on this account it was from the first the peculiar and living root of Christian theology. 1 It is true that Philo himself made use of the idea of the Logos for practical and religious purposes, inasmuch as he accommodated it to the Hebrew religion in connecting it with the idea of the Messiah. But this connection was nevertheless very loose, and the idea of the Messiah itself was altogether abstract, and in the sense of the Jews, not historically realized. ("The idea of the Messiah becomes in Philo but a dead coal; only the phlegm remains," Dorner, p. 49.) In contrast with this the Christian idea of the Logos on the one hand (the speculative and divine), and the idea of the Messiah on the other hand (the national and human), both appear historically realized in the person of Jesus of Nazareth ỏ λóyos σàpš ¿yέVETO). Bucher, ubi supra, p. 214: "The Logos (in John) is not a mere mediating principle, but also an independent creator of the world." In Philo the Logos is viòc лрτóуоνоs, in John vids povoyevýs: ibid. p. 211. On the relation of the πρωτόγονος, μονογενής Christian doctrine of the Logos to the heathen systems of emanation, see Duncker, 1. c. p. 23. Though the term λóyos does not occur in the writings of Paul in the sense in which it is understood by John, yet the idea of a divine pre-existence of Christ is clearly expressed by him, especially Col. i. 15-17; ii. 9. Similar expressions are found in the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. i. 4, ss. (Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 47; 2 Cor. iv. 4; Rom. viii. 29.) Concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, as propounded in the New Test. see Meier, 1. c. p. 24, ss., and Hellway, ubi supra. § 42. c. The Theologumenon of the Church concerning the Logos, to the Times of Origen. [Burton, E., Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the Divinity of Christ, etc. (Works, ii.)] But Christian theology in its further history did not stand still with this idea of the Logos, as historically manifested in the Messiah. That which appears in historical manifestation, it endeavored to grasp as having its ground in the very nature of God. A deep religious interest was unquestionably here at work, but it frequently yielded to speculation, and was mixed up with foreign philosophemes. Those heretics who adhered more closely to Judaism (the Ebionites), as well as the Alogi, Theodotus and Artemon, were most remote from speculations of this nature, since they set aside the very substance of this Christian gnosis, the idea of the Logos, by denying the divinity of Christ. The distinction between God the Father and the Logos was likewise abolished by the other section of the Monarchians, Praxeas, Noētus, and Beryllus, with Б out, however, denying the actual revelation of God in Christ, which they insisted upon with all emphasis.' The Gnostics, on the contrary, connected the idea of the Logos with their fanciful doctrine of emanation and of æons, and thus played over into the realm of speculative mythology. And so it became incumbent upon the fathers to defend the speculative element in opposition to the former class of heretics, the historical in opposition to the latter, and to preserve both these elements for the practical religious interests of the church. Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus,' Clement of Alexandria, endeavored to illustrate the existence of the Logos, and his relation to the Father, by the aid of figures and analogies, borrowed from the external world and the nature of man. Tertullian' strove to explain the mystery, wrestling hard with language; while Irenæus, opposed to all gnosis, on the one hand set aside hair-splitting queries, and on the other held fast to the trinitarian faith of the church as the direct expression of the Christian consciousness.10 1 Compare § 23, Note 1, § 25, Notes 2 and 3, and the dissertation of Heinichen there cited. The orthodox church identified the idea of the Logos and that of the Messiah, but the doctrinal tendency of the Ebionites, as well as of the Gnostics, separated them. The former, adopting the idea of the Messiah alone, lost sight of the spiritual import of the doctrine of the Logos; the reverse was the case with the Gnostics, who held a mere idea without substance, a shadow without body.