hensibile erit."
In Matth., t. 13., c. 1 fin., Lomm. III., p. 209 sq.]

[Footnote 725: See above, p. 343, note 2.]

[Footnote 726: See c. Cels. II. 20.]

[Footnote 727: Clement also did so; see with respect to Origen [Greek:
peri archon] II. 5, especially Sec. 3 sq.]

[Footnote 728: See Comment. in Johann. I. 40, Lomm. I. p. 77 sq. I
cannot agree that this view is a _rapprochement_ to the Marcionites
(contrary to Nitzsch's opinion, l.c., p. 285). The confused accounts in
Epiph., H. 43. 13 are at any rate not to be taken into account.]

[Footnote 729: 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). [Greek: Legetai men]--these are said to have
been the words of a passage in the Hypotyposes--[Greek: kai ho huios
logos homonumos to patriko logo, all' ouch outos estin ho sarx
genomenos, oude men ho patroos logos, alla dynamis tis tou Theou, oion
apporoia tou logou autou nous genomenos tas ton anthropon kardias
diapephoiteke]. 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 [Greek: logos endiathetos] and [Greek:
prophorikos] (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 [Greek: homoousios] 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 [Greek: meros theou kai to Theo homoousioi], and
because he says in Strom. IV. 13. 91: [Greek: ei ep