WTJ 73 (2011): 237-54

衛敏斯特神學雜誌（2011）：237-54

Quasi deificari: Deification in the Theology of John Calvin

神化我們：約翰加爾文神學中的神化

A. J. Ollerton

I. Introduction

介言

Recent discussions regarding deification in Calvin’s theology have sounded rather like a Punch and Judy show: “Oh yes there is . . . Oh no there isn’t!” Mosser and Billings have adamantly affirmed deification in Calvin’s theology, whereas Slater and Garcia deny any presence of the motif. The tug-of-war reached a fruitless impasse of yes/no responses as both sides quoted Calvin to bolster their positions. Lee’s recent article signals a fresh attempt to navigate a different route, through the distinction of divine essence and divine kind. The present article argues that Calvin has a differentiated approach to deification such that yes/no responses lie within Calvin’s corpus of writings itself. In his commentary on 2 Pet 1:4 Calvin concludes that the scriptural phrase “partakers of the divine nature” refers to a kind of deification (quasi deificari). This phrase shows Calvin’s willingness to affirm the motif of deification (through explicit use of theosis terminology) whilst also using the qualifying term (quasi) to guard against certain versions of deification. If it can be shown that Calvin himself both receives and rejects different versions of deification in a differentiated manner, the Punch and Judy show can give way to a more fruitful discussion of the nature of true deification according to Calvin. This could not only reconcile some divisions in Calvin scholarship but also contribute to bridging the gulf between East and West.

近期對於加爾文神學中的神化教義聽起來就像個脫口秀：“哦，是的，他就是。。。。哦，不是，他絕對不是！”Mosser和Billings一口咬定加爾文神學中的神化教義，同時，Slater和Garcia則完全否定這個主題曾出現在加爾文的神學中。李最近的文章展現了以神的實質和神的種類間之不同着手，一種從不同路徑解決問題的嘗試。目前的文章主張，加爾文在其文集中，以一種超越是/否的方式來處理神化的教義。在他對於彼得後書1：4的注釋中，加爾文結論到，聖經經文中的‘神性的分享者（partakers of the divine nature）’指的是某種的神化（quasi deificari）。這段話表明加爾文願意肯定神化這個主題（藉由嚴謹的使用theosis這個詞彙）同時也使用了相關的條件（quasi）來避免某種版本的神化（教義）。它同時可以被用來表明，加爾文本身以不同的方式，既接受，又拒絕不同版本的神化（教義），脫口秀錯過了對於加爾文真實神化教義的一個富有成果的討論良機。這種討論不但能夠化解加爾文研究中的分歧，跟能夠在東方和西方間搭建起一座橋梁。

II. Quasi deificari and the Patristic Background

某種的神化與教父們的時代背景

For we must consider from whence it is that God raises us up to such a height of honour. We know how abject is the condition of our nature; that God, then, should make himself ours, so that all his things should in a manner become our things, the greatness of his grace cannot be sufficiently conceived by our minds. . . . Let us then mark that the end of the gospel is, to render us eventually conformable to God, and, if we may so speak, to deify us [quasi deificari ].

因為我們必須考慮神從何處將我們提升到那種榮耀的高度。我們知道我們的境況是如此的下賤；使得神，要讓祂成為我們的；好叫祂所有的一切能夠以某種方式成為我們的，祂恩典的偉大無法被我們的心思所想像。。。讓我們指出，福音的終點就是，讓我們最終能夠被模成像神，若，我能夠這樣說，神化我們[quasi deificari]。

Calvin’s direct reference to deification aligns him with a trajectory reaching back to the patristic writers who frequently used the language of theosis or deification (from Justin Martyr through to Maximus the Confessor). Indeed, deification was explicitly taught and assumed in all three of the main patristic trajectories—the Alexandrian trajectory which emphasized the role of the incarnation and sacraments in deification (Irenaeus, Athanasius, Cyril), the Cappadocian trajectory which had a more intellectual, moral, and aesthetic approach to deification (Clement, Gregory Nazianzus, Maximus), and the Latin trajectory (Tertullian, Augustine). During the patristic era, the notion of deification was so established that no definition was deemed necessary until Dionysius the Areopagite in the sixth century. Deification was such a solid assumption that it could be used as a battering ram to knock down other doctrines. As Russell argues: “Deification is primarily a weapon in Athanasius’ dogmatic armoury against Arianism.” In Orationes contra Arianos Athanasius used deification to expose the Arian contradiction—the Son cannot make gods out of humanity unless he is God Himself; only deity can deify humanity. As Christology was debated, both sides assumed deification.

加爾文對於神化的直接回應，使得他與頻繁使用Theosis或神化語言的古教父（從殉道者游絲丁到堅信者馬克西母）處於同樣的張力之中。的確，主要的三個學派都明確無誤的教導神化的教義—亞歷山大（Alexandrian）學派強調神化中道成肉身的角色和聖禮（愛任紐，亞他那修，區利羅），迦帕多家（Cappadocian）學派以一種更為理智，道德和美學的方式處理神化（革利免，拿先斯的貴格利，馬克西母），和拉丁（Latin）學派（特土良，奧古斯丁）。在教父的時代，神化的觀念一直到六世紀的迪奧尼修（Dionysius the Areopagite）都沒有真正的定義。神化是那麼一個堅定不移的假設，甚至可以被當作用來否定其他教義的攻城錘。就像Russell主張的：“神化是亞他那修的教義武器庫中，用來對付亞流主義最主義的武器。”在《反亞流四論文（Orationes contra Arianos）》中，亞他那修用神化來曝露亞流派的矛盾—除非神的兒子就是神自己，祂就不能把人變成眾神（gods）；只有神能夠神化人性。爭辯基督論的雙方都使用了神化的教義。

It is primarily the Alexandrian trajectory that finds an echo in Calvin’s approach to deification. Irenaeus was the first to explicitly state the tantum-quantum or exchange formula; the Son of God “became what we are in order to make us what he is himself.” Athanasius stood on Irenaeus’s shoulders and saw further. He emphasized the flesh of the incarnate Christ as the definition and dynamic of deification. Only if human nature has been deified in Christ can we be deified through our union with Christ: “For that is why the union was of this kind, that he might unite what is naturally man to what is naturally of the Godhead, and his salvation and deification be made sure.” Cyril was the first to see the sacraments as the primary means of deification—baptism initiates the unio mystico between the believer and Christ, and the Eucharist feeds the believer’s soul with nothing less than Christ himself. Thus the Eucharist “restores man wholly to incorruption” as it is endowed with the qualities of the Logos and “is filled with his energy, through which all things are given life and maintained in being.”

加爾文處理神化教義的方式主要可以在亞歷山大學派中找到同樣的方式。愛任紐是第一位明確宣稱tantum-quantum或交換公式（exchange formula）的教父；神的兒子‘成為我們的所是，好叫我們能夠成為祂的所是。’亞他那修站在愛任紐的肩膀上看的更遠。他強調道成肉身的肉身乃是神化的定義和活力。只有人性在基督里被神化，我們才能夠藉由我們與基督的聯合，而被神化：“因為，那就是為什麼那個聯合必須是這樣的，好叫祂能夠聯合那些本性為人的，與那位本性屬於神格的聯合為一，祂的救贖和神化就能夠被堅立。”區利羅是第一位看見聖禮是神化的主要手段—受浸開啟了信徒和基督間的unio mystic(奧秘的聯合)，聖餐就是把基督自己餵給信徒的魂。故此，聖餐“完全重建人，把不朽賜給人”，因為它乃是道之質量所賜予的，“被祂的能力所充滿，藉由它萬有都能夠得着生命，並維持其生存。”

The patristic influence on Calvin is well documented. As Calvin says himself: “We receive what was determined by the ancient councils, and we hate all sects and heresies which were rejected by the holy doctors from the time of St. Hilary and Athanasius until St. Ambrose and Cyril.” Therefore any attempt to assess the place of deification in Calvin’s theology must begin with this patristic plumb line. Consequently, the absence of this patristic background in many studies means a failure to see deification in the foreground of Calvin’s theology. Lee’s recent article largely omits the patristic background and as a result summarizes Calvin’s comments by saying: “We will experience a kind of deification, but not deification itself.” However, consistent with the patristic writers, Calvin never questions whether we will experience deification but what kind of deification it will be. Indeed, in his commentary on 2 Pet 1:4 Calvin sees deification as both the goal of the gospel and the greatest possible blessing.

教父對於加爾文的影響都被清楚的記載下來。就像加爾文自己所說的：“我們領受了古代教會會議所定規的，我們也憎惡所有從希拉里和亞他那修到安波羅修和區利羅這些聖博士所拒絕的教派和異端。”故此，任何講神化教義置於加爾文神學中的嘗試，必須從這條教父的中軸線開始。其結果就是，因為許多研究都忽略了這個教父的背景，導致他們看不見加爾文神學中神化教義的前提。李最近的論文基本上跳過了教父的背景，所以他對於加爾文的結論就是，“我們會經歷某種的神化，但是不是神化的本身。（We will experience a kind of deification, but not deification itself.）”不論如何，與古代教父作者們一致，加爾文從未質疑我們是否會經綸神化，而質疑經歷的是那種的神化。實際上，在他的彼後1：4注釋中，加爾文視神化為福音的目的和我們能獲得最大的祝福。

In line with the patristic trajectory, Calvin also highlights the apophatic nature of deification, such that it “cannot be sufficiently conceived by our minds.” Calvin often turns to the patristic and mediaeval language of mystery when approaching the motif of deification. This signals both an awareness of approaching an unfathomable subject and a concern not to move beyond biblical revelation into speculation. In Book 3 of the Institutes, having commented further on 2 Pet 1:4, he then pulls back from any attempt to inquire further into the depths of this promise:

加爾文與教父們一樣，他也用否定的方式指出神化的本質，就像，它“無法被我們的理智所完全理解。”加爾文在處理神化這個題目的時候，往往訴諸於古教父和中古世紀神秘主義的語言。這表示在出來這個高深莫測題目時的小心翼翼，和避免脫離聖經的啟示而落入臆測的謹慎。在《教義》卷三中，當他進一步注釋彼後1：4的時候，他立刻從對於這個應許深入的進一步討論中，抽身而出：

But when we have made great progress in thus meditating, let us understand that if the conceptions of our minds be contrasted with the sublimity of the mystery, we are still halting at the entrance. . . . We feel how much we are stimulated by an excessive desire of knowing more than is given us to know, and hence frivolous and noxious questions are ever anon springing forth.

