butterworth - 1916 - the deification of man in clement of alexandria

8/12/2019 Butterworth - 1916 - The Deification of Man in Clement of Alexandria

1/13

NOTES AND STU DIES 157

THE DEIFICATION OF MAN IN CLEMENT OFALEXANDRIA.

THE possibility of man being deified, or becoming a god, is assertedby many Christian Fathers from the middle of the second centuryonwards, but by none more frequently or unreservedly than by Clementof Alexandria. In the following pages all the passages of Clementwhich bear upon this subject will be examined, and an attempt made(i) to fix his meaning with certainty; and (ii) to trace his thought to itsorigins.I I

Deification, according to Clement, is a process that begins on earth.It is made possible by the fact that man contains within himself a sparkof the divine nature, and is therefore in the highest part of his beingakin to God. God is Mind (6 vow),1'a n d the image of M ind is seenin man alone; so that the good man is, so far as his soul goes, in theform and likeness of God, while God in His turn is in the form of man :for the form of each is Mind.'9 Elsewhere the common element issaid to be reason, or the Word, present with God in the character ofthe Son and with man in the character of the Saviour.3 This unionof man with God is fostered and developed by the practice of virtueand by progress in knowledge. Each advance in virtue is a step towardsthe divine life. Here it must be remembered that Clem ent's idea ofthe divine life is negative rather than positive; for he thinks of it

1 Se e i 71 " (78), wh ere the Word is called ' a true Son of the Mind ' (uWr TOSyou yr^ciot). Also ii 33110 (648) i . . . Xi^ot, w tt T O V T O V 6 vovs. And ii 32 01'(638), wh ere Schwartz's conjecture is rendered almost a certainty by the tw oparallels here adduced. S ee again ii 317 11 (634). T he references in this paperare to volume, page, and line in Stahlin's edition of C lem ent T he bracketedfigures indicate Potter's pages.s i i 468*" ' (776) i TO Crod tlKovia/iit iparai if fi6v


2/13

158 THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUD IESchiefly as an absence of all human activities and corporeal limitations.1God is without needs (avcvSo^s) and without feelings or passions{a.Tra rp)rConsequently we find the 'gods' of Psalm lxxxi 6 interpreted to meanthose who throw off as far as possible all that is merely human (TTOV TOavOpunnyov).' Virtue is thus regarded as a divesting process, an approachto the passionless life of God, rather than as an unceasing activity forgood.4 Since God and man are alike M ind, God in H is entire beingand man in his innermost essence, it follows that man has only to setaside, as far as possible, the temporary encumbrance of body andsenses to become som ething very much like what God is. Again,a m arked characteristic of the d ivine life is unity, and unity is acquiredby man when he attains to the condition of iwaOtia, i. e. when he is nolonger disturbed and divjded by warring passions. So from this pointof view also man is said to become deified even on earth.7 SometimesClement speaks of this life as being a preparation for the god-like lifeto come. Christians ' practise here on earth the heavenly way of lifeby which we are deified '.8 Or again, the soul, becom ing virtuous inthought, word, and deed through the Lord's power, practises beinga god.* Deification also follows upon discip lesh ip; as Ischomachusmakes his pupils farmers, Demosthenes orators, Aristotle scientists,

1 iii 6 l (831)iujSa/trj v(/Htx n*yot (' free from all limitations 'Dr Mayor's trans-lation). Se e also ii 374 '"" (689), wh ere Clement says that by abstracting length,breadth, depth, and position, y ou arrive at a conception of unity. If yo u then takeaway all that pertains to bodie3 or to things called bodiless, you can reach somesort of conception of God, learning, ho we ver, not what H e is, but what H e is not.' W e must not take these exp ressions too literally, or God would be reduced toa mere idea. T he truth is, Clem ent has failed to combine the various e lem ent s ofhis thought.J ii 1818"10(494). Explaining Ps. lxxxi 6 (Sept .) ' I said, ye are gods ; and yeare all sons of the Highest', Clement says, TMTIXiya


