In consequence of this supremacy of the Father, the subordination of Christ is most pronounced. Christ is assigned a high rank, but he is always and pre-eminently the agent of the Father.

In this division belong the writings of Clement of Rome, the Didache, and the Fragments of Papias.

In the second group of writings, Christ is the center of interest. Less emphasis is put upon the idea of his subordination. His authority is vastly extended. He is conjoined with God in certain important functions on a basis of virtual equality. Prayer is offered to Christ. He is frequently called God in a limited sense, and finally he is called God in the absolute sense.

Here belong the writings of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Second Clement.

In the third group of writings the cosmological function of Christ appears. He is the Creator and Maintainer of the universe. His authority is so extended that now universal dominion is ascribed to him. The idea of subordination has almost disappeared, and the equality of Christ with God is fully recognized.

The writings of Barnabas and Hermas and the Epistle to Diognetus belong here.

This dissertation examines in detail the christological teachings of each writer in the group. In the summary at the end of each group, the relation of each writer to the dominant ideas of the group is set forth, and an attempt is made to show just what each writer contributes to these ideas. After examining the writers of each period, an effort is made to show also the precise elements in one group which are in advance, from a christological point of view, over the preceding division.

xi

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lightfoot, J.B. Apostolic Fathers, Ignatius and Polycarp, Vols. I, I, II. 1885.

J. Rendel Harris. The Teaching of the Apostles. 1887.

Lightfoot, J.B. Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome, Vols. I, Il. 1890.

Schaff, Philip. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. 1890.

Dorner, J. A. History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, Div. I, Vol. I. 18o1.

Cruttwell, C. T. A Literary History of Early Christianity. 1893.

Hort, J. F. A. The ante-Nicene Fathers. 1895.

Goltz, Eduard Freihernn von der. Ignatius von Antiochien als Christ und Theologe. (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius, B. 12.) 1895.

Harnack, A. The History of Dogma, Vol. I. 1896.

Fisher, J. P. History of Christian Doctrine. 18096.

Kriiger, G. History of Early Christian Literature. 1897. ;

Harnack, A. Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius, Vol. I. 1897, Vol. II. 1904.

Scherer, W. Der erste Clemensbrief an die Corinther. 10902.

Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn. Patrum A postolicorum Opera. 1906.

Farrar, F. W. Lives of the Fathers, Vol. I. 1907.

Newman, A. H. A Manual of Church History, Vol. I. 1907.

Harnack, A. The Mission and Expansion of Christianity, Vol. I. 1908.

Burton, E. D., Smith, J. M. P., Smith, G. B. Biblical Ideas of Atonement. 1900.

Granberry, J. C., Outline of New Testament Christology. 1909.

Deissmann, G. A. Light from the Ancient East. 1910.

xii

CHAPTER I GOD THE FATHER IS SUPREME AND IS THE CENTER OF INTEREST

INTRODUCTORY A. THE LETTER OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS

The author.—The letter bears the name of the church at Rome, and not that of an individual. The opening words are: “The church of God which sojourneth at Rome to the church of God which sojourneth at Corinth.”” The name of the writer of the letter is nowhere mentioned in the letter. From this it is evident that whoever wrote it, he wrote as the representative of the church at Rome. It is a letter from one church to another church. There are sufficient grounds, however, for assigning the letter to Clement, who is reckoned the third bishop of Rome. Lightfoot and Harnack agree in putting his term of office from about go to 100 A.D. Eusebius (IV. 23) quotes parts of a letter from Dionysius, ‘bishop at Corinth about 170 A.D., in which Dionysius says: ‘‘Today we have passed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also through the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement.” Eusebius says that Hegesippus, who visited at Corinth and Rome about 170 A.D., made some remarks about the letter of Clement to the Corinthians. But he does not state what the remarks were. Harnack quotes Irenaeus, who lived from 130 to 202 A.D., as saying that he had read of a sedition which had arisen in Corinth, and that Clement had written a letter about it. There is much to favor the position of Lightfoot, that Clement, who wrote the letter and was the bishop of Rome, was a freedman and namesake of Flavius Clemens, the consul and cousin of the emperor Domitian. Some have sought to identify the consul and the bishop. The weight of scholarship, however, is on the side of Lightfoot’s conclusions. There is more difference of opinion about whether Clement was a Jew ora Gentile. Lightfoot and Lemme claim that he was a Jew, while Harnack and Wrede claim that he was a Gentile. Both opinions rest upon the internal proofs furnished by the. letter itself. His knowledge of the Septuagint furnishes a strong argument for his Jewish nationality. He not merely quotes the Septuagint freely, but he is permeated with its style and ideas. On the other hand, he shows no familiarity with Greek and Roman literature, such as would be expected of a man holding his position if he had been a Gentile.