然而，當我們在基督中保的服侍中進發的時候，讓我們認識清楚，若我們心思中的觀念於奧秘的莊嚴相衝突的時候，我們就必須止於入口。。。我們感到我們是如何因想要理解那遠超我們所能理解之事物的迫切所刺激，因此，發出輕率並有害的質疑。

A crucial point arises from Calvin’s caution; when a subject tends towards being more apophatic in nature, Calvin will say less about it. This inversely proportional relationship between mystery and commentary should not be (mis)interpreted to mean that Calvin has a small place in his theology for the deification motif. Percentages and proportions are not a fair test of the significance of deification in Calvin’s writings. The patristic writers may have approached deification directly as a topic for discussion. However, Calvin approaches deification obliquely and glances at it from other loci of inquiry. Therefore, “halting at the entrance” of that which Calvin deems the goal of the gospel is not a reluctance to enter but a caution not to do so presumptuously or prematurely.

加爾文的謹慎引發了一個重點：當一個題目的本質是負面的，加爾文就不太會提及它。這個在奧秘和聖經注釋間的反比，不能被錯誤的詮釋為，神化這個題目在加爾文的神學中只占有微不足道的地位。百分比和比率不能作為測量神化在加爾文作品中分量的標準。教父們可能直接把神化當作討論的題目。不論如何，加爾文以簡介的方式出來神化，並以其他的方式來審視它。故此，在被加爾文視為福音的目標前“止於入口”，並不代表我們拒絕進入該議題，而是我們避免自以為是並貿然推測的謹慎。

II. Falsa apotheosis—Versions of Deification Calvin Rejects

偽神化—加爾文拒絕的神化

Calvin’s commentary on 2 Pet 1:4 illustrates his differentiated approach. On the very same page he both receives and rejects deification. No sooner has Calvin affirmed quasi deificari than he opposes a different version of deification:

加爾文對於彼後1：4的注釋描述了他與眾不同的處理方式。就在那頁之中，他既拒絕又接受了神化。一但加爾文肯定了神化我們（quasi deificari），他就立刻反對其他不同版本的神化教義。

But the word nature is not here essence but quality. The Manicheans formerly dreamt that we are a part of God, and that, after having run the race of life we shall at length revert to our original. There are also at this day fanatics who imagine that we thus pass over into the nature of God, so that his swallows up our nature. . . . But such a delirium as this never entered the minds of the holy Apostles.

但是此處性質這個字不是實質而是質量。摩尼教先夢想我們是神的一部分，然後在一生的旅程中，我們至終就能夠反轉回答我們起初的狀態。在今日，那些做白日夢的人幻想我們就能夠進入神的性質，好叫祂能吞沒我們的性質。。。然而，使徒們絕對不會有這種神志不清的想法。

Here Calvin rejects the Manichees’ attempts to posit deification as a form of trans-substantiation whereby humanity is mixed into the divine substance “so that his swallows up our nature.” Calvin also clashes with Servetus on a similar issue and concludes it is a “delusion to imagine deity in believers.” In both instances, Calvin is objecting to the unqualified and unmediated notion of deity in humanity such that deity can be considered a deposit that humans possess. Elsewhere Calvin also rejects what he terms falsa apotheosis, meaning pagan notions of deification that attribute the title and status of gods to outstanding military heroes and kings. Calvin’s objections to falsa apotheosis are gathered up and brought into focus through his debate with Osiander.

加爾文在此拒絕了摩尼教將神化定為性質的改變（trans-substantiation）之嘗試，藉以把人性和神的性質混合，“以至於祂吞沒了我們的性質。”加爾文也與Servetus在類似的題目上對壘，並結論說，它是一個‘被炮製出來，在信徒中神性的謊言。’在這兩個場合中，加爾文都堅決抵制對於人性中，毫無限制和無中保的神化，導致神格被認為是人所擁有的積蓄。在別處，加爾文也拒絕他所謂的falsa apotheosis（偽神化），意思就是異教對於神化的觀念，將眾神（gods）的稱號和地位賦予傑出的軍事領袖和國王。加爾文藉由他與Osiander的辯論，將其反對偽神化的觀點整合併攤在陽光下。

Calvin introduces Osiander’s error by connecting it with that of the Manichees; “he had formed some idea akin to the Manichees, desiring to transfuse the divine essence into men.” Though the debate will narrow down to the issue of essential righteousness compared to imputed righteousness in the arena of justification, Calvin starts with the broader issue of the impartation of divine substance. This relates directly to the deification motif. Most of the literature bypasses this broader context and only begins the debate at the narrow point of imputed versus essential righteousness. Consequently, the differences between Calvin and Osiander can be exaggerated and the more nuanced objections of Calvin missed. Indeed, “Calvin does not start writing against Osiander, until he is accused of being Osiandrian in his theology by his Lutheran opponents.” Calvin’s broader objections to Osiander can be summarized as follows.

加爾文以將Osiander和摩尼教相比較，指出他的錯誤：“他形成了某些類似摩尼教的想法，想要把神的實質灌輸到人裡面。”雖然這個爭辯將會縮小在比較實質的公義（essential righteousness）和歸咎的公義（imputed righteousness）的範圍內。在稱義教義的競技場上，加爾文以神實質被賜予給信條作為一個廣泛的議題，它直接聯於神化這個題目。大部分的相關文章都漏掉了這個大前提，只從一個狹窄的，關於歸咎公義(imputed righteousness)對抗實質公義(essential righteousness)的視角作為辯論的起點。這導致加爾文和Osiander間的分歧被過分誇大，錯失了加爾文真正的目的。的確，“加爾文直到被路得派的對手攻擊他的神學乃是Osiander派之前，加爾文從未提筆撰寫反對Osiander的文章。”加爾文的反對Osiander的重點如下：

1. Unmediated Deification

無中保的神化

Osiander posits a direct reception of divine essence (righteousness), which bypasses the incarnation and the work accomplished by Christ in the flesh. Thus, the integrity of both divinity and humanity is lost and the Creator/creature distinction is dissolved. Calvin therefore states, “We deny the essence of Christ is confounded with ours.” To refute this direct infusion of divine righteousness Calvin repeatedly uses the language of mediator. He claims Osiander teaches that “we are not justified by the mere grace of the Mediator.” By contrast, Calvin affirms his own position on mediated righteousness: “We infer, therefore, that righteousness was manifested to us in his flesh. . . . [Paul] places the fountain of righteousness entirely in the incarnation of Christ.”

Osiander認為人能夠直接接受神的實質（公義），越過了道成肉身和基督在肉身中所成就的工作。故此，失去了神性和人性的完整，造物主/被造之物的分別被抹去。所以加爾文宣稱，“我們否定基督的實質被模成到我們裡面。”為了否定這種神公義的直接融合到人性中，加爾文不但的使用中保的語言。他宣稱Osiander教導，“我們不單單只能藉由中保的恩典得稱義。”在另一方面，加爾文肯定他自己對於中保之公義的立場：“故此，我們推斷，公義在祂的肉身中被顯現給我們看。。。[保羅]將公義的根基完全置於基督的道成肉身之中。”

The vital distinction here is not regarding the real reception of divinity in humanity (deification) but the modus of that reception (mediated or unmediated). Our reception of the divine nature is enabled only through the incarnate flesh of the Mediator. Therefore, all that Osiander wishes to affirm about the reception of the divine nature, Calvin can affirm but not in the same way. Osiander posits an unmediated infusion; Calvin posits a mediated incarnation.

此處生死攸關的分別並不是是否在人性中真實的接受神性（神化），而是所領受的媒介（modus）（不論它是有中保的，還是無中保的）。我們只能藉由中保道成的肉身才能夠領受神的性情。故此，Osiander想要的不過就是肯定領受神的性情，加爾文則以另一種方式肯定這點。Osiander定義了一個不需要中保的注入；加爾文定義了一個中保的道成肉身。

We only make a distinction as to the manner in which the righteousness of God comes to us, and is enjoyed by us,—a matter as to which Osiander shamefully erred. We deny not that that which was openly exhibited to us in Christ flowed from the secret grace and power of God; nor do we dispute that the righteousness which Christ confers upon us is the righteousness of God, and proceeds from him. What we constantly maintain is, that our righteousness and life are in the death and resurrection of Christ. (emphasis added)

我們只需要公義的神臨及我們並被我們享受的方式做出一個分別，--這是Osiander無恥犯錯的地方。我們不否認在基督中從奧秘的恩典和神的能力流向我們，並公開顯示給我們看見的任何事物；我也不會爭辯基督授予我們的公義就是神的公義，也是從神而來的。我們一直所堅信的是，我們的公義和生命乃是在基督的死和復活之中。

This explains why Calvin and Osiander have been considered by some to be polar opposites and by others to be kindred spirits (the Lutheran critique). It is also the reason why this debate with Osiander has been wrongly used to argue against deification in Calvin. Garcia makes this error when he argues that deification can only be posited in Calvin’s theology “if one overlooks all Calvin has to say in criticism of Osiander’s essentialist, divinizing conception.” This confuses different issues. Calvin does vehemently reject Osiander’s notion of unmediated substance infusion, but that does not mean he has rejected a quasi deificari when mediated by the incarnate flesh of Christ. Again the need for a differentiated doctrine of deification is highlighted.