3/13

NOTES AND STUDIES 159Plato philosophers, and so forth, in the same way the Lord makesthose who learn from Him andobeyHim gods while still in theflesh.1The disciple will strive tobecome passionless likehisteacher.1The second means of reaching the condition of deification is byknowledge; for Clement is in full accord with the Socratic doctrinethat knowledge is equivalent to virtue and ignorance to vice.8 Man,he says, is deified by 'heavenly teaching'.* The perfect Christian(i.e.thegnostic) will know what is fitting both in theoryand in life,as tohowoneshould live who will some day becomeagod,and isevennow being made liketoGod .* Inexplaining thefifth com mandm ent,Clement says that our Father ' means God; so the commandmentspeaksof those who knowGod assonsandgo ds'. ' This knowledge'is not a mere intellectual knowledge, in which the knower standsoutsideand indifferent to the thing known. It is the gradual realiza-tionof the bond that exists betweenGod and man. It leads thereforeto aunion of love wherein God is related to man as friend to friend;and sucha relationship may possibly bringa man intotheangelic state(urayyeAos) hereon earth.7 Thetrue lifeis, infact,a continual ascent,justas itsoppositeis adescent. Th ose who reject the Church traditionand rush into heretical opinions are,like Circe's victims, changed intobeasts, because they have lostthepowertobecome men ofG o d ' ; butwhenonereturns, hears the Scriptures,andattendsto thetruth,it is asif a god isproducedout of aman\8 Thehighest stage of theascentthrough knowledge is contemplation, or the vision of God, and he

1 iii 7I1411 (894) d* W iir vp6o vpc*OTn)v 1)


4/13

160 THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIESwho contemplates the unseen God is said to 'live as a god amongmen '. I I I

So far we have considered deification as applied by Clement to manupon earth. What his hyperbolical language means is simply this, thatthe divine element in man is gradually brought into closer and moreconscious union with God from whom in the beginning it cam e. Th iselement is by nature purely spiritual, i. e. opposed to matter. It canonly reach its full developement, therefore, when by the practice ofvirtue it is freed from material associations, from the needs and affec-tions of sense; and when at the same time it is used for its properpurpose, viz. the contemplation of ideas or, in other words, the visionof God .' One in whom this developement takes place is lifted farabove the level of ordinary men, since he has parted with most of whatis merely human in his nature. So great is the difference, that Clem entfeels no hesitation in calling him no longer a man, but a god.

There are, however, a number of passages which speak of deificationas occurring after death . Th ese deserve separate consideration. Firstof all we notice a passage that stands in an intermediate position,inasmuch as it describ.es the stages in the process of deification,stretching over from this life into the next. Th ese stages a re :(i) Baptism, (ii) enlightenment, (iii) sonship, (iv) perfection, (v) immor-tality. Clem ent illustrates the final result of this developem ent bya reference to Ps. lxxxi 6 (Sept.) ' I said, ye are g ods ', & c . ' ; that isto say, he asserts that men become gods when to the gnostic perfectionattained on earth there is added that immortality which can be fullypossessed only after dea th. Perfection and imm ortality are of coursetwo prominent characteristics of God, and when man attains them hebecomes like God. Accordingly Clement applies the term ' g o d ' toangels and spirits of the blest, who are conceived of as dwelling abovein the 'super-celestial place'.4 H ere are the 'blesse d abodes of the1 ii 3I71 1 " 1 1 ( 6 3 4 ) T ip o lv iop& rov O iov etaprjriKby Stir iy AyBpunois (Sjrra t'pijiciy(i. e. Platobut Clement fully accepts the thought).1 ii 317I01 (634) fhc6raKovy KaX T W & rav rby rav IStaiv9upijri*ir Bt v Iv iySpwrois

(jl


5/13

NOTES AND STUDIES l 6 lgods ' ,1 whence the great company of 'angels and gods' look downupon the Christian athlete as, while yet upon earth, he struggles in thespiritual conflict8 One day, when the lusts of the flesh have left him,he too will ascend to that heavenly sphere and be immortalized withthe divine beings.' Of this life the gnostic training gives a foretaste,since it teaches us ' the nature of the life we shall hereafter live withgods {/jura Otaiv), according to the will of God (icara TOV6I6V)'.* To-those who reach this stage, Clement goes on to say, ' the name of godsis given, for they will be enthroned along with the other gods, who areset first in order under the Saviour'.'