I

The date.—It is the generally received opinion that the document belongs at about the close of Domitian’s reign, or soon after (95 or 96 A.D).t_ A few scholars assign the letter to the close of Nero’s reign, and others take the extreme position of assigning it to the reign of Hadrian. In addition to the external testimonies quoted above, the internal evidence points to the reign of Domitian rather than the reign of Nero. The view of the Corinthian church as ancient moves the letter away from the earlier date, and the reference to Paul and Peter as belonging to our generation forbids giving the letter the extreme date suggested by Volkmar and others.

The object.—A sedition has arisen in the church at Corinth. Elders who were appointed by the apostles have been thrust out. This letter aims to secure the restoration of these elders to their office, and to lead the rebellious to repentance and to submission to the properly constituted officers of the church. All christological teaching is aside from the main purpose of the letter, and such Christology as the letter contains is presented by way of illustration of his theme, and for the purpose of enforcing the duty of subjection upon the elders.

B. THE DIDACHE

The date-——The Didache abounds in primitive material. The picture of church life given here is that of a very early period. Prophets are the chief teachers and are not yet superseded by bishops. The Agape and Eucharist are observed as one feast. The Christology is very closely allied to First Clement. In keeping with these positive marks of its early origin is the absence of any trace in it of the movement which agitated the church in the second century. There is no sign of Ebionism, nor of Gnosticism, which were felt early in the second century. There is the recognition of false teachers, but no such opposition to Judaism as Barnabas shows. The ancient testimonies to the work are not numerous. Eusebius knows the work, and calls it the “so-called teachings of apostles.’’? Clement of Alexandria quotes from it as Scripture. It is possible that Irenaeus makes a reference to it. Some have tried to see some connection with First Clement through the use of Christemporos.$ Schlecht’s Latin probably represents a Greek original which is shorter than the Greek document which we have.

These facts admit of two interpretations. First, the primitive material may have come from some out-of-the-way district where it tLightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, Clement, I, 346. ajc, MUM 3I Clement 1:10; Dis. 13:5.

GOD THE FATHER SUPREME AND THE CENTER OF INTEREST 3 has been unaffected by the movements of the age. In this way Harnack thinks that it is possible to make the date as late as 160 A.D., though he says that the material fits better in the period 80-120 than 120-60. Still, because of the fixed form of fasts and prayers, the established order of the prophets, and the corruption that has grown up among them, the improbability that it would have been composed until some time after the death of the apostles, and the priority of Barnabas to the Didache, he thinks that this originated shortly after 131 a.p. Secondly, more weight may be given to the primitive nature of the material and consequently an earlier date assigned to it, say from 80-120. So Schaff, Lightfoot, and others.

The use of Matthew furnishes a means for determining the earliest limits of its origin, as the Didache in chap. VIII quotes Matthew’s version of the Lord’s Prayer. Still this is not a certain guaranty of its earliest date, as the sources of Matthew’s Gospel might have been used in the Didache. If it be granted that the quotation is from the Gospel of Matthew, this makes it necessary to put the Didache some time in the second century as the time of its earliest origin, as the present tendency is to give a late date to the Gospel of Matthew, Burkitt placing it from go-r100.

Place of origin.—The Didache came into the stream of history at Alexandria. But for one statement there would probably be no one to question that some out-of-the-way district in Egypt was the place of its origin. In the eucharistic thanksgiving IX. 4, are the words: ‘‘As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains, and being gathered together became one.” Schaff regards these words as an insuperable objection to its Egyptian origin. They may, however, be understood as an Old Testament allusion. The first appearance of the Didache in Egypt, its use there as witnessed by Athanasius, and the origin of Barnabas’ letter in Alexandria give the weight of the argument in favor of its origin in Egypt.

C. THE FRAGMENTS OF PAPIAS

The fragments furnish no material for a Christology and merely need to be mentioned. Papias was bishop of Hierapolis, and flourished about 140 A.D. Harnack puts the date of his birth at about 80 4.p.; Lightfoot puts it ten years earlier. Irenaeus says that he was a companion of Polycarp and a hearer of John. Ancient testimony agrees that he wrote five books on the teachings of Christ. Jerome gives as the title of his work, Expositions of the Discourses of the Lord.