這也就解釋了加爾文和Osiander往往被一些兩極化的反對者和剛硬的靈（路得派的批判）所關注。這也是為什麼這個與Osiander的爭論會被錯誤的用來否定在加爾文神學中的神化教義。Garcia在爭論，神化只能在“我們忽視了加爾文在批判Osiander的實質主義，神化的觀念時所要說的”，才能夠被置於加爾文的神學中時，犯了錯誤。這把不同的問題攪渾在一起。加爾文並沒有粗暴的拒絕Osiander對於缺少中保的性質上之注入的觀念，但是，這不代表他已經拒絕了一個由基督道成的肉身為中保的神化（quasi deificari）。

2. Disconnected Deification

孤立的神化

Osiander’s failure to attribute righteousness to the flesh of the Mediator also causes him to neglect the work of the Spirit. The result is that instead of deification being derived from personal union with Christ, Osiander focuses on the transference of divine essence. For Osiander our union with Christ is through substance exchange, whereas for Calvin it is through the agency of the Spirit:

Osiander錯誤的沒將公義歸於中保的肉身，也會造成他忽略了聖靈的工作。Osiander着重與神實質的傳輸，而頂替了源於個人與基督的聯合，所產生的神化。對於Osiander，我們與基督的聯合乃是經由實質的交換，同時，對於加爾文，是經由聖靈的中介。

He, indeed, heaps together many passages of scripture showing that Christ is one with us, and we likewise one with him, a point which needs no proof; but he entangles himself by not attending to the bond of this unity. The explanation of all difficulties is easy to us, who hold that we are united to Christ by the secret agency of his Spirit.

他，不過就是把許多論及基督與我們是一，和我們也與祂是一的，那些根本不需要證明的經文拼湊在一起；但是，他因為沒有注意這個聯合的聯結而陷入自我矛盾。這也解釋了，為什麼那些問題對我們是簡單的，我們堅信我們乃是藉由基督的靈之奧秘的介入，而與基督聯合為一。

Calvin’s response to Osiander’s substance language is to affirm the role of the Spirit as the bond of the unio mystico relationship between Christ and the believer: “Therefore, to that union of the head and members, the residence of Christ in our hearts, in fine, the mystical union, we assign the highest rank, Christ when he becomes ours making us partners with him in the gifts with which he was endued.”

加爾文以肯定聖靈作為基督和信徒間奧秘聯合（unio mystic）的角色，來回應Osiander的那些實質的語言：“故此，對於那個頭和肢體間的聯合，基督以一種細膩，奧秘的聯合，住在我們的心裏面。當基督成為我們的，並使得我們成為在那賦予祂之恩典的同伴時，我們將最高的地位歸於基督。”

3. Over-Realized Deification

被過分詮釋的神化

Finally, Calvin accuses Osiander of “hurrying us into the clouds” by an overrealized eschatology. Osiander teaches the reception of perfect righteousness and the partaking of the divine nature at the point of regeneration. Calvin argues against this by highlighting a vital distinction: “The gift of justification is not separated from regeneration, though the two things are distinct.” Imputed righteousness is perfect now. However, the process which began at regeneration continues “through the whole course of life, gradually and sometimes slowly.” Thus, according to their state of sanctification, any believer would be condemned before the judgment-seat in this life but according to justification “they appear in the heavens as if clothed with the purity of Christ.”

最後，加爾文批判Osiander以一個過分被詮釋的末世論教導“我們要趕緊進到雲裡面（hurrying us into the clouds）。”Osiander教導在重生的時刻，我們領受完全的公義，並有份於神性。加爾文則以一個生死攸關的分別來爭辯：“稱義的恩典不能與重生分開，雖然它們是不同的。”歸咎的公義如今是完美的。不論如何，從重生開始的過程，會“在人的一生中，逐漸，和有時候是緩慢的”繼續往前。故此，根據他們聖別的程度，任何信徒在此生中，在審判的寶座前都會被定罪，然而根據稱義，“他們在天上如同披上了基督的純潔。”

Calvin’s twofold distinction between justification and sanctification gives an eschatological structure—at the point of regeneration, justification is perfected whereas sanctification is partial. The result is that the believer can experience peace with God now in the heavenly realm, whilst still remaining a pilgrim in the earthly realm en route to deified perfection. Osiander’s infusion of a “portion of righteousness” has no distinction of imputed and imparted. Instead it collapses them both into the immediate, leaving his theology devoid of an eschatological framework. The result is that “salvation is shaken.”

加爾文在稱義和成聖間的雙重分別建構了一個末世論的架構—在重生的時候，稱義是完全的，成聖則是部分的。其結果就是，信徒如今就能夠在屬天的範疇中，經歷與神的和平，同時，仍然是留在屬地的範疇中，朝着神化而去的天路客。Osiander的‘部分公義’的注入並沒有清楚的分辨歸咎和注入。它反而將它們坍塌，而成為一個直接的（手段），使得他的神學缺乏末世論的架構。其結果就是，“救贖被動搖了。”

Therefore, Calvin criticizes Osiander for abusing Scriptures “used in reference to the heavenly life,” because he then “wrests [them] to our present state . . . as if we now were what the gospel promises we shall be at the final advent of Christ.” The two texts that Calvin cites (2 Pet 1:4; 1 John 3:3) are “standard patristic proof-texts for deification.” Thus Calvin overtly draws the deification motif into this debate with Osiander on the grounds that he fails to give a future tense to the realization of these promises. Again, Calvin’s objection is not that Osiander is going too far in asserting the union of humanity and divinity but rather that he envisages that union in the wrong way and at the wrong time.

故此，加爾文批判Osiander濫用聖經，“將其用於屬天的生命，”因為他接下來“將其扭曲為我們現今的狀態。。。就好像，我們現在就在，原本要在基督末次再來才成就的，福音的應許中。”加爾文所引用的兩處經文（彼後1：4；約壹3：3）都是‘教父用來支持神化的標準經文。’故此，加爾文蓄意將神化這個題目拖入與Osiander的辯論中，因為Osiander無法提供這些應許如何在將來中被成就。再者，加爾文所反對的，並不是Osiander過分堅持人性和神性的聯合，而是他以一種錯誤的方式，在錯誤的時間中，揣測那個聯合。

III. The Threefold Nature of Deification According to Calvin

神化根據加爾文的三重本性

Unsurprisingly, the quasi deificari that Calvin affirms is symmetrical to Osiander’s falsa apotheosis, which he rejects. In the same three areas that he opposes Osiander’s version of deification, Calvin also formulates a positive version of deification that is in line with the Alexandrian trajectory from the patristic era.

加爾文所堅信的神化我們（quasi deificari）與他所反對的Osiander之偽神化（falsa apotheosis）是相似的，這並不令人驚訝。在他所反對Osiander版本的神化之三個方面，加爾文都建構了一種正面的神化，與教父時期的亞歷山大學派一致。

1. Mediation Through the Hypostatic Union

藉由位格聯合之中保

For Calvin, deification is the closest possible connection between God and man such that through the unio mystico there is “a sacred marriage, by which we become bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, and so one with him.” However, Calvin turns his back on any attempt to bring about this union apart from the incarnate flesh of the Son of God. Instead, Calvin sees the flesh of Christ as the only bridge over the otherwise infinite chasm between God and man. The hypostatic union is the interface that joins humanity and divinity, Creator and creature, Deus facit and homo fit. Consequently, the person of Jesus Christ is deification and as such becomes the only appropriate definition and dynamic of deification. As Mosser states regarding Calvin, “Christ unites believers to God because in his person God and humanity are already united.”

對於加爾文，神化乃是藉由奧秘聯合而有的，在神和人間的關係最緊密的關係。有一個“神聖的聯姻，藉由它我們成為他骨中的骨，肉中的肉，如此與他為一。”不論如何，加爾文否認任何嘗試將這個聯合分割在神兒子成為的肉身之外。加爾文反而視基督的肉身為神和人間那個不可跨越鴻溝上面唯一的橋梁。位格的聯合就是聯結人性和神性，造物主和被造物的界面，Deus facit and homo fit(God makes and man is made—神創造而人被造)。其結果就是，基督這個人就是神化，也就成為神化唯一的定義和活力。如同Mosser論及加爾文所說的，“基督將信徒聯於神，因為在祂的位格中，神和人類已經聯合了。”

Firstly, Christ is the definition of deification as the two natures are joined in full union—indivisibly and inseparably. This union preserves the distinctive properties of each nature—inconfusedly and unchangeably. With Chalcedonian precision Calvin states; “He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.” Thus, the incarnation unites God and man in perfect union whilst safeguarding the Creator/creature distinction. For Calvin, this is the only definition of deification because Christ himself is the definition. This aligns Calvin with the patristic definition of deification: “Calvin’s doctrine of theosis, like its classical antecedents, is built around the hypostatic union. Theosis is only possible because human nature has been deified in the theandric person of the Mediator. As men and women are united to Christ, his divinity deifies them.”