This last remark will shew how careful Clement is to distinguishbetween the most exalted of men or angels and Christ. ' The wholearmy of angels and gods has been subjected to the W ord . Th eprophets are called 'children of God', but Christ is the 'true Son'. 7The title ' god ' is therefore never applied by him to angels or men inthe sam e sense as to Christ. In a like manner he guards against anyconfusion of the human and divine natures which might be imaginedto arise from the presence of the Holy Spirit in man; for he assertsexpressly that ' it is not as a po rtion of God tha t the Spirit is in eachone of us' . ' IV

Before we consider the sources of Clement's teaching as here out-lined, it will be useful to notice certain similar expressions which occurin other Christian writings of earlier or contem porary date. The1 l ii i o '~ * ( 8 3 5 ) al itaicipiat Stan olrfjatti.J iii I 4 " "4 8 ( 8 3 9 ) Btarai Bi AyytKoi a l Stoi, aJ T 6 myicp& noy T 6 vapfiaxO Y " ov *pinia realadpxa" , A W d . TCLS&


6/13

162 THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STU DIESdeification of man is mentioned by Justin Martyr, Theophilus ofAntioch, Irenaeus,andHippolytus. Speakingof Ganymedeandothercharacters of Greek mythology who were taken up to heaven, Justincontrasts the Christian belief that only those are immortalized wholive near to God in holiness and vir tue '.' Again,the Word by hisinstruction makes mortals immortal, makesmengods'.* TheophilusofAntioch discusses.whether God mademan bynature mortalorimmortal.Not immortal,he says,for in that case God would have madehima god . Man was, in fact, made neither mortal nor immortal, butcapable of either state,so that if he kept the commandmentsof Godhe should receive immortality as a rewardand should becomea god.Irenaeus and Hippolytus write in the same way; the Christian is atlength to become a god , or in other words to be begotten untoimmortality'.* It is plain that neither of these writers understands' deification' to be anything but another and rather more forcibleexpression for the immortalizing of Christians after death. We havealready shewn that this is substantially what Clement means by it.The only difference is, perhaps, that Clement lays stress upon theearthly preparation for immortality as being itself thefirst stagein theprocessof deification. This , however, is a natural consequence of hisdivision of Christians into simple believers' and gnostics',adistinc-tion unknown to hispredecessorsat any rate outside Alexandria. The'gnostic ' , by detachment from the things of sense, coupled withunceasing contemplation, gains for himself while still on earth theessentials of the divine life,in a manner not.possible toordinarymen.Allowingfor this difference, we may saythat Clement's thoughton thesubject of deification does not go beyond that of most second andearly third century Greek Christian writers.

Wecan now ask, Whatwas the influence thatled theearliest GreekFathers,andClement in particular, to use language expressing deifica-1 Justin Martyr Apol, i n dimflavarfffffOai Si fffua fUiromSttiSayiuSa TOUT ialon

Mailyapira I T T I * 0ipfSiourras.* Justin Martyr Oratio ad Gratcos 5 rotiT TOUJ (hnjTovi iBay&rovt, rovs PpoTovt

Stoin.* Theophilu3 ad Autolycum ii 27 tl yip iSiyaror ainiv d-r' ipxqs Ivtwa^Kfi, 0(Arahriv {rciri$cfi. Again : oirrt O V YiSiyarov abriv tvolqatv, ofrrt iifjv 6vTjr6r, dXXcL

. . . Stirrucdv ifuporipav ira . . . Ty/d/oat rtjv h-roAr)* TOU 9eoG fuaSiv ico(ii(rrjTai rap'


