Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
QUASI DEIFICAMI
DEIFICATION IN THE THEOLOGY OF JOHN CALVIN
A. J. OLLERTON
I. Introduction
Andrew J. Ollerton is Associate Director and Lecturer at the Centre for Missional Leadership in Watford, near
London, and is beginningPhD. research in Historical Theology.
1
J. Todd Billings, "United to God through Christ: Assessing Calvin on the Question of Deification," HTR9S (2005): 315-34, 334; Carl Mosser, "The Greatest Possible Blessing: Calvin and Deification," SJTbb (2002): 36-57; Jonathan Slater, "Salvation as Participation in the Humanity of the
Mediator in Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion: A Reply to Carl Mosser," SfT 58 (2005): 39-58;
Mark A. Garcia, Life in Christ: Union with Christ and Twofold Grace in Calvin's Theology (Milton Keynes:
Paternoster, 2008), 257.
2
Yang-Ho Lee, "Calvin on Deification: A Reply to Carl Mosser and Jonathan Slater," SJT 63
(2010): 272-84.
3
John Calvin, Commentary on the Catholic Epistles (vol. 22 of Calvin's Commentaries; Edinburgh:
Calvin Translation Society, 1848; repr. in 22 vols., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 371.
237
238
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
end of the gospel is, to render us eventually conformable to God, and, if we may so
speak, to deify us [quasi deifican ] .4
239
A crucial point arises from Calvin's caution; when a subject tends towards being
more apophatic in nature, Calvin will say less about iL16 This inversely proportional
relationship between mystery and commentary should not be (rnis) 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
11
See Anthony N. S. Lane, Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999) ; T.
H. L. Parker, Calvin's Old Testament Commentaries (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995).
12
Calvin, Opera quae supersunt omnia (ed. G. Baum, E. Cunitz, and E. Reuss; 59 vols.; Brunswick:
Schwetschke, 1863-1900), 9:739-42; Calvin, Opera selecta (ed. R Barth and W. Niesel; Munich: Kaiser,
1926-1936), 2:312; cited and trans, in Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology
and Worship (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2004), 266.
13
Lee, "Calvin on Deification," 279.
14
Calvin, Catholic Epistles, 371.
15
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (ed. and trans. Henry Beveridge; 2 vols.; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 2:273-74 (3.25.10).
16
In other words, his general principle of brevity is heightened in the presence of apophatic
mystery.
240
Calvin's writings.17 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.
III. Falsa apotheosisVersions ofDeification Calvin Rejects
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 dfican than he opposes a different version of deification:
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 Aposdes.18
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." 19 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.20 Calvin's objections to faha apotheosis are gathered up
and brought into focus through his debate with Oslander.
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." 21 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. 22 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
17
Previous articles have tried to assess deification in Calvin with the measuring rod of proportions, sections, and chapters. The inevitable conclusion is that the motif is "avoided... or not known
about" by Calvin at all (Frederick W. Norris, "Deification: Consensual and Cogent," SJT49 [1996]:
420). Wenger also falls into this trap as he reduces the significance of the motif of "union with Christ"
on the grounds that "there is [not] a single chapter devoted to it in the entire Institutes (Thomas
Wenger, "The New Perspective on Calvin: Responding to Recent Calvin Interpretations," JETS 50
[2007] : 311-28, 327). For this reason I refer to deification as a motif rather than a doctrine.
18
Calvin, Catholic Epistles, 371.
19
Calvin, Inst, 4.16.31.15, cited in Mosser, "Greatest Possible Blessing," 52.
20
Calvin, Inst, 1:337 (2.8.26).
21
Ibid., 2:40 (3.11.5).
22
Ibid., 2:47-56 (3.11.11-19).
241
242
substance infusion, but that does not mean he has rejected a quasi deificanwhen
mediated by the incarnate flesh of Christ. Again the need for a differentiated
doctrine of deification is highlighted.
2. Disconnected Deification
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:
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.29
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." 30
3. Over-Realized Deification
Finally, Calvin accuses Osiander of "hurrying us into the clouds" by an overrealized eschatology.31 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 ofjustification is
not separated from regeneration, though the two things are distinct."32 Imputed
righteousness is perfect now. However, the process which began at regeneration
continues "through the whole course of life, gradually and sometimes slowly."33
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."34
Calvin's twofold distinction between justification and sanctification gives an
eschatological structureat 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
29
243
Ibid.
Ibid.
37
Ibid., 2:46 (3.11.10).
38
Mosser, "Greatest Possible Blessing," 49.
39
Calvin, Inst, 1:465 (3.1.3).
40
Mosser, "Greatest Possible Blessing," 46.
36
244
245
incarnate flesh is also a fountain that vivifies and deifies as the divine life of God
is "drawn out" of the human flesh.
In this same section of commentary on John 6:51-58 Calvin concludes that
Jesus teaches "three degrees of life":
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.46
Contra Slater and every denial of deification, Calvin clearly argues that divine life
does enter human lifethird degree life receivesfirstdegree 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."47
When deification receives its definition and dynamicfromthe incarnation, the
dangers ofaha 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.
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:
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 vanityman here been reduced to nothingman is nothing. And yet
how is he whom God exalts utterly nothing* How is he nothing to whom a divine heart has
been given?48 (emphasis added)
46
Calvin, Gospel of John, 1:261-69. This commentary is a revealing description of how Calvin envisages divine life entering human life. However, the distinction he makes between the humanity of the
incarnate Christ (second degree life) and our humanity (third degree life) is not meant to imply a
major ontological difference. These categories are used only to convey the mediation of life.
