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.
Two conceptions of Deity emerge in this exposition. One is, that the Deity is identical with the Absolute. It is beyond personality, beyond goodness, beyond consciousness, beyond existence itself. Nothing whatever, can be predicated concerning it. Being is identical with nothingness. It is above the category of relation. This is the philosophic conception.
The other conception is that Deity possesses the attributes of self-conscious personality. This is the religious conception.
In the exposition of Erigena the philosophic conception is affirmed to be the true, while the religious conception is regarded as the creation of the theologians for the purpose of explanation and of faith.
From this distinction certain things seem clear. It seems clear that the philosophic conception of Deity as identical with the Absolute, cannot satisfy the requirements of religion, and that Deity cannot become an object of adoration unless it is invested with the attributes of personality. That of which nothing can be predicated cannot become the object of our worship.
But at the same time if the religious conception of Deity as self-conscious and personal is offered to our contemplation with the express proviso that it does not represent what God really is, the proviso paralyses
Two conceptions of Deity emerge from this exposition. One is that Deity is identical with the Absolute. It is beyond personality, beyond goodness, beyond consciousness, beyond existence itself. Nothing whatever can be predicated of it. Being is identical with nothingness. It is above the category of relation. This is the philosophic conception.
The other conception is that Deity possesses the attributes of self-conscious personality. This is the religious conception.
In Erigena’s exposition the philosophic conception is affirmed to be the true one, while the religious conception is regarded as something the theologians created for the purposes of explanation and of faith.
From this distinction certain things seem clear. It seems clear that the philosophic conception of Deity as identical with the Absolute cannot satisfy the requirements of religion, and that Deity cannot become an object of adoration unless it is invested with the attributes of personality. That of which nothing can be predicated cannot become the object of our worship.
But at the same time, if the religious conception of Deity as self-conscious and personal is offered for our contemplation with the express proviso that it does not represent what God really is, the proviso paralyses