7/13

NOTES AND STUD IES 16 3tion, when all they had in mind was the simple Christian doctrine ofthe future life ?' Certainly it was not the Scriptures. Th ere is nothingin either the Old or the New Testament which by itself could evenfaintly suggest that man might practise being a god in this world andactually become one in the next. In the Old Testame nt the barequestion of a future life is scarcely raised at all.1 Later on, in theApocryphal and Apocalyptic literature, it is brought into prominencein connexion with the kindred doctrines of a Resurrection and World-judgem ent. But no Jewish writer, whether Palestinian or Hellenistic,was likely to obscure his firm belief in the unity of God by applying tomen the terminology of deification. As for the New Testam ent, wecan imagine how vigorously such language would have been repudiatedby, let us say, St Paul, in whose eyes 'gods many and lords many'could never have seemed anything but the distinctive mark of falsereligion. A Scriptural origin being therefore out of the question, wemust turn to Greek thought as the influence responsible for this elementin Clement's theology. It is no exaggeration to say that C lement viewsevery Christian doctrine through the medium of Greek ideas anda Greek temperament. In the case in hand the medium has exerciseda plainly discernible effect upon the doctrine, as will be seen from thefollowing considerations.

(i) Greek philosophy, depending largely upon Plato, tended to regardthe future life of the virtuous man as an ascent of his spiritual nature,after death, towards the divine.1 Th is is opposed to the purelyChristian view, as taught in the New Tes tam en t; for there the newlife is essentially a ' resurrec tion lif e', i. e. one which follows upona divine intervention and judgemen t. The New Testam ent doctrinehas kinship with Jewish Apocalyptic, but shews little, if any, trace ofGreek influence. In Clement, however, the Greek idea of gradualascent is dominant.8 The root difference between these two concep-tions may be thus stated. The one postulates a common judgem ent,equally necessary for all, because all have sinned. This is followed, inthose who believe on Christ, by exaltation to an eternal life with God.The stress being laid upon God's goodness and Christ's redemption,

1 Certain aspirations after immortality find exp ressio n in the U ter Psalms.' Cf.Pg. xvi io, xlix 15. . Dan. xii 3-3 belongs of course to the Apocalyptic writings. See PlatoPhatdo 80D - 8I D . He speaks, for instance, of the various dwelling-places that are allotted tobelievers in accordance with their deserts. See ii 36 ^ 1 J-U (579) tlal yd.p napdxvpiqt Ktu iuo9olKal fioval v\tiovtt /card ivaXoyiav plan*. Also ii 489* (797) oifiovalwoiiclXat tar' itar ram nmtvoA vrav. Clem ent's constant use of the phrasedfiobuait6y, 'assimilation to God ' (from Plato, cf. Thiattdus 176 B also shews his beliefthat man's prog ress is throughout a gradual o ne. For example see i 64 s1 (71), andeverywhere.M 2


8/13

164 TH E JOURNA L OF THEOLOGICAL STUD IESthere is little room left for inequalities among believing men. Theother view represents the future life as beginning immediately afterdeath,1 without any judgement other than what may be called a self-acting one. If a man has in this life despised all bodily things anddevoted himself to contemplation, death is a manifest gain, for it ridshim of a useless encum brance. But such men are r ar e; and thereforewide differences appear, a few choice spirits ascending at once to highplaces, while the majority keep close to the earth they have loved. Inthis scheme God is hardly needed at all, except as an object of con-templation. Clem ent's extant works prove tha t his mind dwelt naturallyin this Greek atmosphere; for he rarely mentions either the Resurrec-tion or the Judgement (in their objective Christian forms) or the SecondAdvent, whereas the spiritual 'life after de a th ' meets us, one mightalmost say, on every page. It was this which allowed the higher souls,such as those of gnostics and martyrs, to ascend at once into the verypresence of God, an exaltation so great that it seemed to warrant theirbeing called divine, or even gods.*

(ii) A second influence is to be found in the idea of the universe asa series of spheres circling above the earth. We do not begin to under-stand the thought of the ancient world in regard to such matters as theconception of a future life until we put away all modem notions ofastronomy. It would seem that Clement accepted the current theoryof seven heavens rising one above the other, followed by the fixedsphere which bordered on the 'intellectual world' (KOV/HOS

