i to katalusai
thanaton aphikneitai to diapheron genos, ouch ho Christos ton thanaton
katergesen, ei me kai autos autois homoousios lechtheie]. 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: [Greek: ho theios logos,
ho phanerotatos ontos Theos, ho to despote ton holon exisotheis]). In
Strom. V. I. 1 Clement emphatically declared that the Son was equally
eternal with the Father: [Greek: ou men oude ho pater aneu huiou hama
gar to pater huiou pater] (see also Strom. IV. 7. 58: [Greek: hen men to
agenneton ho pantokrator, en de kai to progennethen di' ou ta panta
egeneto], 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: [Greek: Theo ta tes agapes mysteria, kai
tote epopteuseis ton kolpon tou patros, hon ho monogenes huios Theos
monos exegesato esti de kai autos ho Theos agape kai di' agapen hemin
anekrathe kai to men arreton autou pater, to de hemin sympathes gegone
meter agapesas ho pater ethelunthe, kai toutou mega semeion, hon autos
egennesen ex autou kai ho techtheis ex agapes karpos agape]. But that
does not exclude the fact that he, like Origen, named the Son [Greek:
ktisma] (Phot., l.c.). In the Adumbrat. (p. 88) Son and Spirit are called
"primitivae virtutes ac primo creatae, 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 ([Greek: ho men oun Theos
anapodeiktos on ouk estin epistemonikos, ho de huios sophia te esti kai
episteme]) will hardly be found in Origen I think. Cf. Schultz, Gottheit
Christi, p. 45 ff.]

[Footnote 730: See Schultz, l.c., p. 51 ff. and Jahrbuch fur
protestantische Theologie I. pp. 193 ff. 369 ff.]