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.
Nevertheless, subject to this premise of acknowledged inadequacy, qualities may be rightly ascribed to Deity by way of symbolical representation.
Hence, it is correct to maintain that true authority does not contradict right reason, nor right reason true authority. Both spring from one source, and that one source is Divine.
Thus by a metaphor God may be described as Love, although, as a matter of fact, He transcends it.
It has been a matter of frequent dispute whether the system of Erigena is fundamentally Christian or Pantheistic. In the careful study of Erigena by Theodor Christlieb it is maintained that, while sentences may be quoted on either side, and the author vacillates, now towards Theism, now in a Pantheistic direction, his attempted reconciliation of Theology with Philosophy ends in the supremacy of the latter, and in the abolition of the essential characteristics of the Christian Revelation.
That the Deity cannot be comprehended by human intelligence is a commonplace of all the great early theologians of the Church. It can be richly illustrated from the theological orations of St. Gregory Nazianzen, or the writings of St. Augustine and St. Hilary upon the Holy Trinity. But then these theologians also maintained with equal conviction that God could be apprehended by man. For this balancing consideration Erigena finds no place. God is for Erigena that of which no distinctive quality can be predicated. God is in effect the Absolute.
But then what becomes of God's self-consciousness? In Christlieb’s opinion Erigena’s conception of the Deity precludes any firm hold on the Divine self-consciousness. Self-consciousness involves a whole content of ideas, a world of thought, which contradicts the absolute self-identity ascribed by Erigena to the Deity.
Nevertheless, subject to this premise of acknowledged inadequacy, qualities may rightly be ascribed to Deity by way of symbolical representation.
Hence it is correct to maintain that true authority does not contradict right reason, nor right reason true authority. Both spring from one source, and that one source is Divine.
Thus God may be described metaphorically as Love, although in fact He transcends it.
It has often been disputed whether Erigena’s system is fundamentally Christian or Pantheistic. In his careful study of Erigena, Theodor Christlieb maintains that, although sentences may be quoted on either side and the author vacillates, now towards Theism, now in a Pantheistic direction, his attempted reconciliation of Theology with Philosophy ends in the supremacy of Philosophy and in the abolition of the essential characteristics of the Christian Revelation.
That the Deity cannot be comprehended by human intelligence is a commonplace of all the great early theologians of the Church. It can be richly illustrated from the theological orations of St. Gregory Nazianzen, or from the writings of St. Augustine and St. Hilary on the Holy Trinity. But these theologians also maintained, with equal conviction, that God could be apprehended by man. For this balancing consideration Erigena finds no place. For Erigena, God is that of which no distinctive quality can be predicated. God is in effect the Absolute.
But then what becomes of God’s self-consciousness? In Christlieb’s opinion, Erigena’s conception of the Deity precludes any firm hold on the Divine self-consciousness. Self-consciousness involves a whole content of ideas, a world of thought, which contradicts the absolute self-identity Erigena ascribes to the Deity.