I. THe CHRISTOLOGY IN THE First EPISTLE OF CLEMENT I. THE RELATION OF CHRIST TO GOD

(1) The author maintains a careful distinction between Christ and God by his use of titles

Three titles are applied to God exclusively: eds, Seowérys, and Syprovpyds. Kypuos is applied to both God and Christ. It is used of Christ often, of God only sparingly. In the quotations of Scripture the author follows the Septuagint, and so retains both xvpuos and 6 kvpuos as designations of God. And even this small number must be reduced in importance by the consideration that in four instances in which he uses kuptos of God, he may have been influenced by the Septuagint. Chap. 53:3 furnishes a clear example of such an influence where the short statement «lev xvptos mpos atrov is set in the midst of a quotation from the Septuagint. This leaves only five times that he independently applies xvpos to God. This manifest preference for the word Seordrys to designate God is significant. The old distinction between Seordrns and xvpwos does not continue in the time of our author. Of this distinction Archbishop Trench, New Testament Synonyms, p. 53, Says: “There lies in «vpuos the sense of authority owning limitations—moral limitations it may be; while the Seordrns exercises a more unrestricted power and absolute domination, confessing no such limitations or restraints. The Greeks refused the title of Seordrys to any but their gods.” While this early distinction has been lost, Philo seeks to make something out of it, and says as quoted by Trench in the reference above: “Seondryns is not xvpios but oepds xvpios, and implies on the part of him who uses it a more entire prostration of self before the might and majesty of God than xvpios would have done.” The fact cannot be questioned that Clement shows a decided preference for Seordérns over kvptos as a name for God, and applies the latter to him sparingly. The significance of this use permits of more than one interpretation. In his desire to avoid confusion and keep the distinction clear between Christ and God, he may have chosen for God the term Seorérys with the feeling that something of the old dignity still clung to the word, and he wished to express by it his sense of the higher exaltation of God. Or the use may signify nothing more than the desire to avoid confusion. But the whole attitude of Clement toward the unique majesty of God lends support to the view that he sought to indicate this majesty in some measure by the use of the word Seorérns.

GOD THE FATHER SUPREME AND THE CENTER OF INTEREST 5

(2) The author assigns to Christ a unique relation to God by the titles which he gives to him, and the ascriptions which he makes to him.

a) The power of Christ—His conception of the power of Christ is indicated by the titles ‘‘Lord,’’ “Son,” “High Priest,’ “Savior,” “Helper,” and ‘“‘Patron.’”’ The dignity conveyed by these titles cannot be determined from the words themselves, but must be learned from the force which the author gives them. Christ has power and authority over the spiritual life of believers. He calls them, protects them, sanctifies them; he is their high priest, savior, helper; they are his elect, his flock; and they must obey him. This spiritual work exhausts the work that is denoted by any of his titles. He is Lord, but only over the spiritual life of believers. He is the Son seated at the right hand of God. The author uses ‘“‘son” not to denote moral likeness on the ground of which he may be called son. Rather by this term he means akin to God in nature; he is using “son” in the metaphysical sense. The ascription to him of a place at the right hand of God denotes his participation in the administration with God, his Father. But when we seek the nature and extent of his administration, the answer is clear: he deals with the spiritual life of believers. In 36:2, he declares Christ is “the reflection of the majesty of God.”’ Here Clement is following Heb. 1:3. But he has confused the meaning somewhat by substituting HeyaAwowvns for Sdéys. The passage in Hebrews declares that Christ is the reflection of the absolute perfection of the Deity. Clement, by the word which he uses, calls attention to the governing power of the Deity. But Clement has made a mistake in his use of the word, for the idea which he wishes to express, as the context shows, is the moral perfection of God as reflected in Christ. In 16:2, by the use of the phrase “the scepter of his majesty,” he calls attention to the governing power of God. The scepter is the symbol of power. The application of the figure to Christ signifies that royal majesty has been transferred to him. The majesty of God is represented in him. But in what field, and to what extent, does he represent the imperial majesty? His work is limited to the spiritual life of believers. This limitation of the power of Christ is made still more sharp by the consideration of two negative aspects of his work. He is not said to have dominion over all men, or over the whole life of believers. Universality of dominion is assigned to God alone, and he alone creates and preserves men. This leads to the

! Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of Christ, Div. I, Vol. I, p. ror.

x second negative aspect of Christ’s work. No cosmological function is assigned to him. And the failure to assign such a function to Christ is not because Clement omits this subject. He has much to say of preservation and creation, but God is alone in this work. See 19:2: “the Father and maker of the whole world”; 26:1: “the Creator of the universe”; 27:4: “by the word of his majesty He compacted the universe.” Many other passages might be cited.

