On the Divine Names and the Mystical Theology — trans. C. E. Rolt
The translator’s English as printed (C. E. Rolt). The original-language text is not held; names are romanised as the translator printed them.
Here the Disciple desires to be informed why it is that the Areopagite considers such predicates as goodness, truth, justice, wisdom, which appear to be not only Divine but the divinest of attributes, as merely figuratively transferred from man to Deity.
The Master replies that no characteristics applicable to the finite and limited can be strictly applicable to the infinite and eternal.
Thus, according to Erigena, following closely on the principles of the Areopagite, although goodness is predicated of Deity, yet strictly speaking He is not goodness, but plus quam bonitas or super bonus. Similarly, Deity is not Truth, but plus quam Veritas, and super eternitas, and plus quam Sapiens.
Hence affirmation and negation are alike permissible in reference to Deity.
If you affirm that Deity is super-essential, what is it precisely that is meant by the use of “super”? You do not in reality affirm what God is, but simply that He is more than those things which exist. But where the difference consists you do not define.
But the reason why Erigena asserts the strict inapplicability of the term essential to Deity is, that he interprets the term in a way which involves spacial relations. Essence in all things that exist is local and temporal. But Deity is neither.
Deity as Erigena contemplates it is simply the Infinite and the Absolute; and of that, nothing whatever can be strictly predicated beyond the fact that it is. The Cause of all things can only be known to exist, but by no inference from the creature can we understand what it is.
Since, then, Erigena has postulated the philosophic
Here the Disciple wishes to know why the Areopagite regards such predicates as goodness, truth, justice, and wisdom—which seem to be not only Divine but the most divine of attributes—as merely transferred figuratively from man to Deity.
The Master replies that no characteristics applicable to the finite and limited can be strictly applicable to the infinite and eternal.
Thus, according to Erigena, who follows closely the principles of the Areopagite, although goodness is predicated of Deity, strictly speaking He is not goodness but more than goodness (plus quam bonitas) or super-good (super bonus). Similarly, Deity is not Truth, but more than Truth (plus quam Veritas), and super-eternity (super eternitas), and more than Wise (plus quam Sapiens).
Hence affirmation and negation are alike permissible with reference to Deity.
If you affirm that Deity is super-essential, what exactly is meant by the use of “super”? You do not really affirm what God is, but simply that He is more than the things that exist. But in what the difference consists you do not define.
But the reason Erigena asserts that the term essential is strictly inapplicable to Deity is that he interprets the term in a way that involves spatial relations. Essence in all things that exist is local and temporal. But Deity is neither.
Deity as Erigena contemplates it is simply the Infinite and the Absolute; and of that, nothing whatever can strictly be predicated beyond the fact that it is. The Cause of all things can only be known to exist; by no inference from the creature can we understand what it is.
Since, then, Erigena has postulated the philosophic