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.
It is scarcely wonderful, therefore, that Christlieb should conclude that on Erigena’s principles the doctrine of the Trinity is not really tenable. Erigena certainly endeavours to approximate to the Church’s Tradition, and to give it an intellectual justification. But in spite of these endeavours he is unable to maintain any real distinctions in his Trinity. They have no actual substantial existence whatever. They are mere names and not realities. There may be appearances. But in its essential being, according to Erigena, Deity is neither unity nor trinity, but an incomprehensible somewhat which transcends them both. For Erigena both the Unitarian and the Trinitarian representations of God are alike products of subjective human reflection. They are neither of them objective realities. If you rest on either of them you are, according to Erigena, mistaken. For God is more than Unity and more than Trinity.
Looking back on the whole course of Erigena’s exposition of Dionysian principles, we see that the Areopagite had identified God with the Absolute. Dean Inge says that “Dionysius the Areopagite describes God the Father as ‘superessential indetermination,’ ‘the unity which unifies every unity,’ ‘the absolute no-thing which is above all reality.’ ‘No monad or triad,’ he exclaims in a queer ebullition of jargon, ‘can express the all-transcending hiddenness of the all-transcending superessentially superexisting super-Deity.’” + And Erigena did not hesitate to deny Being to Deity. Being, in his opinion, is a defect. The things that are not, are far better than the things that are. God, therefore, in virtue of His excellence, is not undeservedly described as Nihil— nothingness.
It is hardly surprising, then, that Christlieb concludes that on Erigena’s principles the doctrine of the Trinity is not really tenable. Erigena certainly tries to come close to the Church’s Tradition and to give it an intellectual justification. But in spite of these efforts he cannot maintain any real distinctions in his Trinity. They have no actual substantial existence whatever. They are mere names, not realities. There may be appearances. But in its essential being, according to Erigena, Deity is neither unity nor trinity, but an incomprehensible something which transcends them both. For Erigena, both the Unitarian and the Trinitarian representations of God are alike products of subjective human reflection. Neither of them is an objective reality. If you rest on either of them you are, according to Erigena, mistaken. For God is more than Unity and more than Trinity.
Looking back over the whole course of Erigena’s exposition of Dionysian principles, we see that the Areopagite had identified God with the Absolute. Dean Inge says that “Dionysius the Areopagite describes God the Father as ‘superessential indetermination,’ ‘the unity which unifies every unity,’ ‘the absolute no-thing which is above all reality.’ ‘No monad or triad,’ he exclaims in a strange outburst of jargon, ‘can express the all-transcending hiddenness of the all-transcending superessentially superexisting super-Deity.’” + And Erigena did not hesitate to deny Being to Deity. Being, in his view, is a defect. The things that are not are far better than the things that are. God, therefore, by virtue of His excellence, is not undeservedly described as Nothingness (Nihil).