The Unity is one of power and of divine Essence. The Son is not brought into existence, for the Father had his Logos from Eternity in himself. When the world lay in Chaos, he came forth from God, that it might not be merely in idea but in reality. he 66 The influence of the Alexandrian School determined the course of development for this doctrine into the fourth century. Clement says, Love moved God to communicate life from himself; its first act was the generation of the Logos, by whom it further manifested itself in the Creation. The Logos is the divine principle of all existence, whereby everything is derived from God, and according to the idea is founded in God. The Logos is the first link in the chain of the spiritual World, and as he alone knows God, so he is the teacher of spirits. He is the educator of all rational beings, to whom his salutary operation appears in various ways.' In order to mark the Unity, says, Both are one-God." Here we are not to conceive of the Unity in such a manner as would take away the relation of Subordination, for he distinguishes the Father and the Logos as the first and second cause.‡ In Clement we first meet with the attempt to set aside the idea of Time in its application to the transition of the Logos into reality. He describes the Logos as the fundamental principle of things without beginning-as formed before all Time by God, according to his image.‡ In some points the Logos doctrine of Christ is allied to Neo-platonic ideas; thus, when he says, God is exalted above all consciousness, and cannot be known by any science; the Son on the contrary is Science, Wisdom, and Truth. To him first can discursive thinking be applied." He calls him the Unique, and compares him to a circle in which all powers are comprehended in one. In Plotinus we find pasΠαιδαγ. 1. 8. .6 + Ibid.ἓν γὰρ ἄμφω, ὁ θεὸς ὅτι εἶπεν, “ ἐν ἀρχῇ ὁ λόγος ἦν ἐν τῷ Θεῷ καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.” † Strom. vii. p. 708 Β.-οὗτος ὁ τῷ ὄντι μονογενῆς, ὁ τῆς τοῦ παμβασιλέως καὶ παντοκράτορος πατρὸς δόξης χαρακτήρ, εναποσφραγι ζόμενος τῷ γνωστικῷ τὴν τελείαν θεωρίαν κατ' εἰκόνα την ἑαυτοῦ, ὡς εἶναι τρίτην ἤδη τὴν θείαν εἰκόνα, κ.τ.λ. Ρ. 700 Β.-ἐν δὲ τοῖς νοητοις. τὸ πρεσβύτερον ἐν γενέσει, τὴν ἄχρονον καὶ ἄναρχον ἀρχήν τε καὶ ἀπαρχὴν τῶν ὄντων, τὸν υἱὸν, παρ ̓ οὗ ἐκμανθάνειν (sc. τὸ ?) ἐπέκεινα αἴτιον, τὸν πατέρα τῶν ὅλων, το πρεσβίστον, κ.τ.λ. § Strom. v. 565 Β.-ἡ τῶν ὅλῶν ἀρχὴ, ἥτις ἀπεικόνισται μὲν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου πρώτη καὶ πρὸ αἰώνων. CLEMENT ON THE LOGOS. * 145 sages exactly similar, on the super-rational intellectual intuition, through which the Nous is borne upwards to the "Or What Plotinus says of the vous as the ἓν πᾶν, is transferred by Clement to the Logos. These doctrines of the Neo-platonic school are older than Plotinus,† and therefore might have been received by Clement. A similar mixture of the speculative element with what might be deduced from the Christian consciousness itself respecting the communion of the human spirit with God, appears when Clement says, "To believe in Christ is to be one with him; Unbelief is, to be in a state of dissen sion and separation.” Photius, in his abstract of the Hypotyposes, objects to many things in Clement's doctrine. He blames Clement for not calling the Son of God in a strict sense Logos, and distinguishing him from the divine Reason strictly so called. This distinction was certainly necessary, according to Clement's ideas, who could not allow the two-fold relation of the Logos as ἐνδιάθετος and προφορικός. In order to get rid of the idea of Time, he placed jointly with the eternal Logos, the Reason in God-the Revelation outward, the Logos as an Image of the divine Reason. In accordance with this distinction he speaks in his treatise, τίς ὁ σωζόμενος πλούσιος ;|| of the Revelations of the Logos respecting the Logos of the Father. At the same time it is evident that a logical adherence to Neo-platonic ideas would not have allowed such a separation. They were at variance with the Christian elements of his Logos doctrine. * Strom. iv. 537 Β.—ὁ μὲν οὖν Θεὸς, ἀναπόδεικτος ὢν, οὐκ ἔστιν ἐπιστημονικὸς ὁ δὲ υἱὸς σοφία τε ἐστὶ καὶ ἐπιστήμη, καὶ ἀλήθεια καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα τούτῳ συγγενῆ καὶ δὴ οὐ γίνεται ἀτεχνῶς ἓν ὡς ἕν οὐδὲ πολλὰ ὡς μέρη ὁ υἱὸς, ἀλλ' ὡς πάντα ἕν· ἐνθέν καὶ πάντα· κύκλος γαρ ὁ αὐτὸς πασῶν τῶν δυνάμεων εἰς ἓν εἱλουμένων καὶ ἑνουμένων. + Compare Plotinus, Enn. iii. 7. * Strom. iv. 537 C.