Tfjr ivBkvS* i-waMarffiv,or dioSij/i/av, as Clem ent often sa ys . Se e i 677~* (74),i IO71"-*0 (115), i m 7 (130), ii 409 '(72a ), and elsewhe re. T he Resurr ection in a spiritual sense is mentioned several time s. Se e i6 1" (6 8afrrri npiirri TO Oimparrrii/uiT ot iviaraais (cf. R ev . x x 5) : i ii 5417 " 9* ( 8 7 7 ) OETOT ivroXtjyT ^r xard, rd tiiayyfteov & tairpadfi(roi icvptaicfp' iicflmp' rijv ff^Upav voiu, 5ray iivof$&W-Q(pavkoy riij/ia * a l yroHTTUtdvp


9/13

NOTES AND STUD IES 165These heavens varied in degree of grossness according to their distancefrom the earth; but not even the highest of them was what we shouldcall incorporeal. The soul of man was thought of as rising in a spatialsense through these spheres,1until it reached the abode JJAVTJ)for whichit was fitted. We cannot set down any consistent account of Clem ent'sopinions on this subject,* nor is it necessary for the present purpose.The general outlines of the system are enough to prove how naturallytitles of divinity would attach themselves to souls who had reached thehighest possible heaven, when that heaven is believed to be spatiallyabove us. Much of the majesty of G od to a child's mind is due to thefact that H e dwells ' above the bright blue s k y ': and the decay of thisbelief accounts to some extent for the confusion in which the averageman finds himself to-day with regard to the existence of God; he hasceased to look for Him in the sky,' and has not yet discovered whereelse to turn his eyes.

The belief in a series of heavens is not of course exclusively Greek.It is found also among the Jews , and clear signs of it appear in theNew T es ta m en t St Paul speaks of ' the heavenly places',*and hehimself was caught up into the ' third heaven '. Christ the great highpriest has ' passed through the h eavens ', and is now made ' higher thanthe he avens', according to the Epistle to the Hebrews. But the NewTestament, while accepting this belief (for no other was open to thatage), does not use it to explain the exaltation of saints after death.7Clement's thought must therefore be held to come ultimately fromGreek and not from purely Christian sources.

1 Just as daemons,who,according to Clement, are foul and earth-loving spirits,cannot ascend at all, but remain fixed to earth, See i 45* ' (49) and PlatoPhatdo 81 c D.% O rigen is more exp licit. T he ' heave n ' of God's people is either in the ' fixedsphere', or above it; it ia not incorporeal (mundum incorportum), only invisible tous ; nor is it a w orld of ' pure ide as ', as the Greek s thought (imaginis quasdam,quas Gratci ISlas nonuna nt), but in its way substantial: Dt PrindpHs ii 3. 6-7.T here are also super-celestial abodes, in which dwell higher beings st ill ; DtPrinapiis ii 9. 3. For old-world idea s, in wh ich Clement heartily concurs, see i 56*"* (53) T


10/13

166 THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

Clem ent was in no way conscious that his ideas were not quite ona line with the Scriptures taken in their original meaning. H e lived ina Greek world, among people who, whether themselves Greek or Jewishor Christian by birth and religion, breathed Greek ideas as inevitablyas they breathed the common air. When Clement examined theScriptures he had no eyes to see them as they really were, but only asthey appeared through this peculiar mental atm osphere . Under suchcircumstances he could find in them support and authority for ways ofthinking which had their true source elsewhere. In regard to thedeification of man there are two Scriptural passages which furnishedhim with proof for his statements: Ps. lxxxi 6 (Sept.) 1 and St Lukexx 36 (particularly th e expression WyyeXos). The first of thesepassages derives special importance from the fact that it is appealedto in St John x 34-35 as bearing some sort of witness to the truth ofChris t's divinity. Th e original sense is difficult to determ ine. Probablythe passage does not refer to princes or judges of Israe l, bu t to sub-ordinate deities or angels who ruled over heathen nations under thechief sovereignty of Jahweh.1 In St John x 34, however, it seems to beinterpreted as applying to pr ince s: ' those to whom the word of Godca m e'. Clement does not mention this New Testam ent use of thepassage, nor does he attempt to investigate its context or literalmeaning. H e takes the words as a simple prophecy of what Christians-may become both now and hereafter.*having materially influenced Clement, on account of their essentially pantheisticcharacter. Clemen t certainly never believed that the spirit of any man becamemerged in the D eity . Indeed, so strongly is he averse from this doctrine, that h evigorously denies the identity of human and divine virtue, which the Stoics taughtSee iii6 31 0 - 1 1 (886); also his complete denial of pantheistic ideas in ii 384 1 -" (698-699). A no the r possible influence that m ayb e held to account in some measure forClement's phraseology is the elasticity of the term 6t6i. Se e a valuable note byHarnack, Hist. Dogma, E ng. trans., i p. 119. But in gen uin ely Christian thought,if the N ew T estament is any standard, 6t6r was rigid enough, except when used ina depreciatory sense. T he loose uses of0i6t to which Harnack refers spring eitherfrom popular polytheism or from the pantheism of the educated world, to both ofwhich Clement was irreconcileably opposed.

