Clement of Alexandria · a new plain-English translation from the original language
Is it not right and true that we do not circumscribe the Uncontainable within any place, nor shut up in "handmade" shrines that which encompasses all things? What holy work could there be belonging to the art of builders and stone-cutters and vulgar craftsmen? Are not those better than these who have judged the air and the encompassing atmosphere -- or rather the whole cosmos and the universe -- worthy of God's transcendence? Surely it would be absurd -- as the philosophers themselves put it -- for man, who is "a plaything of God," to fashion God and for God to become a plaything of art. Since what comes into being is identical and similar to that out of which it comes into being, as what is made from ivory is ivory-like and what is made from gold is golden; but the statues and shrines fashioned by vulgar men are made out of inert matter, so that they themselves would be inert and material and profane. And even if you bring the craft to completion, it has partaken of vulgarity; the works of the craft are therefore no longer holy and divine. What indeed could be enshrined, when nothing is un-enshrinable, since all things exist in a place? Yet surely that which is enshrined is enshrined by something else, having been previously un-enshrined. If then God is enshrined by men, he was at some time un-enshrined and did not exist at all. For that would be un-enshrined, which does not exist; since everything that is not existent is enshrined. But that which exists could not be enshrined by that which does not exist, nor indeed by another existing thing; for that too is itself an existent.
It remains, then, that he is enshrined by himself. And how will a thing beget itself? Or how will the existent itself establish itself in being? Was it, being previously un-enshrined, that it enshrined itself? But then it would not even have existed, since the non-existent is un-enshrined; and how could that which is thought to be enshrined, having already possessed being beforehand, afterward make itself this same thing? And that from which all existing things derive, how could this stand in need of anything? But if indeed the divine is human-shaped, it will need the same things as man does -- nourishment and shelter, a house, and all the accompanying necessities. For beings of like form and like experience will need the same manner of life. But if "sacred" is understood in two senses -- both God himself and the structure made in his honor -- how should we not properly call the church, that has come to be in honor of God according to holy knowledge, a temple of God -- a thing of great worth, and not fashioned by vulgar craft? Nor indeed wrought by the hand of some charlatan, but made into a shrine by the will of God? For I do not now mean the place, but I call the church the gathered assembly of the elect. This temple is better suited to receive the greatness of God's worth. For the living being of great worth belongs to him who is worthy of the universe -- or rather, worthy of comparison to none. Through excess of holiness it has been consecrated. And this would be the Gnostic, the one of great worth, precious to God, and it is within this soul that God dwells enshrined -- meaning that the knowledge concerning God has taken up residence there. Here too we might find the image, the divine and holy statue, in the righteous soul, whenever that soul is blessed, being already purified beforehand, and blessed in the works it accomplishes. Here too is both that which is already enshrined and that which is being enshrined -- the one applying to those who are already Gnostics, the other to those who are capable of becoming so, even if they are not yet worthy to receive the knowledge of God. For everyone who is about to believe is already faithful to God, and, established for honor, is a virtuous statue dedicated to God.
← All of Clement of Alexandria: Exhortation, Instructor & Miscellanies