Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
1ense purely practical, and mere speculations are left on one side. He accepts the Eternal Distinctions of the Trinity because They have been revealed ; on the other hand, he sees that they must belong to the sphere of Manifestation or They could not be revealed. It was said above that the Ultimate Godhead is Supra- Personal, and that it is Supra-Personal be- cause personality consists in the faculty of knowing oneself to be one individual among others. Are the Personce of the Trinity then, personal, since They are distinguished One from Another? No, Tlicy are not personal, because, being the infinite Manifesta- tion of the Godhead, They are Super-Essential, and Dionysius describes Them by that title. And if it be urged that in one place he joins the same title RELATION TO CREATION 9 to our Lord's individual Human Name and speaks of " the Supcr-ICssential Jesus," this is because the Personality of our Lord (and our own personality also through our union with Him) passes up into a rei^ion transcending personality, and hence while the Humanity of Jesus is Personal His Godhead is Su[jra-Personal. This is implied in a passage from Hierotheus (quoted with approval by Dionysius him- self) which teaches that the Deity of Jesus is of an universal character belonging through Him to all redeemed mankind. The teaching of Dionysius on the Trinity is, so far as it goes, substantially the same as that of St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas; only it is ex- pressed in more exact, if at first sight somewhat fantastic, terms. St. Augustine,^ for instance, teaches that the inner Differentiations of the Trinity belong 1 [Augustine says indeed that the Father and the Son exist, non secundum subslaiitiain, sed sectindtuii relaiivtini {De Trin. v. 6). But Augustine's argument is, that while no attribute of God is acci- dental, yet all attributes are not said with reference to His substance. Certain attributes of God are neither accidental nor substantial, but relative. This applies to Divine Fatherhood and Sonship. For the Father is what He \> in relation to the Son, and similarly the Son to the Father. But these are relations of " Beings," and are relations which are "eternal and unchangeable." Augustine does not afihm a supra-personal reality of God behind the Tiinity of manifestation. For Augustine the Father and the Son are ultimate realities.
2ther. But these are relations of " Beings," and are relations which are "eternal and unchangeable." Augustine does not afihm a supra-personal reality of God behind the Tiinity of manifestation. For Augustine the Father and the Son are ultimate realities. " But if the Father, in that He is called the Father, were so called in relation to Himself, not to the Son ; and the Son, in that He is called the Son, were so called in relation to Himself, not to the Father ; then both the one would be called Father, and the other Son, according to substance. But because the Father is not called the Failier except in that He has a Son, and the Son is not called Son except in that He has a Father, these things are not said according to substance ; because each of them is not so called in relation to Himself, but the terms are used reciprocally and in relation each to the other ; nor yet according to accident, because both the being called the Father, and the being called the Son, is eternal and unchangeable to them. Wherefore, although to be the Father and to be the Son is different, yet their substance is not different ; because they are so ca led, not according to substance, but according to relation, which relation, however, is not accident, because it is not changeable." — Aug., De Trin. v. 6. — Ed.] B 10 DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE solely to the realm of eternal Manifestation when he says that They exist seainduvi Relativum and not' seciiiiduvi Substantiain?- Also he teaches the Supra- Personality of the Trinity when he says tiiat neither the undivided Trinity nor any of Its Three Persons is a particular individuality ; 2 and St, Thomas teaches the same thing when he says that the Human Soul of Jesus does ilot comprehend or contain the Word since the Human Soul is finite [i.e. a particular individuality) while the Word is Infinite.^ Thus while in the Undifferentiated Godhead the "Persons" of the Trinity ultimately transcend Them- selves and point (as it were) to a region where They are merged, yet in that side of Its Nature which looks towards the universe They shine eternally forth and are the effulgence of those " Supernal Rays " through Which, all light is given us, and whence all energy streams into the act of creation. For by Their interaction They circulate that Super-Essence Which Each of Them perfectly possesses, and so It passes forth from Them into a universe of Being.