首先，基督是神化的定義，兩性在完全聯合為一—不可分割（indivisibly）也不可分離（inseparably）。這個聯合保留了每一個性質獨特的屬性—不可混合（inconfusedly）也不可改變（unchangeably）。加爾文以迦克頓的精確論到；“那位是神兒子的，並沒有任何性質上的混亂，而是藉由位格的聯合，成為人的兒子。（He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.）”故此，道成肉身在一個完美的聯合中，將神和人聯合為一，同時保證了造物主/被造之物的分別。對於加爾文，這就是神化的唯一定義，因為基督自己就是定義。這也將加爾文與教父們對於神化的定義一致：“加爾文的神化教義，就如同它古典的先行者一樣，都是建立在位格聯合之上。神化乃是因為在中保神人二性聯合之位格中，人性被神化，才成為可能。當人們被聯於基督的時候，祂的神性就神化了他們。”

Secondly, Christ is the dynamic of deification, as his deified flesh becomes the source of vivifying life. In one of his tracts Calvin describes the flesh of Christ as a fountain:

其次，基督是神化的動力，祂那個被神化的人性成為活潑生命的源頭。加爾文在他的一個小冊子上描述基督的肉身為泉源，說：

The flesh of Christ gives life, not only because he once obtained salvation by it, but because now, while we are made one with Christ by a sacred union, the same flesh breathes life into us. . . . For from the hidden fountain of the Godhead life was miraculously infused into the body of Christ that it might flow from thence to us.

基督的肉身賜給我們生命，不單單是因為祂曾經藉由它得到了就是，而是因為如今，當我們藉由神聖的聯合與基督成為一的時候，那個肉身把生命吹到我們裡面。。。因着，從隱藏在神格中的泉源，生命以一種神跡的方式注入基督的身體之中，好從基督的身體再流向我們。

Commenting on John 6:51-59, Calvin describes the internal dynamic that enables the flesh of Christ to be a fountain of divine life:

在約翰6：51-59的釋經中，加爾文描述那個讓基督的肉身成為神生命之源頭的內在活力為：

As this secret power to bestow life, of which he has spoken, might be referred to his Divine essence, he now comes down to the second step, and shows that this life is placed in his flesh, that it may be drawn out of it. . . . But an objection is brought, that the flesh of Christ cannot give life, because it was liable to death, and because even now it is not immortal in itself; and next, that it does not at all belong to the nature of flesh to quicken souls. I reply, though this power comes from another source than from the flesh . . . for as the eternal Word of God is the fountain of life, (John 1:4,) so his flesh, as a channel, conveys to us that life which dwells intrinsically, as we say, in his Divinity. And in this sense it is called life-giving, because it conveys to us that life which it borrows for us from another quarter (emphasis added)

作為奧秘賜生命的能力，就是祂自己說過的，就是跟祂神聖的實質有關，祂如今在第二個步奏之中，顯明這個生命就是在祂的肉身之中，好叫生命能從祂的肉身中流出來。。。但有人也反對這個說法，認為基督的肉身無法賜給我們生命，因為它會死亡，也因為它如今也不是不朽的；其次，屬於肉身本質的不一定能夠點活魂(quicken souls)。我回答他們，雖然這個能力是從另一個源頭，而不是肉身而來。。。如同神永遠的道是生命的源頭一樣（約翰1：4），祂的肉身也是如此，如同一個管道，將從本質上住在神格中的生命傳輸給我們，如同我們所說過的一樣。從這個角度而言，它被稱作是賜生命的（life-giving），因為它將那個生命傳輸給我們，這個生命乃是從他處借來給我們的。

Calvin himself raises the very objection Slater makes: “Calvin’s position is that believers share in what is Christ’s according to his human nature.” This is the exact reasoning that Calvin refutes—the human nature alone cannot “quicken souls,” thus the power must “come from another source than from the flesh.” Slater’s blinkered reading of Calvin cannot accommodate his patristic interpretation of these verses from John. For Slater, the incarnation is only the redemptive platform from which Christ can expiate sins. However, for Calvin the incarnate flesh is also a fountain that vivifies and deifies as the divine life of God is “drawn out” of the human flesh.

加爾文自己提出了Slater的反對理由：“加爾文的立場乃是信徒根據基督的人性，分享基督所有的。”這就是加爾文否定—人性自己不能“點活魂（quicken souls）”—的理由，故此能力必須“從肉身之外的另一個源頭而來”。Slater對加爾文狹隘的理解不能被當作約翰對於教父們詮釋這些經文的認知。對於Slater，道成肉身不過就是一個救贖的平台，基督藉由它為罪受罰。不列入，對於加爾文，道成的肉身也是一個賜生命和神化的泉源，神的神聖生命從人的肉身中被“汲取而出”。

In this same section of commentary on John 6:51-58 Calvin concludes that Jesus teaches “three degrees of life”:

在約翰6：51-58注釋的同一個段落中，加爾文結論到，耶穌教導“三等的生命”：

The first rank is the living Father, who is the source but remote and hidden. Next follows the Son, who is exhibited to us as an open fountain, and by whom life flows to us. The third is the life which we draw from him. We now perceive what is stated to amount to this, that God the Father, in whom life dwells, is at a great distance from us, and that Christ, placed between us, is the second cause of life, in order that what would otherwise be concealed in God may proceed from him to us.

第一等是活的父，祂是源頭，但是是我們不可及的，也是隱藏的。其次是子，祂被當作敞開的泉源顯現給我們看，生命藉由祂流給我們。第三等是我們從祂汲取的生命。我們如今發現，生命住在其中的父神，乃是遙不可及的，而基督被置於兩者之間，是生命的次因，好叫凡隱藏在神裡面的，都能夠從祂流向我們。

Contra Slater and every denial of deification, Calvin clearly argues that divine life does enter human life—third degree life receives first degree life. However, contra Osiander and all who present unmediated forms of deification, first degree life can only flow to third degree life through the incarnate fountain of second degree life: “So the flesh of Christ is like a rich and inexhaustible fountain, which transfuses into us the life flowing forth from the Godhead into itself.”

與Slater反對神化的每一個論點相對，加爾文明確的論及神的生命並不會進入人的生命中—第三等的生命接受了第一等的生命。不論如何，與Osiander和那些教導不需要中保之神化的人士相對，第一層的生命只能藉由第二層生命所成為的肉身為泉源，才能夠流到第三層的生：“所以，基督的肉身就像豐富和不會乾涸的泉源，將從神格流出的生命傳輸到我們裡面。”

When deification receives its definition and dynamic from the incarnation, the dangers of falsa apotheosis are avoided. Mediated deification renounces both competition between God and man (pagan deification) and the conflation of God and man (the Manichees and Osiander). Instead, the incarnation preserves the eternal distinction between Creator and creature whilst uniting them in full communion.

當神化從道成肉身領受了它的定義和動力之時，就能夠避免偽神化的危險。具有中保的神化否定了神人之間的競爭（異教的神化）和神人之間的異種合併（摩尼教和Osiander）。反而，道成肉身保守了創造者和被造之物間，那種永恆的分別，同時在一個完整的交通中，將它們聯合為一。

Calvin’s doctrine of the incarnation enables him to hold in tension the depravity of humanity by nature and the deification of that same humanity by grace. The result is Calvin’s sublime ability to argue both for and against humanity on the same page. The influence of Bernard is noteworthy at this point. Calvin quotes him at length as an example of how to hold the seeming contradiction of humanity in tension:

加爾文道成肉身的教義使得他能夠維持在人性本質的敗壞和藉由恩典神化敗壞人性間的張力。其結果就是能夠以莊嚴的能力，在同一頁中，全力支持又反對人性。Bernard的影響在此處就變的非常顯著。加爾文大篇幅的引用他的話，作為如何在那種表面上的張力里，掌握人性中的張力之範例：

By the blessing of God, sometimes meditating on the soul, methinks, I find in it as it were two contraries. When I look at it as it is in itself and of itself, the truest thing I can say of it is, that it has been reduced to nothing. . . . What then? Man doubtless has been made subject to vanity—man here been reduced to nothing—man is nothing. And yet how is he whom God exalts utterly nothing? How is he nothing to whom a divine heart has been given? (emphasis added)

藉由神的祝福，有時候作為魂的中保，我發現有兩個矛盾。當我在其中看見它的本質之時，我所能說的就是，它們就變得毫無價值。。。然後呢？人能夠毫不猶疑的順服虛空—人在此處變得毫無價值—人本就是毫無價值的。然而，那被神所高舉的人怎麼可能完全是沒有價值的呢？神的心怎麼可能被賜給那些毫無價值的人呢？

The nothingness, even “obliteration” of humanity apart from God is rigorously affirmed by Calvin (contra Pighius). However, he also affirms humanity as destined for deifying union with God. What reconciles these polarized realities is the role of the Mediator. The fact that Christ had to “make himself nothing”even to the point of death on a cross, affirms the utter sinfulness of humanity. However, that God “put on our flesh” and brought us union with him affirms the exalted nature of humanity.

