[528] It would be beyond our present purpose to go into Christology. It will be sufficient to indicate three theories: (1) Modal Monarchianism; (2) Dynamical Monarchianism; (3) Logos theory. Cf. Harnack, _Dogmeng._ i. 161, 220, for Gnostic Christology. [529] Iren. 4. 6. 3, 5, 6; cf. Clem. Alex. _Strom._ 7. 2. [530] Cf. Hipp. 7. 21, 22; Schmid, _Dogm._ 52. [531] Tert. _Apol._ 51; Hipp. _c. Noet._ p. 62. [532] _Leg._ 16; cf. Clem. Al. _Strom._ 5. 1; cf. Theophilus, 2, 22, for distinction of λόγος προφορικός as well as ἐνδιάθετος, denied by Clement (loc. cit.), but repeated in Tert. _adv. Prax._ 5; cf. Hipp. _c. Noet._ 10. See Zahn’s note in Ign. _ad Magn._ 8. 2, on προελθὼν in relation to eternal generation. [533] Philo applied the phrase “Son of God” to the world: cf. Keim, _Celsus_, 95. [534] Justin, _Dial. c. Tryph._ 61 A, cf. 62 E, προβληθὲν γέννημα; and Hipp. _c. Noet._ 8, 10, 16; Tatian, c. 5; Irenæus ap. Schmid, p. 31. [535] Justin, _Dial. c Tryph._ 56 C, p. 180. [536] Hipp. 9. 12; Callistus, while excommunicating the Sabellians (cf. Schmid, 48; Weing. 31), also called Hippolytus and his party ditheists. For Callistus’ own view, cf. _ibid._ 9. 11. See Schmid, p, 50; also p. 45 for Praxeas ap. Tert. [537] The Gnostic controversies in regard to the relation to God of the Powers who were intermediate between Him and the world, had helped to forge such intellectual instruments. [538] Justin, _c. Tryph._ 128: δυνάμει καὶ βουλῇ αὐτοῦ ἀλλ’ οὐ κατ’ ἀποτομὴν ὡς ἀπομεριζομένης τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας; cf. Plotinus ap. Harn. _Dogm._ 493: κατὰ μερισμὸν οὐ κατ’ ἀποτομὴν in Tatian, 5, is different; cf. Hipp. _c. Noet._ 10. [539] Justin, _Dial. c. Tryph._ 61 C, where the metaphor of “speech” is also employed. [540] ap. Tert. _c. Hermog._ 3. [541] For metaphor of light, cf. Monoïmus ap. Hipp. 8. 12; also Tatian, c. 5. [542] There is uncertainty as to eternal generation in Justin; see Engelhardt, p. 118. It is not in Hippolytus, _c. Noet._ 10. Though implied in Irenæus (Harn. p. 495), it is in Origen that this solution attains clear expression, e.g. _de princ._ 1. 2 ff., though his view is not throughout steady and uniform. Emanation seemed to him to imply division into parts. But he hovers between the Logos as thought and as substance. For Clement and Origen in this connection, see Harnack, pp. 579, 581. [543] God unchangeable in Himself comes into contact with human affairs: τῇ προνοίᾳ καὶ τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ, _c. Cels._ 4. 14. His Word changes according to the nature of the individuals into whom he comes, _c. Cels._ 4. 18. [544] Justin, _Apol._ i. 22. 23. 32, _c. Try._ 5. [545] _ad Autolyc._ ii. 22. [546] He held that side by side with God existed, not ἐξουσία, but οὐσία, φύσις, ὑπόστασις: see Clem. Alex. _Strom._ 5. 1. [547] Cf. Harnack, _Dogmeng._ p. 580. [548] οὐσία ἥ τε ὕλη καὶ τὸ εἶδος καὶ τὸ ἐκ τούτων, _Metaph._ 6. 10, p. 1035 _a_, “_ousia_ is matter, form, and the compound of matter and form.”