3l Rays " through Which, all light is given us, and whence all energy streams into the act of creation. For by Their interaction They circulate that Super-Essence Which Each of Them perfectly possesses, and so It passes forth from Them into a universe of Being. Now the Godhead, while It is beyond all particular Being, yet contains and is the ultimate Reality of all particular Being; for It contains beforehand all the particular creatures after a manner in which they arc ultimately identical with It, as seems to be im- plied by the phrase that all things exist in It fused and yet distinct. Thus although It is not a particular being, It in a transcendent manner contains and is Particularity. Again It is beyond all universal Being, for universals are apprehended by the intellect, ^ De Jrin. v. 6. ^ See De yViii. viii. 4. "Not this and that Good, but tlie very Good . . . Not a good J'crsonality {animus) but good Goodness"; and vii. 11, where he condemns those who say the word persona is employed "in the sense of a particular man such as Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, or anybody else who can be pointed out as being present." 3" Stun ma, Pars III. (). x. Art. i. RELATION TO (RKATION ii whereas the Gocllicad is incomprehensible and tlierc- fore is described as "formless." Nevertheless It con- tains and is the Ultimate Reality of all universals, for, even before the world was mack^, It eternally embraced and embraces all thin<^s and all the uni- versal laws of their existence. Thus after a tran- scendent manner It contains and is Universality. And hence in Its transcendent Nature Universality and Particularity are contained as one and the same undifferentiated Fact. But in this world of Being the particular and the universal aspect of things must be mutually distin- guished. Otherwise there could, on the one hand, be no things, and on the other, no bond of unity between them. Hence, when the Super-Essence overflows in the act of creation, It runs, as it were, i.nto the two main streams of Universal and Particular Being. Neither of these two streams has any independent or concrete existence. Taken separately, they are mere potentialities : two separate aspects, as it were, of the creative impulse, implying an eternal possibility of creation and an eternal tendency towards it, and yet not in themselves creative because not in themselves, strictly speaking, existent. Nevertheless these two streams differ each from each, and one of them has a degree of reality which does not belong to the other.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
1ense purely practical, and mere speculations are left on one side. He accepts the Eternal Distinctions of the Trinity because They have been revealed ; on the other hand, he sees that they must belong to the sphere of Manifestation or They could not be revealed. It was said above that the Ultimate Godhead is Supra- Personal, and that it is Supra-Personal be- cause personality consists in the faculty of knowing oneself to be one individual among others. Are the Personce of the Trinity then, personal, since They are distinguished One from Another? No, Tlicy are not personal, because, being the infinite Manifesta- tion of the Godhead, They are Super-Essential, and Dionysius describes Them by that title. And if it be urged that in one place he joins the same title RELATION TO CREATION 9 to our Lord's individual Human Name and speaks of " the Supcr-ICssential Jesus," this is because the Personality of our Lord (and our own personality also through our union with Him) passes up into a rei^ion transcending personality, and hence while the Humanity of Jesus is Personal His Godhead is Su[jra-Personal. This is implied in a passage from Hierotheus (quoted with approval by Dionysius him- self) which teaches that the Deity of Jesus is of an universal character belonging through Him to all redeemed mankind. The teaching of Dionysius on the Trinity is, so far as it goes, substantially the same as that of St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas; only it is ex- pressed in more exact, if at first sight somewhat fantastic, terms. St. Augustine,^ for instance, teaches that the inner Differentiations of the Trinity belong 1 [Augustine says indeed that the Father and the Son exist, non secundum subslaiitiain, sed sectindtuii relaiivtini {De Trin. v. 6). But Augustine's argument is, that while no attribute of God is acci- dental, yet all attributes are not said with reference to His substance. Certain attributes of God are neither accidental nor substantial, but relative. This applies to Divine Fatherhood and Sonship. For the Father is what He \> in relation to the Son, and similarly the Son to the Father. But these are relations of " Beings," and are relations which are "eternal and unchangeable." Augustine does not afihm a supra-personal reality of God behind the Tiinity of manifestation. For Augustine the Father and the Son are ultimate realities.