那種毫無價值，甚至在神之外，對於人性的“被塗抹（obliteration）”被加爾文嚴酷的肯定（contra Piguius）。不論如何，他也肯定人性有一個與神、被神化的聯合。中保的角色就是這些兩極化教訓的調和劑。基督“倒空自己”甚至死在十字架上的事實，證實了人類的罪。而神‘披上了我們的肉身’並將我們帶入與祂的聯合中，也證實了人性被高舉的本質。

Calvin’s doctrine of the incarnation enables him to stand firmly in the Augustinian tradition emphasizing the sinfulness of humanity whilst also affirming, with more Eastern emphasis, deification for that same humanity. It is vital to recover Calvin’s unification of these themes. Otherwise, the split between East and West gives the impression that these two emphases are incompatible, resulting in Western theology’s suppression of the creation-deification trajectory. Calvin offers a bridge between East and West because of the breadth of his doctrine of the incarnation. For Calvin, the incarnation is both a platform for the redemptive recovery of post-Lapsarian humanity and a progression for humanity beyond the pre-Lapsarian state as the hypostatic union inaugurates the deification of humanity in Christ.

加爾文道成肉身的教義讓他能堅定不移的站在奧古斯丁強調人的罪孽的同時，也肯定東方更為強調的神化。如此重現加爾文如何把這些主題連成一氣乃是至關重要的。否則，分割東西方會讓人認為這它們所各自所強調的是互不相容，導致西方的神學壓制了被造之物能被神化的張力。加爾文以其道成肉身教義的寬廣內涵，在東方和西方中間搭建了一座橋梁。對於加爾文，道成肉身同時是恢復post-Lapsarian人性的救贖平台，也是一個人性超越post-Lapsarian的漸進過程，如同位格的聯合開啟了基督人性的神化一樣。

The incarnation as the definition and dynamic of deification enables Calvin to make frequent use of the patristic exchange formula. Calvin shies away from the boldest exchange formula, that God became man that men might become gods. For Calvin God did not become man in that bald, unqualified sense. Rather, through the incarnation the Son of God became Son of man. Consequently, sons of men do not become gods but rather sons of God. This gives a careful symmetry to the incarnation such that the descent of the Son into our nature (kenosis) is reversed by our ascent into his nature (theosis):

以道成肉身作為神化的定義和活力使得加爾文能夠不斷的使用教父（屬性）交換的公式（exchange formula）。加爾文避免了最為大膽的公式，就是神成為人為了使人成為眾神（God became man that men might become gods）。對於加爾文，神並沒有在那種赤裸裸和沒有定義的意義上成為人。反而，神的兒子藉由道成肉身成為人的兒子。其結果就是，人的兒子們並不成為眾神（gods），而成為神的眾子（sons of God）。這提供了一個對於道成肉身教義更為謹慎、平衡的說法，就是神的兒子降世，今日我們的本性中（kenosis），使得我們能夠被升高，進入祂的本性中（theosis）。

This is the wondrous exchange made by his boundless goodness. Having become with us the Son of Man, he has made us with himself sons of God. By his own descent to the earth he has prepared our ascent to heaven.

這是祂無限量的美善所成功的美妙的交換（wondrous exchange）。成為與我們一樣的人子，祂使我們與祂一樣，成為神的兒子，藉由祂的降世，祂為我們預備了升天的道路。

Who could do this unless the Son of God should also become the Son of man, and so receive what is ours as to transfer to us what is his, making that which is his by nature to become ours by grace? 

除了神的兒子也成為人的兒子，並領受我們所是的一切，並把我們變化成為祂所是的，讓祂本質上所是的，藉由恩典成為我們的，誰能夠成就這件事呢？

2. Adoption Through the Spirit-Union

藉由與聖靈的聯合（Spirit-Union）被認養

For Calvin, it is adoption through the Spirit-union that binds us to Christ, without which the incarnation is of no benefit. To convey the extent of this union Calvin echoes Cyril of Alexandria in using the phrase unio mystico and also develops the “sacred marriage” metaphor. As Billings notes, Calvin’s otherwise cautious language takes on a “quite daring” approach as he comes to speak of our unio mystico and the participatio substantia which it entails.

對於加爾文，乃是藉由與聖靈的聯合被認養，將我們與基督聯結為一，否則道成肉身就成為毫無意義的。為了闡明這個聯合的深廣，加爾文呼應亞歷山大的區利羅（Cyril of Alexandria），而使用了奧秘的聯合（unio mystico）這個詞，並發展了‘神聖聯姻（sacred marriage）’的比喻。就像Billings所注意到的，加爾文使用謹慎語言以採取一種“蠻大膽”的處理方式，他總是適時的論及我們奧秘的聯合（unio mystico）和分享性質（participatio substantia）。

Adoption by the Spirit enables the second movement of the exchange formula and connects the incarnation of the Son of God with the deification of sons of men as sons of God:

被聖靈認養使得交換公式的第二個步奏成為可能，並將神兒子的道成肉身和人類眾子的神化，成為神的眾子聯繫起來。

Relying on this, earnest we trust that we are the sons of God, because the natural Son of God assumed to himself a body of our body, flesh of our flesh, bone of our bones, that he might be one with us; he declined not to take what was peculiar to us, that he might in his turn extend to us what was peculiarly his own.

為了回應這個，我們必須衷心相信我們就是神的眾子，因為本質是神兒子的那位為自己取了我們的身體，我們的骨肉，好叫祂能夠與我們成為一；祂並沒有取了一個與我們不同的人性，讓祂能夠在祂那一面，把祂所獨有的延伸到我們裡面。

For Calvin, the Son-ship of Christ is the gift of salvation and the goal of deification. Calvin makes only two distinctions between our son-ship and Christ’s in order to preserve both the Creator/creature distinction and the grace-gratitude nexus. The distinctions are that of origins (eternal vs. adopted) and rights (nature vs. grace). Otherwise, Calvin will press for symmetry between Christ’s Son-ship and ours, because “being reconciled by the righteousness of Christ, God becomes, instead of a judge, an indulgent father” (emphasis added). In his Hebrews commentary Calvin depicts the solidarity of son-ship between Christ and believers such that “[Christ] presents himself and us together to God the Father: for they form but one body who obey God under the same rule of faith.” Adoption escorts believers beyond the otherwise impassable boundary of the Creator-creature divide. The I-Thou of otherness and remoteness becomes the “Abba, Father” of union and participation. Whilst remaining a creature, through adoption the believer is escorted into the inner life of the triune God. This Trinitarian invitation is derived from the ad intra love that the Father has for the Son but is directed ad extra to those adopted sons that they may be loved as he is. “It is an invaluable privilege of faith, that we know that Christ was loved by the Father on our account, that we might be made partakers of the same love, and might enjoy it for ever” (emphasis added).

對於加爾文，基督兒子的名分乃是救恩的恩典和神化的目標。加爾文在我們的兒子名分和基督的兒子名分間做出了兩個分別，好保守造物主/被造之物的分別，和恩典-恩賜的關係。這些關於起源（origins）(永恆與認養相對)和權利（rights）（本質和恩典相對）。另外，加爾文嘗試要等同基督的兒子名分和我們的兒子名分，因為“我們被基督的公義與神和好，神不再是審判官，而成為慈愛的父”。在他的希伯來書釋經中，加爾文將基督和信徒兒子名分描述為一個整體，說“[基督]將祂自己和我們一同獻給父神：因為他們構成一個在同樣的信仰規範下順從神的身體。”認養護送信徒，使他們遠超原不可逾越造物主-被造之物的分界線。那為與眾不同和遙不可及的我-你（I-Thou，譯者：聖經中對神的稱呼，在此指神的超越性）成為聯合和有份的“阿爸，父！”同時，人仍然是一個被造之物，信徒藉由認養被領往三一神內里的生命。這種三位一體對人的邀請乃是源自於父對於子，在自己裡面（ad intra）的愛，並以外在的方式（adextra）轉移到那些被祂認養的信徒身上，好叫他們也能夠為父所愛。“這就是信仰無價的權利，就是我們知道基督為了我們的緣故被父所愛，好叫我們能夠成為同樣之愛的分享者（partakers），並能夠永遠的享受它。”

The adoption motif safeguards deification from being misconstrued as the acquisition of certain attributes or gifts. If deification is divorced from union with God himself to becoming god-like ourselves, then the serpent returns with his subtle but sinful temptation: “You could be like God.” Calvin’s differentiated approach only allows deification that makes union with God himself the goal. Accordingly, the divine nature we partake of is adoption into the Son-ship of Christ and the derived relationship with the Father. Deification is to be incorporated in the eternal and inestimable love that the Father has for the Son.

認養這個題目保證了神化不會被錯誤的構建為獲得（神的）某些屬性或屬性。若神化脫離了與神自己的聯合而成為我們自己成為某種類似神的個體，那麼蛇就會狡猾的回來，用罪惡的方式試探我們：“你們便如神。”加爾文獨特的處理方式讓神化只能夠把與神自己聯合當作最終的目標。有鑑於此，我們所有份的神性在是被認養到基督的兒子名分之中，並源自與父的關係。神化就是成為父對於子那個無限量的愛之一部分。

In his comments on the biblical metaphor of sacred marriage, Calvin goes further than personal union to argue for a substantial union. The substantial nature of this union is a controversial affirmation of an ontological exchange. Thus Calvin’s version of deification is realist, even if the substance is spiritually qualified. The unio mystico involves a paticipatio substantia—indeed that is what makes it mystical.