From three passages attempts have been made to identify Christ as the agent of God in creation. The passage quoted above (27:4) is thus interpreted by Dorner. He says that the “word of his majesty” is the pre-existent Christ. He gives as the reason of this identification that Clement frequently applies meyadkwovn to Christ; that he was familiar with Paul’s cosmological teaching and also with the teaching of the author to the Hebrews. As a matter of fact, Clement uses the word only eight times, and in five of these instances it refers without the possibility of a doubt to God. This leaves only two instances in which the word is used in reference to Christ, outside of the passage under discussion. Clement’s usage, therefore, affords no presumption in favor of the application of the term to Christ, but rather the contrary. It can be so applied, but only on the basis of an argument from the context. The connection, however, in which the phrase occurs, “by the word of his majesty,” gives no hint that it means Christ, and such an interpretation is in conflict with the whole letter of Clement, which assigns creation to God.. W. Scherer also attempts to make Christ the creator.? In 59:3, Scherer identifies “Lord” with Christ in the prayer: “Grant unto us Lord.” Lightfoot brackets these words in this place, and Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn omit them altogether. But even if they are retained, they would clearly refer to God as the primal source of all creation, and add but one more to the small number of passages in which he calls God xvpios. In the immediately preceding context God the creator is expressly distinguished from ‘‘his beloved son Jesus Christ.” And immediately following, the primal source of creation is called God—‘‘who alone art the benefactor of spirits and the God of all flesh.”” Our author, moreover, in no other place calls Christ @éos. In 2:1, Clement says: ‘‘And ye were all lowly in mind and free from arrogance, yielding rather than claiming submission, more glad to give than to receive, and content with the provisions which Christ supplieth. And giving heed unto his words, ye laid them up diligently in your

* Doctrine of the Person of Christ, pp. 356, 357: 2 Scherer, Der erste Clemensbrief an die Corinther, S. 159-61.

GOD THE FATHER SUPREME AND THE CENTER OF INTEREST i hearts, and his sufferings were before your eyes.”’ Here Scherer identifies Christ with God, and then reasons that Christ is the creator of all things, “‘and consequently uncreated and therefore God.” While the reading here is in dispute, Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn read rod Xpucrod, the reading for which Scherer contends. But in vs. 3 the subject changes to “Almighty God” as the object of the Christians’ prayer, and there is little justification for thinking that Clement intends to apply O«és to Christ. The two persons are constantly kept clearly distinct.

b) The pre-existence of Christ.—The author shows his belief in Christ’s pre-existence in three different ways. In 16:2 his declaration involves pre-existence. He says: “The scepter of the majesty of God, even the Lord Jesus Christ, came not in the pomp or arrogance of pride, though he might have done so.” He declares that Christ spoke parts of the Old Testament through the Holy Spirit. In 22:1, he says: “Now all these things the faith which is in Christ confirmeth; for. he himself through the Holy Spirit inviteth us.’ Then he follows this statement with a quotation from the Septuagint of Ps. 53:1-12. In the passage from Isaiah concerning the suffering servant (53:1-12), he represents Christ himself as speaking a part of this chapter. In 15:16, he says: “And again he himself says.’ He identifies Christ with this speaker.

c) The holiness of Christ—In 23:5, he identifies Christ with the “Holy One.” In two instances the work of Christ suggests the inference that he is holy, if it does not positively involve such an inference, as Scherer maintains.t In chap. 36, men look up to heaven and taste immortal knowledge through fixing the eyes upon Jesus. By calling Christ (36:2) ‘“‘the reflection of the majesty of God,” and from the connection of this passage with Heb. 1:3, he presents Christ as the one who reveals the perfection of the Deity. In 7:4, Christ wins for the whole world the grace of repentance. Whatever interpretation may be put upon this passage, he who takes away sin, either by bearing the penalty of sin or by his marvelous exhibition of love in death winning men away from sin, must himself be a holy being.

d) The knowledge of Christ—The author gives no reliable hint of his thought about Christ’s knowledge. Whatever opinion he may have held regarding the omniscience of Christ, he has not made it known to us. Violence is done to the simple statement of the writer if one attempts to construe 4:41 into a declaration of the omniscience of Christ. Here he says: ‘‘And our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop’s office.” From this