-Concerning Artemon, whose opinions rank him among the Monarchians, Schleiermacher (in his essay: Ueber die Sabellianische und Athanasische Vorstellung, transl. in Bib. Repos. 1835, p. 322), observes, that he appears to have retained the doctrine of the unity of God with more seriousness, and greater desire to promote the interests of religion, than the more frivolous Theodotus; vide Zeitschrift von Schleiermacher, de Wette and Lücke, iii. p. 303, 304. He there shows also the difference between this tendency, and that of Praxeas and Noëtus, already alluded to, § 24, note 4. Comp. also § 46, note 3, and Gieseler in Stud. u. Krit. 1853. [On Beryl see Fock in the Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol. 1846.] Even if we look at it numerically alone, there is a great difference between the catholic doctrine of the Logos, and the views of the Gnostic sects. Before the doctrine of the Trinity was further developed (see below) the Logos was considered by the orthodox church to be the only hypostasis; while the Gnostics imagined heaven to be inhabited by a multitude of æons.-According to Basilides there are 365 heavens (ovpavoí, the lowest of which is under the apxov); and he assigned an intermediate position between the supreme God and the Logos to the vous, and taught that the Logos emanated from the latter. Further emanations of the νοῦς, were the φρόνησις, σοφία, δύναμις, δικαιοσύνη and εἰρήνη, and these five mons, together with the other two, νοῦς and λόγος, in all seven, formed, along with the θεὸς ἄῤῥητος (ανωνόpaoros) the first dydoác.-Still more ingenious is the system of Valentinus. [He asserted that from the great first cause (primitive existence, Brods, προπάτωρ, προαρχή) successively emanated male and female æons (νοῦς or μονογενής and ἀλήθεια, λόγος and ζωή, ἄνθρωπος and ἐκκλησία, etc.), so that 30 wons (divided into the ὀγδοάς, δεκάς, and δωδεκάς) form the πλήρ ωμα. The vehement desire of the last of the æons, the σοφία, to unite itself with the βυθός, gave existence to an immature being (ή κάτω σοφία, εὐθυ μησις, ἀχαμώθ) which, wandering outside the pleroma, imparted life to matter, and formed the δημιουργός, who afterward created the world. In order to restore the harmony of the pleroma, the two new wons, Χριστός and τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγιον were made; and last of all Ἰησοῦς (σωτήρ) emnanated from all the æons, and as the future oúšvyos of the achamoth was appointed to lead back into the pleroma alike the æons, and all spiritual natures.] (Comp. Neander, Matter, and Baur, in the works mentioned, § 23.) [Gieseler, TextBook, i. 45. Niedner, i., p. 201 sq. Burton, 1. c. Lect. ii. p. 36-41. Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels, vols. iii., note B: On Basilides and the Basilideans, p. xxxviii.-xlix. Basilides' System, G. Uhlhorn, 1855, cf. Hilgenfeld, Judische Apokalyptik, 1857, s. 289, sq. Baur, in Theol. Jahrb. 1856. On Valentinus, see Volckmar in Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol. 1855– the relation to it of the Colorbasus-Gnosis, mentioned by Epiphanius. Petermann's edition of the Pistis Sophia, Berlin, 1852. Bishop Hooper on Valentinus, Works pp. 307-345.] 3 The apostolical fathers hold fast to this practical religious interest; though they do not make any use of the peculiar doctrine of the Logos (Semisch, ii., p. 275 sq.), yet there are single, scattered declarations, which offer the outlines of an immanent doctrine of the Trinity (Meier, Gesch. d. Trinit. i., p. 47, sq.) Thus particularly, Ignatius ad Polye. i: Τοὺς καιροὺς καταμάνθανε, τὸν ὑπὲρ καιρὸν προσδόκα τὸν ἄχρονον, τὸν ἀόρατον, τὸν δι' ἡμᾶς ὁρατὸν, τον αψηλάφητον, τὸν ἀπαθῆ, τὸν δι' ἡμᾶς παθητὸν, τὸν κατὰ πάντα τρόπον πάντα δι' ἡμᾶς ὑπομείναντα. 