47
Calvin, Inst, 2:563 (4.17.9).
48
Bernard of Clairvaux, Fifth Sermon on the Dedication ofa Church, cited in Calvin, Inst, 1:491 (3.2.25).
Bernard continues in the same section to encourage confidence as humanity before God: "Let us
breathe again, brethren. Although we are nothing in our hearts, perhaps something of us may lurk in
the heart of God. O Father of mercies! O Father of the miserable! how plantest thou thy heart in us?"
246
49
John Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will: A Defence of the Orthodox Doctrine of Human
Choice Against Pighius (ed. A. N. S. Lane; trans. G. Davies; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 212. Calvin
uses the term "obliteration" to describe the complete mortification of the old nature when we experience regeneration through a new nature in Christ.
50
John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews (vol. 22 of Calvins Commentaries), A.
51
This breadth is again thoroughly consistent with the Alexandrian trajectory of patristic theology.
52
This has been termed "elevation-line" theology such that redemption takes humanity above
the original starting point of creation, instead of simply "restitution-line" theology that is traditionally
held by Western theologians.
53
Calvin, Inst, 2:558 (4.17.2).
54
Ibid., 1:401 (2.12.2).
247
Ibid., 1:465(3.1.3).
Billings, "United to God," 332.
57
Calvin, Inst, 1:401 (2.12.2).
58
Ibid., 2:37 (3.11.1).
59
Calvin, Hebrews, 69-70.
60
John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, vol. 2 (vol. 18 of Calvin's Commentaries),
189.
56
248
subtle but sinful temptation: 'You could be like God."61 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.
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 unto mystico involves a paticipatio substantiaindeed that is what
makes it mystical.
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."62 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."63
Again, commenting on the phrase "flesh of his flesh," Calvin asserts, "This is
no exaggeration, but the simple truth." 64 Calvin interprets this simple truth as
Christ being a partaker of our nature (incarnation) andwe being partakers of his
nature (deification):
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.65
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 partidpatio substantia.66
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
61
Gen 3:5.
Calvin, Inst, 1:401 (2.12.2).
63
Ibid., 1:465 (3.1.3).
64
John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians andEphesians (vol. 21 of Calvins
Commentaries), 323.
65
Ibid.
66
However, he qualifies this by reference to the "power of the Spirit" so as not to imply any
physical transference.
62
249
it does not express fully the reception not just of life (sap) but of actual nature:
"Not only we derive the vigor and nourishment of life from Christ, but we also pass
from our own to his nature."67 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.68
The notion of participatio substantia is the reason Calvin uses the phrase unto
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 thesis that Calvin's doctrine of union with Christ is
substantially the same as the patristic notion of theosis."69 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: "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 ofthat intercourse."70
3. Glorification Through Eschatohgical-Union
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 istightlyapplied. 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." 71
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."72 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."73
67
John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (vol. 19 of Calvin's Commentaries) , 223.
68
Calvin even acknowledges that he has gone beyond the meaning Paul attributed to the text
"The Apostle, however, meant to express nothing else but the efficacy of the death of Christ" (Calvin,
Romans, 223).
69
Mosser, "Greatest Possible Blessing," 50.
70
Calvin, Galatians and Ephesians, 325.
71
John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, vol. 2 (vol. 20 of
Calvin's Commentaries), 29-34.
72
Calvin, Corinthians, 2:33.
73
Calvin, Inst, 1:418 (2.14.3).
250
Litde 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. 74 Calvin's comments leave us
with awkward questionsis 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.
V. The EucharistThe
Means of Deification
74
251
life in the sacred supper. Therefore, to deny that "true communication ofJesus
Christ is offered to us in the Supper is to render this holy sacrament frivolous
and useless."78 The bread and wine must be more than symbolic or spiritually
realized; they must convey the actual vivifying flesh of Christ:
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.79
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).80 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.
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."81
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.
78
79
80
81
252
253
gateway: "In this sense . . . the sacraments may be called the gate of heaven,
because they admit us into the presence of G o d . . . . Those helps to faith only,
(as I have before taught,) by which God raises us to himself, can be called the
gates of heaven." 86
The elements enable a Eucharistie 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 symbolizehis body and blood. As believers receive this by faith, they
in turn ascend to Christ in their hearts to commune with him.
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 esoterican experience of
being fed by Christand eschatologicala 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 ofthat intercourse." 87
The parallels between the nature of deification and the sacraments are strikingboth 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.
VI. Conclusion
Calvin's use of the phrase quasi deifican 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.
The Reformed tradition has struggled to preserve Calvin's notion of quasi
deifican. As Habets says, "For much of Western theology the concept of theosis
creates unease and often hostile rejection." 88 1 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 deifican 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."89
254
The issue of pride is more subtle. Torrance alludes to the "danger of vertigo"
when considering the dizzying heights of deification.90 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 ispride disguised as (false) humility.
Calvin acknowledges "how abject is the condition of our nature."91 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."92
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 deifican.
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 deificarti ,"93
90
Thomas F. Torrance, Space, Time and the Resurrection (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 136-39.
Calvin, Catholic Epistles, 371.
92
Ibid.
93
Ibid.
91
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.