1 lya> tT wa, Slot iari a2violbifilarov lrcbrts. T he first ver se of the Psalm is alsoquoted in i i l8 i B ( 4 9 4 ) , 0ttn I O T T JIV avrajaryy Bvbv, iv fxtatfi Ii Btoxn Suucplrti.1

T he Psalm seems to be a complaint about the oppression of Israel by theheathen; hence the last verse, (TIP (i .e. Jahweh) mraxK ripovofJiads Iv maw rotsUnfair. Se e Hastings Dictionary of tht Bibli, extra volume p. 724b; and, for theother view of olScoi, vol. iv p. 5704.8 Se i 8617~18(94), wh ere the w ords are attributed to ' the proph et'. O therquotations of this passage occur in i i O 5 I 2 ( i i3) , i i i8 i 6 ~ ' ( 4 9 4 ) ) and ii 3i4D ~ M (6 3 3 ) .T he las t one ru ns thus : T ovrtp Svrardv T $ T p& ry T


11/13

NOTES AND STUD IES 167The other passage (St Luke xx 36), or rather the single word urdyyekty;is quoted three times in the Seventh Book of the Stromateis,while the

parallel from St Matthew xxii 30 is referred to in the fou rth Book. T he' Jewish and Christian doc trine of angels could without much difficultybe merged into the Greek idea of subsidiary gods; and this is whatClement does, for we find his thoughts travelling from Homer to Plato,and again from Plato to the New Testament, with no consciousness ofa break in the connexion . It will help to make this plain if the passagefrom the Fourth Book is quoted in full.1 'P la to says with reason that he who contem plates the ideas will liveas a god among men. Now M ind is the place of ideas, and God isM ind. The man therefore who contemplates the unseen God-is livingas a god among men, according to Plato; and Socrates in the Sophistcalled the Eleatic stranger, who was a dialectician, a god, of the samekind as the gods who, in the guise of strangers ,' visit the cities ofm e n s ... For when a soul has once risen above the sphere of generation,and exists by itself and in company with the ideas, like the coryphaeusin the TTieaeietus* such an one, having now become a s an ang el ,will be with Christ, rapt in contemplation, ever observing the will ofGod. Tha t is the real man who alone is wise, while othe rs flit asshadows . '

Here Clement lays his thought as bare as he can. . It is fundamentallyGreek, and the Scriptural reference is brought in to illustrate opinionsalready form ed; though probably Clement would have felt and declaredthat the Scriptures were his sole authority.6None the less we must admit that the two passages here mentioned,and more especially Ps. lxxxi, exercised in their way a powerfulinfluence on Christian thou ght. Had they been absent from theScriptures, Clement's allegorism was no doubt capable of finding othersto support his views; and yet it is hard to think of anything that couldhave quite filled the place of the unm istakeable ' I said, ye are g od s' .These words come to him instinctively whenever the perfection of manis in qu est ion ; and the same is true of Origen. Thoug h in order ofthought they are not a prime authority, it is certain that they helpedmaterially to keep alive the idea and language of deification.