在他對於神聖婚姻的這個聖經的預表之詮釋中，加爾文位格（personal）的聯合的基礎上，進一步討論實質（substantial）的聯合。這個聯合實質方面的本質是一個有爭議的，對於本體交換（ontological exchange）的肯定。故此加爾文版本的神化是唯實論大熱，即使實質是從屬靈上被定義的。奧秘的聯合（unio mystico）需要有份於實質（paticipatio substantia）--確實，那就是讓其成為奧秘的原因。

In the Institutes Calvin applies a two-way and symmetrical use of the phrase in Eph 5:32, “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” The first application of this phrase is rooted in the incarnation: “The natural Son of God assumed to himself a body of our body, flesh of our flesh, bone of our bones, that he might be one with us.” However, Calvin then dares to reverse the application: “To this is to be referred that sacred marriage, by which we become bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, and so one with him (Eph 5:30), for it is by the Spirit alone that he unites us to himself.”

在《要義》中，加爾文以雙重和系統性方式使用以弗所5：32的段落，“骨中的骨，肉中的肉。”這段話的第一種使用方式基於道成肉身：“本質上是神兒子的那位披上了我們的身體，是我們骨中的骨，肉中的肉。”然而，加爾文也敢倒着應用它：“這指的就是那個神聖的聯姻，藉由它，我們成為祂骨中的骨，肉中的肉，與祂完全是一（弗5：30），因為祂乃是藉由聖靈將自己與我們聯合為一。”

Again, commenting on the phrase “flesh of his flesh,” Calvin asserts, “This is no exaggeration, but the simple truth.” Calvin interprets this simple truth as Christ being a partaker of our nature (incarnation) and we being partakers of his nature (deification):

再者，加爾文在詮釋“肉中的肉”這句話的時候宣稱，“這並不誇大的說法，而是簡單的真理（simple truth）。”加爾文將這個簡單的真理詮釋為基督成為我們的本性的分享者（道成肉身）而我們成為他本性的分享者（神化）：

As Eve was formed out of the substance of her husband, and thus was a part of himself; so, if we are the true members of Christ, we share his substance, and by this intercourse unite into one body. . . . All depends on this, that the wife was formed of the flesh and bones of her husband. Such is the union between us and Christ, who in some sort makes us partakers of his substance.

如同夏娃乃是從她丈夫的實質被塑造（formed），就成為他自己的一部分；同樣的，我們也是基督真正的肢體，我們有份於他的實質，並藉由這個互動聯合成為一個身體。。。所有的信徒都如同妻子是由她丈夫的骨血而塑造的。這就是我們與基督的聯合，祂以某種方式使我們成為祂實質的分享者。

Calvin is at pains to show that his use of substance language goes beyond the “human nature” of Christ to a reception of divine life by a participatio substantia. To do so, he applies a very literal interpretation of the Genesis quotation, what he refers to as “the simple truth.” Just as Eve was made from the substance of Adam, if we are Christ’s we must “share his substance.” Calvin seems to take this further than the text itself demands. Indeed, in his commentary on Rom 6:5 he confesses that he has pushed the boundaries of the engrafting metaphor in order to posit the exchange of substance. Calvin argues that the metaphor is inadequate because it does not express fully the reception not just of life (sap) but of actual nature:

加爾文在超越基督的‘人性’的層次使用實質的語言，來描述人藉由有份（神的）實質（participation substantia）而接受神的生命，而顯得煞費苦心。為了達成這個目的，他只稍微解釋了所引用的創世紀經文，就是他所謂的“簡單的真理。”就如同夏娃從亞當的本質而被造，若我們是屬於基督的，我們就必然“有份祂的實質。”加爾文看起來超過了經文本身所要求的範圍。他確實在他的羅馬書6：5注釋中承認，他刻意推進了接枝這個比喻的邊界以安置實質交換的教義。加爾文主張那個比喻仍然是不足夠的，因為它無法完全表達接受的不單單是生命（sap）而包括性質本身：

“Not only we derive the vigor and nourishment of life from Christ, but we also pass from our own to his nature.” Calvin is willing to transgress his own rule of the sensus literalis in order to affirm that the life flowing from Christ does not merely sustain the believer but transforms him into the divine nature of Christ.

“我們不單單從基督得到生命的動力和養分，我們也從自己被遷移到祂的本性中。”加爾文甚至願意觸犯他自己對於字義（sensus literalis）的規範，好肯定從基督流出的生命不單單維持信徒，並把信徒轉移到基督的神性中。

The notion of participatio substantia is the reason Calvin uses the phrase unio mystico. In so doing, he is connecting union with Christ with the deification motif. Though they are not identical, they are closely related and it “is further evidence in favour of the theosis that Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ is substantially the same as the patristic notion of theosis.” However, instead of trying to explain the inner dynamic of deification, Calvin draws on the language of apophatic mystery to signal his arrival at the boundary of human understanding:

有份於實質（participatio substantia）的觀念就是加爾文使用奧秘的聯合（unio mystico）的理由。他藉由這個方法把與基督的聯合與神化聯繫起來。雖然它們是不同的，它們仍然是緊緊相關的，它“乃是加爾文與基督聯合的教義更傾向於神化的進一步證據，並與教父對於神化的觀念一致。”然而，加爾文並沒有進一步解釋神化的內在活力，而用否定的語言來暗示他已經達到了人類理智所能及的邊界。

“For my own part, I am overwhelmed by the depth of this mystery, and am not ashamed to join Paul in acknowledging at once my ignorance and my admiration. . . . Let us therefore labour more to feel Christ living in us, than to discover the nature of that intercourse.”

“在我這部分，我承受不了這個奧秘的深廣，也毫不羞愧的立即與保羅一同肯定我的無知和欽佩。。。故此，讓我們更努力的去感覺基督住在我們裡面，而不要去探究那個互動的本質。”

3. Glorification Through Eschatological-Union

經由末世的聯合得榮耀

For Calvin, “complete union” only occurs when mortal flesh is transferred into the immediate presence of God and there transfigured to be like him. The consummation of deification is through the beatific vision, and the beatific vision is God himself. The nature of this unhindered vision and full communion with God means Calvin’s general principle of brevity is tightly applied. However, a few comments seem to transgress his own boundaries and leave an enigma within Calvin’s eschatology. Calvin affirms the recovery of humanity in Christ and then seems to suggest the relinquishing of humanity by Christ. Commenting on 1 Cor 15:27-28 he implies that instead of resigning the kingdom, Christ will “transfer it in a manner from his humanity to his glorious divinity.”

對於加爾文，“完全的聯合（complete union）”只在必死的肉身被帶入神直接的顯現中，才會發生，人會被變化形像而像神。神化的終結是藉由極樂的異像，和神自己的極樂的看見。這種毫不隱藏和完全與神交流（full communion with God）的本質意味着加爾文嚴謹的應用了他簡潔的原則。不論如何，他的幾個評論都超越了他自己劃定的邊界，並使得他的末世論留下了一個謎團。加爾文肯定人類在基督里被恢復（recovery）到一個地步，讓他看起來好像在暗示基督離開了（relingquishing）祂的人性。他在注釋哥林多前書15：27-28的時候，他暗示基督並沒有在國度中掌權，而要“將它從自己的人性傳輸到祂榮耀的神性中。”

The implication is that Christ’s humanity only mediates the Father’s divinity this side of the eschaton. Christ will then relinquish his humanity and the result will be a fuller revelation of the Godhead: “Christ’s humanity will then no longer be interposed to keep us back from a closer view of God.” In the Institutes he puts it emphatically: “God will then cease to be the head of Christ, and Christ’s own Godhead will then shine forth of itself, whereas it is now in a manner veiled.”

那暗示基督的人性只從末世論的這方面為神的神性為中保。基督就會離開祂的人性，並產生對於神格更完全的啟示：“基督的人性就不再介入，是的我們無法就近觀看神。”在《教義》中，他特別強調說：“那麼神就不再是基督的頭，基督的神格就自己發出榮光，然而這個榮光如今是被遮蓋的。”

Little attention has been given to these mysterious comments. Letham refers to the Nestorian problem in Calvin’s commentary on 1 Cor 15:27-28. However, he does not refer to the comments in the Institutes, which are even more emphatic. The conclusion that Calvin “momentarily lost his grasp of the union of the two natures” (emphasis added) seems rather generous. Calvin’s comments leave us with awkward questions—is Christ’s humanity and role as mediator only temporary or eternal? What does that mean for our humanity, which is contingent upon his? Calvin leaves the enigma hanging in the air, awaiting the eschaton to unravel it. In summary, for Calvin there are three vital unions that form any true understanding of deification: mediation by the hypostatic union, adoption through the mystical union, and completion by the eschatological union.

一般人都不注意這些奧秘的注釋。Letham把加爾文的哥林多對於15：27-28的注釋當作涅斯拖流的問題。然而，他並不是指《要義》中那些語氣更為強硬的注釋。此處的結論乃是，加爾“頃刻間失去了他對於二性聯合（union of the two natures）的理解力”，看起來好像有點大方了。加爾文的注釋也留下了一個棘手的問題—基督作為中保的人性和角色只是暫時的？亦或是永恆的？那對於我們本性上是偶然的人性又意味着什麼？加爾文將這個謎團吊在半空中，等到末世再揭開他/她。總之，對於加爾文而言，若要真正的了解神化，必須先了解三個關鍵的聯合：藉由位格聯合而有的中保職分，藉由奧秘聯合而有的認養，以及在末世的聯合。

IV. The Eucharist—The Means of Deification

聖餐—神化的手段

It is no coincidence that Calvin’s most explicit use of the deification exchange formula is found within his discussion of the sacraments. In explaining the sacraments, Calvin further develops and clarifies his understanding of the deifying nature of the incarnation and presents the sacraments as the means by which the Spirit mediates the vivifying flesh of Christ to the believer. Therefore, the sacraments must not be treated as an isolated doctrine in Calvin’s theology. Rather, they are the logical outworking of his whole soteriology. If we have rightly understood Calvin’s differentiated notion of deification, there should be no surprises regarding his theology of the sacraments.