2ther. But these are relations of " Beings," and are relations which are "eternal and unchangeable." Augustine does not afihm a supra-personal reality of God behind the Tiinity of manifestation. For Augustine the Father and the Son are ultimate realities. " But if the Father, in that He is called the Father, were so called in relation to Himself, not to the Son ; and the Son, in that He is called the Son, were so called in relation to Himself, not to the Father ; then both the one would be called Father, and the other Son, according to substance. But because the Father is not called the Failier except in that He has a Son, and the Son is not called Son except in that He has a Father, these things are not said according to substance ; because each of them is not so called in relation to Himself, but the terms are used reciprocally and in relation each to the other ; nor yet according to accident, because both the being called the Father, and the being called the Son, is eternal and unchangeable to them. Wherefore, although to be the Father and to be the Son is different, yet their substance is not different ; because they are so ca led, not according to substance, but according to relation, which relation, however, is not accident, because it is not changeable." — Aug., De Trin. v. 6. — Ed.] B 10 DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE solely to the realm of eternal Manifestation when he says that They exist seainduvi Relativum and not' seciiiiduvi Substantiain?- Also he teaches the Supra- Personality of the Trinity when he says tiiat neither the undivided Trinity nor any of Its Three Persons is a particular individuality ; 2 and St, Thomas teaches the same thing when he says that the Human Soul of Jesus does ilot comprehend or contain the Word since the Human Soul is finite [i.e. a particular individuality) while the Word is Infinite.^ Thus while in the Undifferentiated Godhead the "Persons" of the Trinity ultimately transcend Them- selves and point (as it were) to a region where They are merged, yet in that side of Its Nature which looks towards the universe They shine eternally forth and are the effulgence of those " Supernal Rays " through Which, all light is given us, and whence all energy streams into the act of creation. For by Their interaction They circulate that Super-Essence Which Each of Them perfectly possesses, and so It passes forth from Them into a universe of Being.
3l Rays " through Which, all light is given us, and whence all energy streams into the act of creation. For by Their interaction They circulate that Super-Essence Which Each of Them perfectly possesses, and so It passes forth from Them into a universe of Being. Now the Godhead, while It is beyond all particular Being, yet contains and is the ultimate Reality of all particular Being; for It contains beforehand all the particular creatures after a manner in which they arc ultimately identical with It, as seems to be im- plied by the phrase that all things exist in It fused and yet distinct. Thus although It is not a particular being, It in a transcendent manner contains and is Particularity. Again It is beyond all universal Being, for universals are apprehended by the intellect, ^ De Jrin. v. 6. ^ See De yViii. viii. 4. "Not this and that Good, but tlie very Good . . . Not a good J'crsonality {animus) but good Goodness"; and vii. 11, where he condemns those who say the word persona is employed "in the sense of a particular man such as Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, or anybody else who can be pointed out as being present." 3" Stun ma, Pars III. (). x. Art. i. RELATION TO (RKATION ii whereas the Gocllicad is incomprehensible and tlierc- fore is described as "formless." Nevertheless It con- tains and is the Ultimate Reality of all universals, for, even before the world was mack^, It eternally embraced and embraces all thin<^s and all the uni- versal laws of their existence. Thus after a tran- scendent manner It contains and is Universality. And hence in Its transcendent Nature Universality and Particularity are contained as one and the same undifferentiated Fact. But in this world of Being the particular and the universal aspect of things must be mutually distin- guished. Otherwise there could, on the one hand, be no things, and on the other, no bond of unity between them. Hence, when the Super-Essence overflows in the act of creation, It runs, as it were, i.nto the two main streams of Universal and Particular Being. Neither of these two streams has any independent or concrete existence. Taken separately, they are mere potentialities : two separate aspects, as it were, of the creative impulse, implying an eternal possibility of creation and an eternal tendency towards it, and yet not in themselves creative because not in themselves, strictly speaking, existent. Nevertheless these two streams differ each from each, and one of them has a degree of reality which does not belong to the other.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.