1 ii 3171*" 1' (63 4-6 35 ). T he text (?f the important parts of this passage is give non p. 160supra notes 1 and 2.Homer O dyssty xvii 485.Stahlin suspects a break in the text here.Plato Thtattttus 173 c.Homer O dyssty x 495. T he exact references tolairrtkot are '" 4 3 " (866), i 56' (879), and iii 6oT (883) .T here is another instance in ii 484* (79 2). T hese add nothing.to what is said above..


12/13

16 8 TH E JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUD IESV II

Two other poin ts may be men tioned. The language of deificationmust have had, one would think, great disadvantages at a time when .the Church was struggling to secure her position in a world dominatedby polytheism. To simple men, who pay more regard to words thanto the meaning which may be hidden behind them, it might well haveseemed that Clement, and some of the Apologists who preceded him,were in danger of giving away the Christian case by their loose employ-ment of 6t6s and cognate terms, in the cu rrent G reek fashion, todesigna te immortalized m en. Plainly, however, this view of thingsnever affected C lem en t; for, as we have seen, he calls men ' g od s'withou t any reserve or hesitation. Th is mode of speech was, moreover,continued long after his day, as the writings of subsequent GreekFathers testify.1 But we do no tice, I think, in Origen, a tendency tobe more restrained and careful than Clement is in the use of suchterm s. It is true that theloci classici of Ps. lxxxi 6 and St Luke xx 36mean practically the same for him as they do for Clement. H e admits,for instance, on the strength of Ps. lxxxi 1, that the angelic powers areca l led ' gods ' s ; but when , in another place, he interprets the sameverse of human judges 'who,on account of the superhuman purity oftheir character, were said to be gods', h e adds th e qualification, ' inaccordance with an ancient Jewish mode of sp ee ch '.' Angels, again,because of their divine nature, are sometimes called 'gods' in theScriptures; but not, Origen hastens to say, in order that we mayworship them in place of God.* W hen speaking of men made perfecthe uses such expressions as th e following: ' equal to the a n g e ls '8 ;' taken up into the order of an g e ls '' to behold the ' holy and blessedl i f e ' ' ; placed ' in the assembly of righteous and blessed beings '.*With Clement the last of these phrases would in all likelihood haveread, ' the assembly of angels and g o d s '.' In his comm entary onSt John, Origen has occasion to notice the phrase ' every man is a liar'.' So ', he continues,' every man must be said not to stand in the truth.For if anyone is no longer a liar, and does stand in the truth, such an one

1 Hamack says that 'after Theophilus, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Origen, it isfound in all the Fathers of the ancient Church'. Hist. Dogm a, Eng. trans., iiip. 164 note.5 O rigen Contra Ctlsum viii 3-4 ; also iv 39.8 C ontra C tlsum iv 31 Ikiyoyro flvaiBtol varpiqi rtri 'lovtiaiwv iSti.Contra Ctlsum v 4 ; also v 5.Dt Printipiis iv 1. 39 (iv 4 .3 ) ; alto Contra Celsum iv 39.Dt PrindpHs i 8. 4. ' Ibid, i 3. 8.Contra Ctlsum vi61 .Compare Clement iii & ~*(831) arparta iyyiXav T oi 0tur : iii 14** (839 )iyyt\ot naiBtoi :and i ii 4 1 " - " (865) .


13/13

NOTES AND STUD IES 169is not a m an ; so that to him a nd to his like God can say, I said, ye aregods .' ' Even here Origen is careful to leave the words to God. T hedifference between Clement and Origen on this point is not great; butthese passages give at the least some reason for thinking that Origenhesitated to reproduce his master's expressions in their more unguardedforms.

Secondly, the whole argument of this paper shews that, wherever inClement the word 0eos occurs in reference to man (exclusive of Christ),the true English equivalent is not ' G od ', nor ' go d', but ' a god '. Inthe plural of course there is no difficulty. T he Antc-Niccne ChristianLibrary, which contains the only translation into English of Clement'scomplete works, frequently mars the sense by rendering 6t6

butterworth - 1916 - the deification of man in clement of alexandria

Documents