加爾文在他對於聖餐的討論中，毫不隱瞞使用神化的交換公式並不是一個偶然。加爾文在對於聖餐的解釋中，他進一步發展並澄清他對於道成肉身的神化本質，和聖靈作為將基督賜生命（vivifying）的肉身服侍給信徒之手段的理解。故此，聖靈必然不能被當作在加爾文神學中一個獨立的教義。反而，它們他整個救贖論所發展出來的邏輯結果。若我們正確的理解加爾文對於神化教義的獨特理解，就不會驚訝與他的聖餐論。

However, as McClean argues, “Calvin’s claims about the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper have been a puzzle and provocation to many of his theological heirs.” Many in the Reformed tradition side with Zwingli as if Calvin were always radical and inconsistent on the sacraments. However, the idea that Calvin’s view of the sacraments is an awkward surprise is a serious warning that indicates a failure to grasp the core of his theology.

然而，就像McClean說的，“加爾文對於基督在聖餐中的顯現之宣稱，對於他的神學後裔而言，往往是令人困惑，和激怒人的。”許多在改革宗傳統中站在慈運理一方的人，往往視加爾文的生出來是激進的，和前後矛盾的。不論如何，加爾文對於聖餐的觀點是一個棘手的問題，也是一個對於那些尚未掌握他神學的核心思想之人的警告。

If for Calvin, the incarnation of Christ is the nature of deification, then the sacred supper is the primary means of participation in this deification. Thus Calvin follows the same progression from Athanasius to Cyril. Athanasius posited the incarnation as a fountain of vivifying life; Cyril presented the sacraments as the primary means by which we drink from that fountain.

若對於加爾文，基督的道成肉身是神化的本質，那麼聖餐就是有份於這個神化的主要手段。故此，加爾文追從從亞他那修到區利羅的神學發展。亞他那修將道成肉身定位為賜生命（vivifying）人之生命的泉眼；區利羅宣稱聖禮是我們飲於那個泉源的主要方式。

Consequently, Calvin’s theology of the Eucharist necessitates a direct and substantial reception of the flesh of Christ if it is truly to be the means of deification. For Calvin, the flesh of Christ is the center of all soteriology. It is the body of Christ through which atonement is made, it is the body of Christ into which we are ingrafted by baptism, and it is the body of Christ from which we receive deifying life in the sacred supper. Therefore, to deny that “true communication of Jesus Christ is offered to us in the Supper is to render this holy sacrament frivolous and useless.” The bread and wine must be more than symbolic or spiritually realized; they must convey the actual vivifying flesh of Christ:

這就造成，加爾文的聖餐論需要一個對於基督肉身直接和本質上的領受，若它真的是神化的手段。對於加爾文，基督的肉身是救贖論的中心。藉由基督的肉身，代贖才得以完成，我們也是藉由浸禮被接枝進入基督的身體，我們也是從基督的身體中，在聖餐里，領受了神化的生命。故此，否定“在聖餐中耶穌基督提供給我們的交通就是放棄了這個聖靈，使其變得毫無價值和毫無用處。”餅和酒必須超越表號或屬靈的實際；它們必須傳遞基督那個賜生命（vivifying）人的肉身。

Moreover, if the reason for communicating with Jesus Christ is to have part and portion in all the graces which he purchased for us by his death, the thing requisite must be not only to be partakers of his Spirit, but also to participate in his humanity. . . . It follows that in order to have our life in Christ our souls must feed on his body and blood as their proper food.

除此以外，若與基督交通的原因是為了獲得祂以祂的死為我們所贖回之恩典的一部分，我們就不單單只成為聖靈的分享者，也需要有份與祂整個的人性。。。這就導致，為了在基督里得到我們的生命，我們的魂必須吃祂的身體和血，作為它們應有的食物。

Reformed theology has struggled with Calvin’s view of the sacraments because it fails to see Calvin’s orientation of the incarnation towards deification. However, his approach to the incarnation is entirely consistent with the patristic trajectory stretching back to Irenaeus, Athanasius, and Cyril. Calvin occupies the middle ground between what he perceives to be errors either side of him. The Zwinglians at best posit a communion with Christ at a mental level (calling to mind) and spiritual level (the presence of Christ mediated by the Spirit) through the bread and wine. However, this allows no real connection between the bread given by Christ (signa) and that which it signifies, the actual body of Christ (res). Instead, Calvin argues that “the bread is called the body, since it not only represents but also presents it to us” (emphasis added). On the other side, Calvin opposed the Lutheran notion of the ubiquity of Christ’s body in, with, and under the bread. For Calvin, any local presence of Christ in the elements requires a change of geography and geometry that violates the humanity of Christ.

改革宗神學總是在加爾文對於聖餐的看法中掙扎，因為它無法看見加爾文從道成肉身向着神化的取向。然而，他處理道成肉身的方式完全符合追朔到愛任紐，亞他那修和區利羅的教父傳統。加爾文在他所預見的錯誤中，採取了中間的立場。慈運理只能經由餅和酒，將與基督的交通安置在理性的層面（心思），和屬靈的層面（基督經由聖靈的臨在）。然而，這無法在基督（signa）所賜下的餅，以及其預表基督真實的身體（res）間建立關係。加爾文在另一方面宣稱，“餅被稱為身體，因為它不單單代表，而是臨及我們”。在一方面，加爾文反對路德會方面對於在餅內基督身體無處不在的觀點。對於加爾文，任何基督的臨及都要求地理上和幾何上的改變，侵犯了基督的人性。

Instead, Calvin argues that the flesh of Christ is present at the Supper, but the issue is the modus of that presence. Whereas Luther posited an unqualified substantial relationship between the bread (signa) and body (res), Calvin sees a qualified spiritual relationship. This enables a real but non-local presence of the body of Christ at the table. The agent that unites what is otherwise separated by both distance (heaven to earth) and essence (bread to body) is the bond of the Spirit: “That sacred communion of flesh and blood by which Christ transfuses his life into us, just as if it penetrated our bones and marrow, he testifies and seals in the Supper, and that not by presenting a vain or empty sign, but by there exerting an efficacy of the Spirit.”

加爾文確實爭辯到，基督的肉身臨及在聖餐中，但那是一種臨及的狀態。同時，路得將一種未清楚定義的關係置於餅（signa）和基督的身體之間，繼而我則看見一個被清楚定義的關係。這使得基督的身體能夠以一個真實，卻又不是局部的方式，顯現在桌子上面。聖靈的聯繫成為那個超越距離（天到地）和實質（餅到身體）的聯合媒介：“基督藉由那個肉身和血的交通將祂的生命傳輸到我們裡面，就好像它能夠切開我們的骨頭和骨髓，他見證餅在聖餐中印了我們，並不是藉由擺出一個空泛或虛空的表號，而是藉由聖靈的運行和果效。”

The role of the Spirit in the sacrament removes the need for the body of Christ to be in the element. The Spirit bond detaches the signa from the res without ever divorcing them. As believers eat the signa the Spirit conveys the res to them such that they feed on Christ not in the bread but in the Spirit. The bread can remain only a sign; it is the Spirit’s role to perform the sacrament. This safeguards the bread from being the unmediated presence of Christ’s flesh, such that Christ and his benefits are laid bare on the table.

聖靈在聖餐中的角色去除了需要在其中有基督身體的需要。聖靈的聯繫在不必分割signa和res的前提下，將它們拆開了。當信徒們在吃signa的是，聖靈將res傳輸給它們，好叫他們不單單在餅中，而是在聖靈中吃基督。餅仍然是一種表號；事實上乃是聖靈在那裡施行聖餐。這保證餅不會缺少基督的肉身在其中為中保，使得基督和祂的益處毫無間隔的被擺在桌上。

Therefore, Calvin posits a spiritually qualified substance, which is conveyed in the sacrament. This is less about the physical molecules of Christ’s flesh and more about the divine life that animates and glorifies those molecules—Christ himself. The physical flesh is not endowed with magical properties but with Christ and all his saving benefits. It is the spiritual substance of Christ, which the believer alone can receive through the Spirit and by faith. Calvin summarizes the matter clearly in his letter to Westphal:

估計，加爾文定義了一個屬靈的實質，在聖餐中被傳輸給信徒。這就不強調基督肉身的物質分子，而更着重於驅動並榮耀那些分子的神聖生命—基督自己。物質的肉身並不會被賦予魔幻般的屬性，而帶着基督和祂一切救贖的益處。它就是基督屬靈的實質，信徒能夠藉由信經由聖靈來領受它。加爾文在他寫給Westphal的信中清楚的總結到：

The whole reality of the sacred supper consists in this—Christ by engrafting us into his body, not only makes us partakers of his body and blood, but infuses into us the life whose fullness resides in himself: for his flesh is not eaten for any other end than to give us life.

