The One Christ: St. Augustine's Theology of Deification
126 The Son's Descent tion should terminate all supposed sacrifice to any other deity, what he calls "those whom he considers to be gods" [quos opinatur deos]. Augustine uses this extract from Porphyry because it provides him with the perfect opportunity to expound on what it means to imitate God and consequently, to be deified by him. Given Porphyry's understanding of demons and sacrifice, Augustine is also afforded an opportunity to redefine pagan deification language in order to discuss the differences in "gods" as understood in the Christian tradition.
Analysis of Augustine's
Use of Deificare
We have thus far followed the uses of deificare and its cognates in the writings of Augustine chronologically. His meaning of deification must be elicited from how it is woven into more amplified soteriological metaphors. In contrast to much secondary literature on Augustine and deification, we have seen how he employs the term in many helpful and illuminating ways. Let us now follow two related lines of inquiry. First, what provokes Augustine to employ deification language at all? What does it solve for him and what cachet does it have in his thought? Second, are we able to discern what limits his use of deification language? That is, simply, why does he not rely on it more often?
To begin, it is not unimportant to point out that Augustine uses explicit deificare language more than any Latin theologian before him. Although eighteen occurrences may seem far from notable given Augustine's massive output, there are only sixteen instances of deificare that appear in the Christian West before him.102 As such, it is Augustine who is here setting prec-
102. Searching Corpus Christianorum (CCL) reveals 16 various uses of deificare before Augustine: (1) Tertullian, Apologeticum §11; (2) Cyprian, De Zelo et Liuore §15 and Cyprian's (3) Epistula 52.2 and again at (4) Epistula 67.9; (5) Epistulae ad Cyprianum et alios 22.1 and (6) again at 75.7; (7) Sententiae Episcoporum Numero
The Son's Descent 127 edent, unable to draw from any of his usual sources like Hilary or Ambrose. Within the eleven explicitly soteriological uses of deification, two main reasons prompt Augustine's selection of this term: (1) to explain both pagan and sacred scripture's (seemingly) polytheistic use of "gods" and (2) to explain and even bolster other Christian metaphors for salvation.
Augustine's explanation of the plural "gods" found in both pagan and Christian cult is accomplished by way of distinguishing between three types of dii found in the religious world around him. For in both his own scriptures as well as the pagan milieu of late antiquity, "gods" presents a challenge to any strict monotheist and thus deificare allows Augustine to show the essential difference between (1) the one alone who can deify [deus deificator], (2) those whom this God has deified [deificatos], and (3) those outside this process who may use the term "gods," but do so falsely. For Augustine, then, the name deus can be applied (1) truly and properly, (2) adjectivally and participatorily, and (3) wickedly and deceptively.
From this demarcation we can also conclude that deification for Augustine is a strictly Christian term. It is a process that does not exist outside the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ, and is therefore not a term applicable to those outside Christ's church. As we have seen repeatedly throughout this chapter, Augustine's explicitly soteriological uses of deificare are all inextricably bound with the incarnation of the Son (this is obviously to prescind from the initial use at Epistula 10.2 as well as the literary uses of deificare at the turn of the fifth century). It is a rejuventated state of life not open to anyone outside the
LXXXVII De Haereticis Baptizandis (Concilium Carthaginiense sub Cypriano anno 256 habitum) §8; (8) Marcus Victorinus, Aduersus Arium 2.3.11 and again (9) in ep. ad Ephesios 1.4.8; (10) Pope Liberius, Epistula 2 (to Eusebius of Vercelli) line 5; (11) Ambrosiaster, In Paulii Epistulam ad Romanos 1.24, (12), in his Quaestiones Ueteris et Noui Testamenti 114.17, (13) and again in the same work at 114.26; (14) Arnobius Junior, Conflictus cum Serapione 2.14; and finally, (15 and 16) Optatus of Milevis, twice at Contra Parmenianum Donatistam 1.27 (lines 18 and 24).