The idea that the Latins make little use of the language of deification is not some recent theological opinion; the point is made precisely by Eriugena in the last book of his Periphyseon, where he declares that ‘the use of this term (I am speaking of deificatio) in Latin books is most rare, though indeed we find what it means (intellectus) among many and especially in Ambrose’ (Periphyseon v.1015C). The idea that deification, θέωσις, is a characteristically Eastern notion was, however, a point often made by Orthodox theologians in the last century, and for most of that century it was accepted by theologians in the West. Over the last few decades, various theologians have claimed that the doctrine of deification is to be found in the West, too, not just in what might be regarded as likely places (mystics of various stripes), but, for example, in Luther, a claim made by the Finnish Lutheran scholar, Tuomo Mannermaa, but also in Calvin and in Baptist circles, as well. This book consists of a symposium exploring the Latin Fathers for evidence of a doctrine of deification, the intellectus, if not the nomen. One way of reviewing this book would be to summarise the different chapters on an impressive range of Latin patristic authors – and I shall briefly indicate what it contains – but it seems to me much more important, and interesting, to attempt to elucidate what is going on in this attempt to discover deification in the Latin Fathers. But the book itself: after an introduction by the editor, summarising what is to follow, there are two chapters on general topics, the first by Ortiz himself on the Latin liturgy and the second, by Heffernan, on martyrdom accounts, especially the Passio of SS Perpetua and Felicity. The liturgy in general – and the Latin liturgy is no exception – is a rich field for the language of deification: here is, pre-eminently, the place where the admirabile commercium between God and humanity is enacted, or re-enacted, and this is expressed in many of the prayers, which also underline notions of change, transformation, a change in the bread and wine that prefigures and effects the change in humans who receive the holy gifts, which use language that presses towards the utmost realism, ultimately understood in terms of deification. Martyrdom accounts, too, focus on an event in which the distinction between Christ and the martyr is elided: an experience of being in Christ that is well beyond any metaphor. The Passio of Perpetua and Felicity fills out these notions in a compelling way. Heffernan, a literary interpreter par excellence, brings out the way in which through dreams, through the power of intercession, the martyr is understood as someone belonging even now to the heavenly realms. Then follow a series of chapters on individual Latin Fathers: Frisius on Tertullian, Safranski on Cyprian, Papandreou on Novation, Sidaway on Hilary, Dunkle on Ambrose, Hušek on Jerome, Haflidson on Augustine, Meconi (whose book on Augustine is much referred to) on Peter Chrysologus, Keating on Leo, Wiitala on Boethius and Dysinger on Benedict and Gregory the Great. The volume closes with an afterword by today's greatest academic expert on deification, whose book on the Greek Fathers has defined the field, Norman Russell. Russell clearly sees this book as complementing (and correcting) his own book; now, it seems, we can see deification as a doctrine that unites East and West, rather than marking a divide. He explores this by seeing deification as marked by four characteristics: it is Christologically driven, it has an ecclesial nature, eschatological orientation, and is marked by the appropriation of Platonic themes. None of this is presented by Russell as a kind of revelation: it grows naturally out of the essays in the volume. Perhaps too naturally. My impression in chapter after chapter was that the authors were straining to find evidence for deification. And they tend to fall back on the same themes: exchange between God and man, focused in Christ, or admirabile commercium; communication idiomatum, a Christological doctrine extended in Christian life; participation in God (often invoking 2 Peter i.4); adoption as children of God; image and likeness; nature and grace. The impression is given of a pattern being applied. There are two exceptions to this: Haflidson on Augustine, who makes central, in an engaging and brilliantly argued way, rest, otium, Sabbath rest, as an image of deification; and Wiitala on Boethius, whose understanding of deification has nothing in common with these Christian themes – his affinities are rather with Greek Neoplatonism. Despite the apparent desire to claim deification for the Latins, the contributors are all good scholars; they do not twist the evidence, but bring out, despite themselves, that what we find with the Latin Fathers falls short of deification; adoption, nature and grace, is something they are much more at home in.

What then is the point of this volume? It is certainly more edifying to find theologians of different traditions striving to agree, rather than, as has been the case all too frequently in the past, striving to disagree, to find bones to pick. I think, however, that there is nothing wrong with recognising that Greek and Latin, though in fundamental agreement, have different realms of discourse. Russell seeks to explore this, very briefly, towards the end of his essay, pointing to the different availability of Origen in East and West, and to the allied question of (lack of) serious access to Plato, for all that ‘Platonic’ themes are all over the place. I would like to add some observations of my own. First, the point made by Eriugena, that the Latins do not use the language of deification much, whereas the Greeks do. It does make a difference whether you have a word of it, or not (not just in this case). If you have a word for it, you just use the word, running the danger of not always making clear to yourself what you mean. Modern Orthodox are good at this: theosis is all too often on their lips, what they mean by it is much less clear. If you don't have a word for it, you have no shorthand; and the fact that you don't have a word for it might mean that it is not the way you usually think. Secondly, another point about language. Most essays have something to say about the notion of the human as being in the image and likeness of God; I guess, because of the emphasis laid on this by Byzantine and Orthodox thinkers. The Vulgate and the LXX render the Hebrew for image and likeness in significantly different ways: imago/similitude and εἰκών/ὁμοίωσις. The Greek ὁμοίωσις means something a bit different from similitudo/likeness (closer in Greek would be ὁμοίωμα, ὁμοίοτης); it suggests a process of likening, so the usual translation is ‘assimilation’. Even more significant is the association of ὁμοίωσις: Socrates's famous remark in the Theaetetus that φυγὴ δὲ ὁμοίωσις θεῷ κατὰ τὸ δυνατόν –‘flight [from the world] is assimilation to God as far as possible’ (Theaetetus 176a). The LXX of Genesis i.26 seems to the educated Greek ear to evoke Socrates's words in the Theaetetus (something of which no one was more aware than Clement of Alexandria). But the Latin ear is deaf to this Platonic echo or evocation.

Deification, θέωσις, is at home in Greek intellectual culture in a way denied Latin intellectual culture. This does not mean that the Latins could not grasp such a notion; but the associations of the notion/term were not available to them. When someone who thought as easily in Greek as in Latin thought about these things – I am thinking of Boethius – he can engender in Latin a discourse of deification, but it seems to float quite freely. Does this matter? It is certainly not, to my mind, the kind of difference that might set Christians against one another. It is a difference of style; what would seem to me a real pity would be if Christians felt that there was to be only one theological style.