聖餐所包括的實際乃是—基督藉由將我們接枝到祂的身體中，不單單讓我們成為祂身體和血的分享者，而也把完全住在祂裡面的生命傳輸給我們：因為祂的肉身乃是為了賜我們生命，而被我們所吃下。

Calvin has a differentiated theology of the sacrament that reflects the broader motif of deification. Echoing the Osiander debate, Calvin opposes the Lutheran notion that the believer receives the unmediated and unqualified substance of Christ in the bread itself. However, he still affirms the spiritually substantive nature of Christ’s presence in the Supper. Calvin uses the language of substance, but only when qualified within his own theological framework. The substance Calvin refers to is not the Scholastic and Aristotelian idea of a union of form and matter. It is a spiritually qualified substance that is nothing less than Christ himself.

加爾文對於聖禮這種不同的教義反映了神化是一個更為廣泛的主題。為了應付與Osiander的辯論，加爾文反對路德會相信在餅中，接受了非中保和未清楚定義之基督的實質。不論如何，他仍然肯定基督的實質以一種屬靈的方式，臨及在聖餐之中。加爾文使用實質（substance）的語言，但將這個語言定義在他自己的神學框架之內。加爾文所謂的實質餅不是經院神學派和亞里斯多德派的那種樣式和物質的聯合。它乃是一種屬靈的實質，並不比基督小。

It is the theological rather than philosophical nature of our substantial union with Christ (in deification generally and the sacrament in particular) that enables Calvin without any embarrassment to confess that the whole matter remains a mystery: “Now, should any one ask me as to the mode, I will not be ashamed to confess that it is too high a mystery either for my mind to comprehend or my words to express; and to speak more plainly, I rather feel than understand it.”

我們與基督的聯合（廣義的說是神化，準確的說是聖餐）的本質是神學的，而不是哲學的，這讓加爾文能夠放膽的承認這整件事情仍然是一個奧秘：“如今，若有人問我，我會放膽承認這個奧秘是如此高超，以至於我無法理會它，也無法描述他；更簡單的說，我寧願感覺它，而不願意去了解它。”

Finally, the Supper, by enabling real and substantial participation with Christ, prefigures our full and final communion with Him. To convey the eschatological orientation of the Supper, Calvin employs the language of ascension:

最後，關於聖餐，因容許真實的在實質上有份於基督，這就預示了我們終極與祂完全的交通。為了將末世論導入聖餐中，加爾文使用了基督升天的語言：

But if we are carried to heaven with our eyes and minds, that we may there behold Christ in the glory of his kingdom, as the symbols invite us to him in his integrity, so, under the symbol of bread, we must feed on his body, and, under the symbol of wine, drink separately of his blood, and thereby have the full enjoyment of him.

若我們的眼目和心思被帶到天使，我們就能夠在那裡看見在祂國度榮耀中的基督，如同祂用來邀請我們的表號，在餅的表號之下，我們必須吃他的身體，在酒的表號之下，我們要分開喝祂的血，藉此完全的享受祂。

Calvin employs a rare allegorical interpretation of Gen 28:10-22 to illustrate this sacramental ascension. Having identified Jacob’s ladder as Christ—who unites heaven and earth, God and man—Calvin interprets the Eucharist as the gateway: “In this sense . . . the sacraments may be called the gate of heaven, because they admit us into the presence of God. . . . Those helps to faith only, (as I have before taught,) by which God raises us to himself, can be called the gates of heaven.”

加爾文在詮釋創世紀28：10-22的時候，用了一個罕見的寓意解經，來描述聖禮中的升天。在指出雅各的梯子就是基督後—祂聯結了天和地，神和人—加爾文如此詮釋聖餐：“從這個意義而言。。。聖禮就能夠被稱為通往天的大門（the gate of heaven），因為它們將我們帶入神的同在中。。。它們就是為了幫助我們的信仰，（如同我已經教導過的，）藉由它們，神將我們升高到自己那裡，所以它們能夠被稱作通往天的大門。”

The elements enable a Eucharistic ascent of the soul for spiritual communion with Christ in heaven that prefigures the full communion to come. Christ descends by his Spirit into the bread and wine to convey through them that which they symbolize—his body and blood. As believers receive this by faith, they in turn ascend to Christ in their hearts to commune with him.

那些元素使得聖靈能夠將魂提升到在天上，與基督屬靈的交通中，這預示了要來的那個完全的交通。基督將祂的靈賜個餅和酒中，是為了藉由它們所表徵的，傳輸祂自己的身體和血。所有的信徒都能夠藉由信心領受這一切，他們接着就能夠在他們的心中升到基督那裡，與祂交通。

The descent of Christ to the believer (kenosis) and the ascent of the believer to Christ (theosis) is a sacramental summary of all that is meant by deification. Equally, the eschatological goal of deification is pre-figured and experienced in the sacrament. The “sacred supper” is therefore both esoteric—an experience of being fed by Christ—and eschatological—a foretaste of the full deification that awaits the believer. The sacred supper is the means by which Calvin’s exhortation can be partially realized in this life: “Let us therefore labour more to feel Christ living in us, than to discover the nature of that intercourse.”

基督降臨到信徒裡面（kenosis），並將信徒提升到基督那裡（theosis）就是從聖禮的教導，為神化的含義所做的總結。同樣的，神化的最終目的（eschatological goal）乃是在聖靈中被預表，並被我們經歷。故此，“聖餐”同時是奧秘的（esoteric）—被基督所餵養的經驗—和末世的（eschatological）—對於等候信徒那個完全的神化之預嘗。加爾文極力敦促聖禮乃是我們在此生能夠部分完成（神化）的手段：“故此，讓我們努力去感受基督或者我們裡面，而不要去發掘那個互動的本質。”

The parallels between the nature of deification and the sacraments are striking—both derive their definition and dynamic from the incarnation, both are made efficacious by the mystical agency of the Spirit, and both have an eschatological orientation.

神化的本質與聖禮的相同性讓人覺得不可思議—兩者都從道成肉身獲得其定義和活力，兩者都是藉由聖靈奧秘的中介而成為有果效的，兩者也都有末世論的傾向。

V. Conclusion

結論

Calvin’s use of the phrase quasi deificari carefully conveys his differentiated approach to deification. It positively aligns Calvin with the patristic trajectory and makes the incarnation the definition, the Spirit the dynamic, and eschatological communion the destiny of deification. It also distances Calvin from false versions of deification that are unmediated, disconnected, and over-realized.

加爾文謹慎的使用quasi deificari，表達了他特殊處理神化的方式。它積極的將加爾文聯於教父的傳統，並讓道成肉身成為quasi deificari的定義，聖靈成為其活力，末世的交通則成為神化的目標。它也將加爾文從其他的那些沒有中保，斷裂的，和過分無紙化的偽版本神化教義中分割出來。

The Reformed tradition has struggled to preserve Calvin’s notion of quasi deificari. As Habets says, “For much of Western theology the concept of theōsis creates unease and often hostile rejection.” I would suggest this reaction is a result of both fear and pride. The fear is of embracing what has been falsely labelled “Eastern.” The antidote to this must be to trace deification back beyond the East-West divide to the patristic era and the Scriptures themselves. As John Calvin holds Scripture in one hand and the patristic writings in the other, he formulates a notion of quasi deificari that is thoroughly consistent with both. Calvin should be commended for this breadth of vision and theological openness that makes him truly a “breath of fresh air.”

改革宗的傳統已經保留了加爾文quasi deificari的觀念。就如同Habets所說的，“對於大部分的西方神學界，Theosis的觀念造成了不安，甚至往往帶有敵意的拒絕態度。”我認為這種態度乃是基於恐懼和驕傲。恐懼擁抱那被錯誤標籤為“東方”的觀念。將神化追朔回到東方-西方分道揚鑣前的教父時代，和聖經本身，就是最好的解藥。就像加爾文用一隻手高舉聖經，用另一隻手高舉教父著作，他架構了一個完全符合兩者的quasi deificari觀念。加爾文真應該為其在神學上的包容性和開放性被讚揚，讓他真的成為“一股清新的氣息。”

The issue of pride is more subtle. Torrance alludes to the “danger of vertigo” when considering the dizzying heights of deification. The emphasis on sin within the Reformed tradition can lead to an uneasy feeling when contemplating exaltation with Christ in partaking of his Son-ship and divine nature. However, Calvin exposes this for what it is—pride disguised as (false) humility. Calvin acknowledges “how abject is the condition of our nature.” However, the depth of our nature when contrasted with the “height of honour” to which we are raised in Christ, only serves to display the “greatness of [God’s] grace.” It is pride that limits what can be received according to our nature. It is faith that receives what is ours only according to God’s grace, namely, quasi deificari. So with hushed tones and apophatic awe, “Let us mark that the end of the gospel is, to render us eventually conformable to God, and, if we may so speak, to deify us [quasi deificari].”

驕傲的問題更為微妙。托倫斯在思考棘手的神化議題時暗示了“暈頭轉向的危險（danger of vertigo）。”在改革宗傳統中對於罪的強調，在思考因有份基督兒子的名分和其神性而與基督一同高升的時候，會產生不安的感覺。然而，加爾文直接了當的說—假冒偽善。加爾文承認“我們的本性是如此的粗鄙。”當我們將我們本質的深處與我們在基督中被高升而得到“尊容的高度（height of honour）”互相比較時，只能展現出“[神]恩典的偉大。”就是我們本性中的驕傲限制了我們所能領受的。只有信仰能夠根據神的恩典領受我們的所當有的，就是，quasi deificari。我們當以安靜的語氣和apophatic的敬畏說，“讓我們將福音的目標標記為，至終使我們得以被模成像神，若我們能夠說，神化我們[quasi deificari]。”