Note 729 — Chapter VI

Footnote 729:

(return)

Clement's doctrine of the Logos, to judge from the Hypotyposes, was perhaps different from that of Origen. According to Photius (Biblioth. 109) Clement assumed two Logoi (Origen indeed was also reproached with the same; see Pamphili Apol., Routh, Reliq. S., IV., p. 367), and did not even allow the second and weaker one to make a real appearance on earth; but this is a misunderstanding (see Zahn, Forschungen III., p. 144). Λεγεται μεν—these are said to have been the words of a passage in the Hypotyposes—και 'ο 'υιος λογος 'ομωνυμως τω πατρικω λογω, αλλ' ουχ ουτος εστιν 'ο σαρξ γενομενος, ουδε μεν 'ο πατρωος λογος, αλλα δυναμις τις του Θεου, οιον απποροια του λογου αυτου νους γενομενος τας των ανθρωπων καρδιας διαπεφοιτηκε. The distinction between an impersonal Logos-God and the Logos-Christ necessarily appeared as soon as the Logos was definitely hypostatised. In the so-called Monarchian struggles of the 3rd century the disputants made use of these two Logoi, who formed excellent material for sophistical discussions. In the Strom. Clement did not reject the distinction between a λογος ενδιαθετος and προφορικος (on Strom. V. 1. 6. see Zahn, l.c., p. 145 against Nitzsch), and in many passages expresses himself in such a way that one can scarcely fail to notice a distinction between the Logos of the Father and that of the Son. "The Son-Logos is an emanation of the Reason of God, which unalterably remains in God and is the Logos proper." If the Adumbrationes are to be regarded as parts of the Hypotyposes, Clement used the expression 'ομοουσιος for the Logos, or at least an identical one (See Zahn, Forschungen III., pp. 87-138 f.). This is the more probable because Clement, Strom. 16. 74, expressly remarked that men are not μερος θεου και τω Θεω 'ομοουσιοι, and because he says in Strom. IV. 13. 91: ει επι το καταλυσαι θανατον αφικνειται το διαφερον γενος, ουχ 'ο Χριστος τον θανατον κατηργησεν, ει μη και αυτος αυτοις 'ομοουσιος λεχθειη. One must assume from this that the word was really familiar to Clement as a designation of the community of nature, possessed by the Logos, both with God and with men. See Protrept. 10. 110: 'ο θειος λογος, 'ο φανερωτατος οντως Θεος, 'ο τω δεσποτη των 'ολων εξισωθεις). In Strom. V. I. 1 Clement emphatically declared that the Son was equally eternal with the Father: ου μην ουδε 'ο πατηρ ανευ 'υιου 'αμα γαρ τω πατηρ 'υιου πατηρ (see also Strom. IV. 7. 58: 'εν μην το αγεννητον 'ο παντοκρατωρ, εν δε και το προγεννηθεν δι' ου τα παντα εγενετο, and Adumbrat. in Zahn, l.c., p. 87, where 1 John I. 1 is explained: "principium generationis separatum ab opificis principio non est. Cum enim dicit 'quod erat ab initio' generationem tangit sine principio filii cum patre simul exstantis." See besides the remarkable passage, Quis dives salv. 37: Θεω τα της αγαπης μυστηρια, και τοτε εποπτευσεις τον κολπον του πατρος, 'ον 'ο μονογενης 'υιος Θεος μονος εξηγησατο εστι δε και αυτος 'ο Θεος αγαπη και δι' αγαπην 'ημιν ανεκραθη και το μεν αρρητον αυτου πατηρ, το δε 'ημιν συμπαθες γεγονε μητηρ αγαπησας 'ο πατηρ εθηλυνθη, και τουτου μεγα σημειον, 'ον αυτος εγεννησεν εξ αυτου και 'ο τεχθεις εξ αγαπης καρπος αγαπη. But that does not exclude the fact that he, like Origen, named the Son κτισμα (Phot., l.c.). In the Adumbrat. (p. 88) Son and Spirit are called "primitivæ virtutes ac primo creatæ, immobiles exsistentes secundum substantiam". That is exactly Origen's doctrine, and Zahn (l.c., p. 99) has rightly compared Strom. V. 14. 89: VI. 7. 58; and Epit. ex Theod. 20. The Son stands at the head of the series of created beings (Strom. VII. 2. 5; see also below), but he is nevertheless specifically different from them by reason of his origin. It may be said in general that the fine distinctions of the Logos doctrine in Clement and Origen are to be traced to the still more abstract conception of God found in the former. A sentence like Strom. IV. 25. 156 ('ο μεν ουν Θεος αναποδεικτος ων ουκ εστιν επιστημονικος, 'ο δε 'υιος σοφια τε εστι και επιστημη) will hardly be found in Origen I think. Cf. Schultz, Gottheit Christi, p. 45 ff.