- διὰ δὴ καὶ τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν καὶ τὸ δι' αὐτοῦ πιστεῦσαι, μοναδικόν ἐστι γενέσθαι, ἀπερισπάστως ἑνούμενον ἐν αὐτῷ· τὸ δὲ ἀπιστῆσαι, διστάσαι ἐστὶ καὶ διαστῆναι καὶ μερισθῆναι. § Cod. 109.—λόγους τε τοῦ πατρὸς δύο τερατολογῶν ἀπελέγχεται, ὧν τὸν ἥττονα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἐπιφανῆναι, μαλλον δὲ οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνον φησὶ γαρ λέγεται μεν καὶ ὁ υἱὸς λόγος, ὁμωνύμας τῷ πατρικῷ λόγῳ. ἀλλ' οὐχ οὐτὸς ὁ σὰρξ γενόμενος οὐδὲ μὲν ὁ πατρῷος λόγος, ἀλλὰ δύναμις τις τοῦ Θεοῦ, οἷον ἀπόῤῥοια τοῦ λόγου αὐτοῦ, νοῦς γενόμενος τὰς τῶν ἀνθρώπων καρδίας διαπεφοίτηκε. See Hagenbach, Dogmengesch, p. 91. || Sect. 6.ὁ λόγος περὶ τοῦ πατρῴου λόγου. L Θεοί. In Origen's system the Logos doctrine is connected with his peculiar view of God and the Cosmogony. According to his spiritual doctrine of Emanation, he considers God as the original source of all existence, who ensures a portion of his own divine life to the world of spirits that has sprung from him. Continuing in communion with him, they enjoy blessedness. He is God in the absolute sense, God simply (AUTÓDEOS iç Jeós); while by virtue of the communicated relation to the life from God, the Spirits in a certain sense can be also called On this account he recognises some truth in Sabæism, respecting the homage paid to the God-allied spirits in the stars.* When God in an absolute sense is intended, like Philo, he prefixes the article, o 9ɛos, but leaves it out when designating the divinity in a derived sense (9ɛós). Now, the Logos is the medium of the Life that flows from the essence of the Father; he is in the most intimate connexion with the original fountain and the bond between him and all other beings. Other spirits are only μgixà ȧτavyάoμara† of God, but the Logos is his entire Revelation (öxò araúyaoua), the Reason revealing the Supreme God, and conveying his knowledge to all creatures. God, in the absolute sense, is the absolute Supreme even in relation to the Logos; but the Logos, as the totality of the divine self-revelation, stands in a similar relation to all created Reason; he is auróλoyos, the Logos simply (ó óyos). It was of importance to Origen to hold this, in order to guard the idea of a pure Monotheism against a separating Subjectivism. Not every spirit has its own autonomous reason, its own special source of divine knowledge; there is only one autonomous reason, the Logos, and in him the one revelation of God. Man, like the rest of the world of spirits, must recognise God in his Revelation, and created beings must perceive this communion of the consciousness of God. As certainly as there is one Logos, there is one Truth; therefore in the Proem of John's Gospel, he is called λóyos simply, * In Joann. t. ii. § 3. + Ibid. t. xxxii. § 18.—ὅλης μὲν οὖν οἶμαι τῆς δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ αὐτοῦ ἀπαύγασμα εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν, κατὰ τὸν εἰπὸντα Παῦλον, “ ὅς ὢν ἀπαύ γασμα τῆς δόξης” φθάνειν μέντοι γε ἀπὸ ἀπαυγάσματος τούτου τῆς ὅλης δόξης μερικὰ ἀπαυγάσματα ἐπὶ τὴν λοιπὴν λογικὴν κτίσιν· οὐκ οἶμαι γαρ τινα τὸ πᾶν δύνασθαι χωρῆσαι τῆς ὅλης δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀπαύγασμα ἢ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ. without the addition of sou, as the universal revealer of God.* With this doctrine of the Logos, Origen connects his own peculiar view of the various standpoints in knowledge and in life; although always one and the same, yet the Logos descends to the spirits on their different stages, and reveals himself to each one in the manner suitable to him. He becomes all to all in the whole creation, in order to lead them all to one end. To these different forms of Revelation Origen refers the different desiguations of the Logos when he is called the Word, or the Life, or the Shepherd, or the Physician, or the Saviour.† He opposes this to the Gnosis which converts these different designations of the Logos into so many Hypostases. The higher Man rises, the higher is the significance of the Logos to him; so much more will Christ be to him. Even the name Logos is explained by Origen as a symbol; he disputes first of all with those who adhere to this name as the only adequate one. He also opposes those who applied to him, without reference to their connexion, all the Old Testament passages that contained the term Logos. In the same direction which Clement took to free the origination of the Logos from the idea of Time, Origen advanced further, and was the first who clearly expressed the idea of eternal generation.