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.
Absolute, the immutable, impassible First Cause, as the Deity, he is compelled to go on to deny that Deity can be subject to affection or capable of love.
This conclusion the Disciple confesses to be profoundly startling. It appears to contradict the whole authority both of the Scriptures and of the Fathers. At the same time it is all logical enough, granting the First Cause to be incapable of action or passion, which seems to involve the Immutable in change: a contradiction of the very idea of Deity. It is all logical enough. But what about the Scriptures, which teach the contrary? And what of the simple believers, who will be horrified if they hear such propositions?
The Master assures the Disciple that there is no need to be alarmed. For he is now employing the method of speculative reason, not the method of authority. He agrees with Dionysius, for Dionysius had said as much, that the authority of the Scripture is in all things to be submitted to. But Scripture does not give us terms adequate to the representation of Deity. It furnishes us with certain symbols and signs, by condescension to our infirmities. Dionysius is again appealed to in confirmation of this.
It is curious to notice how, while professedly engaged in the method of speculative inquiry, Erigena falls back on the authority of Dionysius: a very significant proof of the value which he ascribed to the Areopagite. So, then, at last the conclusion is reached that, strictly speaking, nothing whatever can be predicated concerning Deity, seeing that He surpasses all understanding, and is more truly known by our nescience, ignorance concerning Him being the truest wisdom, and our negations more correct than our affirmations. For whatever you deny concerning Him you deny correctly, whereas the same cannot be said of what you may affirm.
Absolute, the immutable, impassible First Cause, as the Deity, he is compelled to go on to deny that Deity can be subject to affection or capable of love.
The Disciple confesses this conclusion to be profoundly startling. It appears to contradict the whole authority of both the Scriptures and the Fathers. At the same time it is all logical enough, granting that the First Cause is incapable of action or passion, since these seem to involve the Immutable in change: a contradiction of the very idea of Deity. It is all logical enough. But what about the Scriptures, which teach the contrary? And what of the simple believers, who will be horrified if they hear such propositions?
The Master assures the Disciple that there is no need for alarm, for he is now employing the method of speculative reason, not the method of authority. He agrees with Dionysius—for Dionysius had said as much—that the authority of Scripture is to be submitted to in all things. But Scripture does not give us terms adequate to the representation of Deity. It furnishes us with certain symbols and signs, in condescension to our infirmities. Dionysius is again appealed to in confirmation of this.
It is curious to notice how Erigena, while professedly engaged in the method of speculative inquiry, falls back on the authority of Dionysius: a very significant proof of the value he ascribed to the Areopagite. So at last the conclusion is reached that, strictly speaking, nothing whatever can be predicated concerning Deity, since He surpasses all understanding and is more truly known by our nescience—ignorance concerning Him being the truest wisdom, and our negations being more correct than our affirmations. For whatever you deny concerning Him you deny correctly, whereas the same cannot be said of what you may affirm.