= Der erste Clemensbrief an die Corinther, S. 181.

statement Scherer concludes that in Christ lay concealed all the treasures of science and of wisdom, and that before his eyes the veil of the future was lifted.2, But such a statement implies no more knowledge than in the case of the apostle Paul when he tells the Ephesian elders that they may expect trouble in the church. In Acts 20:29, he says: “I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not. sparing the flock.” Such a statement rests upon an understanding of the situation, and implies only human foresight. Nothing more than this can be gained from Clement’s statement regarding the knowledge of Christ. In 23:5, he barely refers to a day of judgment. Here Christ is the ‘‘Holy One,” who will suddenly come to his temple.

(3) The conjoining of Christ with God

The author conjoins Christ with God in such a way that he shows the exaltation of Christ. Most important are two trinitarian passages. We read in 46:6: ‘‘Have we not one God, and one Christ, and one spirit of grace that was shed upon us?” Still more significant is 58:2: ‘“‘For as God liveth, and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit, who are the faith and hope of the elect.”’ Dorner and Scherer have called attention to the fact that this statement is the form of the oath employed in the Old Testament (Deut. 6:13), ‘‘as God liveth.” Lightfoot also points out the similarity of this statement to the baptismal formula in Matt. 28:3. It has been contended that great significance belongs to the fact that these three names are joined together in the form of the oath. However, the names of men were joined with God in the form of an oath, as in I Sam. 25:36: ‘Now therefore, my lord, as Jehovah liveth, and as thy soul liveth”; also the same form is seen in II Sam. 15:21: “As Jehovah liveth, and as my lord the king liveth.”’ Still further it is maintained that it is significant that three persons are made conjointly the foundation of the faith and hope of the elect. From this Scherer concludes (p. 146): “It is the essential Deity which the author assigns to the persons.” Dorner also maintains that the work of salvation involves Deity even more clearly than the work of creation.? In fact, however, what Clement ascribes to Christ in union with the Father and Spirit is not deity, but only the work which he has already ascribed to Christ alone in other places, that is, the work of salvation. The new element here is that the three are put together on an equality so far as this work is concerned. By virtue of this implied equality in the work t Der erste Clemensbrief an die Coriniher, S. 168, 2 Dorner, op. cit., I, 100.

GOD THE FATHER SUPREME AND THE CENTER OF INTEREST 9 of salvation, the language certainly conveys an exalted conception of Christ.

In two instances the same doxology is used in respect to Christ which in other places is used of God. In 20:12, he says: “Our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory and the majesty forever and ever.” And in 59:7 glory is ascribed to Christ. Outside of these doxologies, Clement has declared that majesty and glory belong to Christ without implying his deity. To throw this declaration into the form of a doxology does not essentially change the meaning. Clement undoubtedly holds a very exalted conception of Jesus.

(4) The subordination of Christ to God

This subordination appears when Christ takes the position of God’s agent. The whole of Christ’s work is done as the agent of God. God gives grace and peace through Christ; he shows mercy through Christ. He calls and instructs men through Christ. In the agent, Clement does not lose sight of God back of the agent. Christ works not only in harmony with the will of God, but in obedience to it. God sent Christ as Christ sent the apostles. Christ is governed in his work by the will of God. However, there is no suggestion of force in the rule of God over Christ. By love and compassion, Christ was moved to his work of salvation.?

In his resurrection is seen Christ’s subordination to God. In 24:1, it is said: “‘ whereof he made the Lord Jesus Christ the first fruit, when he raised him from the dead.”

The author shows a distinctly different attitude toward God from that which he takes toward Christ in many particulars. He emphasizes repeatedly the supremacy of God. He is almighty, omniscient, allholy; he created and preserves all things; men offer prayer to him; men worship God; and they must fear him. The resurrection offers an opportunity for Clement to enlarge upon the power of God as seen in nature. He says in 24:5: ‘‘The sower goeth forth and casteth into the earth each of the seeds; and these falling into the earth dry and bare decay; then out of their decay the mightiness of the Master’s [tod Seorédrov] providence raiseth them up, and from being one they increase manifold and bear fruit.”’ And again in 26:1, he says: “Do we think it to be a great and marvellous thing, if the creator of the universe shall bring about the resurrection of them that have served him?” Omnipotence is ascribed so repeatedly to God alone that the writer makes a wide separax