§ He found in Psalm ii. 7, the onegov used on purpose to express the idea of an immediate present, and to explain the beginning of a Generation. The ó óyos in the Gospel of John he considered important, as expressive of a Being not in time. As the power of begetting the Son of God, belonged to the essence of the Father, this power must always have been in action, The Generation he would regard, not as taking place in time, * In Joann. t. ii. § 4. C. Cels. viii. § 12.-Avrη уàρ oμεа T εἰπόντι· “ πρὶν ̓Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι, ἐγώ εἰμι·” καὶ λέγοντι “ ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἀλήθεια” καὶ οὐχ οὕτω τις ἡμῶν ἐστιν ἀνδράποδον, ὡς οἴεσθαι, ὅτι ἡ τῆς ἀληθείας οὐσία πρό τῶν χρόνων τῆς τοῦ Χοιστοῦ ἐπιφανείας οὐκ ἦν. Ibid. t. ii. § 1. In Joann. t. i. § 11, 22, 23. § Ibid. t. ii. § 1. Η Ibid. t. i. § 32.— ̓Αλλὰ διὰ τούτων πάντων οὐ σαφῶς ἡ εὐγένεια παρίσταται τοῦ υἱοῦ· ὅτε δὲ τὸ “ υἱός μου εἶ συ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκα σε,” λέγεται πρὸς αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ᾧ ἀεί ἐστι τὸ σήμερον —οὐκ ἔνι γαρ ἑσπέρα Θεοῦ, ἐγὼ δὲ ἡγοῦμαι, ὅτι οὐδὲ πρωΐα, ἀλλ' ὁ συμπαρεκτεί νων τῇ ἀγενήτῳ καὶ ἀϊδίῳ αὐτοῦ ζωῇ, ἵν' οὕτως εἴπω χρόνος, ἡμέρα ἐστιν αὐτῷ σήμερον, ἐν ᾗ γεγέννηται ὁ υἱός.—ἀρχῆς γενέσεως αὐτοῦ οὕτως οὐχ εὑρισκομένης, ὡς οὐδὲ τῆς ἡμέρας. nor as an act performed once for all, but as that relation in virtue of which the Son was always affirmed along with the Father; and the glory of God always implied at the same time the Revelation of it in the Logos.* For the purpose of dissevering sensuous images from this emanation, he rejects the expression of Generation from the essence of the Father, since that might seem to imply a partition of the divine Essence.† It is worthy of notice that Origen first raised the opposition against this statement in the Oriental Church, which at a later period was urged from another quarter. The more exact statement respecting the Unity of the divine Essence and the relation of the Logos to the Father, on the part of Origen, was occasioned by his controversy with the Monarchians, as on the other hand Monarchianism was developed in consequence of Origen's theory of Subordination. Among the modern investigations on Monarchianism, Schleiermacher's Treatise‡ contains many important suggestions. We recognise in it that great man's talent for investigation, and at the same time his defects in exegetical and historical inquiries; his great talent for systematizing led him into the error of ntroducing his own views too much into the subject under discussion, and entering too little into the views of others. The investigations of L. Lange are too much affected by his Unitarianism,§ and those of Baur by his peculiar standpoint in the philosophy of Religion.|| * In Jerem. Homil. ix. § 4.—ὅτι οὐχὶ ἐγέννησεν ὁ πατὴρ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ ἀπέλυσεν αὐτὸν ὁ πατὴρ ἀπὸ τῆς γενέσεως αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ ̓ ἀεὶ γεννᾷ αὐτὸν. + In Joann. t. xx. § 16.—"Αλλοι δὲ τὸ “ ἐξῆλθον ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ," διηγήσαντο ἀντὶ τοῦ· γεγέννημαι ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ οἷς ἀκολουθεῖ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας φάσκειν τοῦ πατρὸς γεγεννῆσθαι τὸν υἱὸν, οἱονεὶ μειουμένου καὶ λείποντος τῳ οὐσίᾳ, ᾗ πρότερόν εἶχε, τοῦ υἱοῦ, ἐπὰν γεννήσῃ τὸν υἱὸν, ὡσεὶ νοήσαι τις τοῦτο καὶ ἐπὶ των ἐγκυμόνων. ̓Ακολουθεῖ δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ σῶμα λέγειν τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν, καὶ διῃρῆσθαι τὸν πατέρα. ἅπερ ἐστὶ δόγματα ἀνθρώπων, μηδ' ὄναρ φύσιν ἀόρατον καὶ ἀσώματον πεφαντασμένων, οὖσαν κυρίως οὐσίαν. Ueber den Gegensatz zw. der sabellian. u. der athanas. Vorstellung von d. Trinität. Theolog. Werke ii. 485. § Gesch. u. Lehrbegriff der Unitarier vor der nicenischen Synode. Beiträge zur ältesten Kirchengesch. Leipzig, 1831. Compare die Lehre der Unitarier vom heiligen Geiste in Illgen's Zeitschr. für histor. Theol. iii. 1. Gesch. der Lehre von d. Dreieinigkeit See also Dorner, Gesch d. Lehre v. d. Person Christi i. 2. Meyer, Gesch. der Lehre v. d Trinitat. |