4 * Justin* follows Philo to a great extent, yet more as to form than substance, with this difference only, that he identifies the Logos, by whom God has created the world, and manifested himself in the theophanies, with his incarnate Son, even Christ Jesus. Comp. Apol. ii. 6 : Ὁ δὲ υἱὸς ἐκείνου (Θεοῦ), ὁ μόνος λεγόμενος κυρίως υἱὸς, ὁ λόγος πρὸ τῶν ποιημάτων, καὶ συνὼν καὶ γεννώμενος, ὅτε τὴν ἀρχὴν δι' αὐτοῦ πάντα ἔκτισε καὶ ἐκόσμησε Χριστὸς μὲν κατὰ τὸ κεχρίσθαι καὶ κοσμῆσαι τὰ πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ τὸν Θεὸν λέγεται· ὄνομα καὶ αὐτὸ περιέχον ἄγνωστον σημασίαν· ὃν τρόπον καὶ τὸ Θεὸς προσαγόρευμα οὐκ ὄνομά ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ πράγματος δυσεξηγήτου ἔμφυτος τῇ φύσει τῶν ἀνθρώπων δόξα. Ἰησοῦς δὲ καὶ ἀνθρώπου καὶ σωτῆρος ὄνομα καὶ σημασίαν ἔχει. He then proceeds to the incarnation itself. Justin represents the generation of the Logos as προέρχεσθαι ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς, as γεν. ᾶσθαι, προβάλλεσθαι (Dial. c. Tryph. c. 61), and adduces several illustrations in support of his views. Thus man utters words without any loss of his nature; fire kindles fire without undergoing any diminution, etc. (The "The apostolical fathers make no use of the doctrine of the Logos, but adhere to simple aphoristic, and undeveloped declarations about the divine dignity of Christ:" Semisch, ü., p. 275 sq.; compare, however, Meier, Gesch. d. Trinit. i., p. 47, sq., who sees (p. 51) in these most ancient representations an advance from the general ideas of revelation, reconciliation, etc., to the beginnings of the immanent Trinity. addition, ἀλλ' οὐ τοιοῦτον, is not genuine, see the note in the edit. of Maran: Si quis tamen retineat hæc verba, scribenda sunt cum interrogationis nota, ut in edit. Lond.) On the other hand, he rejects (Dial. c. Tryph. 128) the illustration taken from the sun and its beams; we can neither speak of an ἀποτέμνεσθαι, nor of an ἐκτείνεσθαι ; see Dorner, ii. 1, p. 428. On the different understanding of the word Logos, now as the creative Word, and now as reason, and on the relation of Justin's doctrine of the Logos, on the one hand to the Old Test. conceptions, and on the other to the Platonic and Stoic philosophy, see Duncker, Logoslehre Just. p. 14, sq. [Comp. Bull, Judicium Eccles. Cath., App. ad. c. vii., § 6. Faber's Apostolicity of Trinitarianism, 1832, i., 48, sq., 89 sq.; 143, ii., 144, et passim.] • Tatian Contra. Graec. c. 5, uses illustrations similar to those of Justin. The Logos was immenent (ὑπέστησε) in the Father (God), but derived his existence (προπηδᾷ) from his will, and thus was the ἔργον πρωτότοκον οἱ the Father, ἀρχὴ τοῦ κόσμου. He is begotten κατὰ μερισμόν, not κατ' ἀποκοπήν. * Athen. Leg. c. 10. calls the Son of God (in contrast with the sons of the heathen gods) λόγος τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν ἰδέᾳ καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ· πρὸς αὐτοῦ γὰρ καὶ δι' αὐτοῦ πάντα ἐγένετο, ἑνὸς ὄντος τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ. The distinetion between ἐν ἰδέᾳ and ἐν ἐνεργείᾳ corresponds to that between λόγος ἐνδιάθετος and λόγος προφορικός. Comp. Baur, p. 170, sq. Dorner, p. 440, sq. * Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 10, treats most fully of the going forth of the Logos from God, and he is the first writer who uses the distinction between the λ. ἐνδιάθετος and λ. προφορικός in this definite form (Baur, p. 167) : Ἔχων οὖν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ λόγον ἐνδιάθετον ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις σπλάγχνοις, ἐγέννησεν αὐτὸν μετὰ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ σοφίας ἐξερευξάμενος* πρὸ τῶν ὅλων. Likewise c. 22 : Οὐχ ὡς οἱ ποιηταὶ καὶ μυθογράφοι λέγουσιν υἱοὺς θεῦν ἐκ συνουσίας γεννωμένους, ἀλλ' ὡς ἀλήθεια διηγεῖται τὸν λόγον, τὸν ὄντα διαπαντὸς ἐνδιάθετον ἐν καρδίᾳ θεοῦ. Πρὸ γὰρ τι γίνεσθαι, τοῦτον είχε σύμβουλον, ἑαυτοῦ νοῦν καὶ φρόνησιν ὄντα· ὁπότε δὲ ἠθέλησεν ὁ θεὸς ποιῆσαι ὅσα ἐβουλεύσατο, τοῦτον τὸν λόγον ἐγέννησε προφορικὸν, πρωτότοκον πά σης κτίσεως· οὐ κενωθεὶς αὐτὸς τοῦ λόγου, ἀλλὰ λόγον γεννήσας, καὶ τῷ λόγῳ αὐτοῦ διαπαντὸς ὁμιλῶν. In the writings of Clement the doctrine of the Logos forms the central point of his whole system of theology, and the mainspring of his religious feelings and sentiments. Without the Logos there is neither light nor life (Coh. p. 87). He is the divine instructor of man (παιδαγωγός). Pad. iii. 12, p. 310 : Πάντα ὁ λόγος καὶ ποιεῖ καὶ διδάσκει καὶ παιδαγωγεῖ· ἵππος ἄγεται χαλινῷ καὶ ταῦρος ἄγεται ζυγῷ· θηρία βροχῳ ἁλίσκεται· ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπος μεταπλάσσεται λόγῷ· ᾧ θηρία τιθασσεύεται καὶ νηκτὰ δελεάζεται καὶ πτηνὰ κατασύρεται κ. τ. λ. Comp. the beautiful hymn εἰς τὸν παιδαywyóv at the end of his work. [Bennett, 1. c. app. K. p. 268, where both the original and an English translation are given.] God has created the world by the Logos; yea, the Logos is the creator himself (ὁ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ ἀνθρώπου δημιουργός); he gave the law, inspired the prophets; from him proceeded the theophanies; Pæd. i. 7, p. 132-134; ii. 8, p. 215; ii. 10, p. * With reference to Psalm xlv. (xliv.) 1; ἐξηρεύξατο ἡ καρδία μου λόγον ἀγαθόν. 224, 229; iii. 3, p. 264; iii. 4, p. 269; comp. 273, 280, 293, 297, 307. Strom. i. 23, p. 421, 422; vii. i. p. 833. In his view (as in that of Philo), the Logos is the ἀρχιερεύς, even apart from the incarnation, Strom, ii. 9, p. 433, 500. He is the face (πρόσωπον), of God, by which God is seen, Pad. i. 7, p. 132. The Logos is superior to men and angels, but subordinate to the Father; principal passage, Strom. vii. 2, p. 831: On earth the righteous. man is the most excellent being; in heaven, the angels, because they are yet purer and more perfect. Τελειωτάτη δὴ καὶ ἁγιωτάτη καὶ κυριωτάτη καὶ ἡγεμονικωτάτη καὶ βασιλικωτάτη καὶ εὐεργετικωτάτη ἡ υἱοῦ φύσις, ἡ τῷ μόνῳ παντοκράτορι προσεχεστάτη. Αὕτη ἡ μεγίστη ὑπεροχή, ἢ τὰ πάντα διατάσσεται κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρὸς, καὶ τὸ πᾶν ἄριστα οἰακίζει, ἀκαμάτῳ καὶ ἀτρύτῳ δυνάμει πάντα ἐργαζομένη, δι' ὧν ἐνεργεῖ τὰς ἀποκρύφους ἐννοίας ἐπιβλέπουσα. Οὐ γὰρ ἐξίσταταί ποτε τῆς αὐτοῦ περιωπῆς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ· οὐ μεριζόμενος, οὐκ ἀποτεμνόμενος, οὐ μεταβαίνων ἐκ τόπου εἰς τόπον, πάντη δὲ ὢν πάντοτε, καὶ μηδαμή περιεχόμενος, ὃλος νοῦς, ὅλος φῶς πατρῷον, ὅλος ὀφθαλμὸς, πάντα ὁρῶν, πάντα ἀκούων, εἰδὼς πάντα, δυνάμει τὰς δυνάμεις ἐρευνῶν. Τούτῳ πᾶσα ὑποτέτακται στρατιὰ ἀγγέλων τε καὶ θεῶν, τῷ λόγῳ τῷ πατρικῷ τὴν ἁγίαν οἰκονομίαν ἀναδεδειγμένῳ διὰ τὸν ὑποτάξαντα, δι' ὧν καὶ πάντες αὐτοῦ οἱ ἄνθρωποι· ἀλλ' οἱ μὲν κατ' ἐπίγνωσιν, οἱ δὲ οὐδέπω· καὶ οἱ μὲν ὡς φίλοι, οἱ δὲ ὡς οἰκέται πιστοὶ, οἱ δὲ ὡς ἁπλῶς οἰκέται. (The true knowledge of the Logos is the privilege of the true Gnostics.) Divine. worship is due to the Loges, vii. 7, p. 851, Quis Div. Salv. p. 956. [Comp. Bennett, 1. c. p. 123-126. Burton, E., Testimony of the Antenicene Fathers to the Divinity of Christ (Works, ii. p. 171, ss.)] On the mode of generation Clement speaks less explicitly than the before-mentioned writers. (On his relation to them, see Münscher, Handbuch, i. 422.) He attaches more importance to the immanence of the Logos. In his opinion, the Logos is not only the word of God spoken at the creation, but the speaking and creative. Word; see Dorner, p. 446. He also holds along with the concrete idea of the individuality of the Logos, another notion of a more general import, according to which the Loges is identical with the higher spiritual and rational life, the life of ideas in general; by this idea of the Logos the ante-Christian world was moved, comp. Strom. v. p. 654; hence the charge of Photius (Bibl. Cod. 109), that Clement taught the existence of a twofold Logos of the Father, only the inferior of whom appeared on earth; see Baur, Trinit. Lehre, p. 195. Accordingly he who studies the writings of Clement merely for the purpose of deducing a strictly doctrinal system, will not be satisfied, and like Münscher (Handbuch, i. p. 418), he will see in him " mere declamation, from which no definite idea can be derived." On the contrary, he who takes in his total religious system would feel more inclined to adopt the language of Möhler, that Clement has "has treated and sung about the dogma concerning the Logos with greater clearness than all the other fathers of this period, but especially with unusual depth of feeling, and the most ardent enthusiasm." (Patrologie, p. 460, 61.) Comp., also, Læmmer, 1. c. 8 . * Tert. adv. Prax. c. 2: Nos unicum quidem Deum credimus, sub hac tamen dispensatione, quam œconomiam dicimus, ut unici Dei sit et filius sermo ipsius, qui ex ipso processerit, per quem omnia facta sunt, et sine quo factum est nihil. C. 5: Ante omnia enim Deus erat solus, ipse sibi |