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.
INFLUENCE IN RELIGIOUS HISTORY χει the wings of our aspiration and renders Deity impossible as an object of prayer.
Erigena was by no means a persona grata to the Church of his age. He was a metaphysician, without the mystical tendencies of Dionysius, and while he expounded the Areopagite’s ideas roused suspicion and resentment by the boldness of his conclusions. At the same time his translations of Dionysius made the Greek Master’s principles familiar to the Latin world.
In the Eastern Church the Areopagite’s influence is clearly present in the great Greek Theologian, St. John of Damascus. When speaking of the inadequacy of human expressions to represent the reality of God John Damascene appeals to Dionysius.2 And the whole of his teaching on the Divine incomprehensibility is clearly due to the influence of the Areopagite. When we read that an inferior nature cannot comprehend its superior, or when we find the distinction drawn between negative theology and affirmative, between that which declares what God is not and that which declares what He is; and that the former presents the Divine superiority to all created things; when further still we read of the super-essential essence, and the super-divine Deity: we see in a moment the influence of Dionysian conceptions. Nevertheless St. John Damascene is anything rather than a blind adherent of Areopagite teaching. On the contrary it is profoundly, true as Vacherot3 has said, that he follows Dionysius with discrimination: or rather, perhaps, that he supplements the Doctrine of the Divine incomprehensibility by very definite teaching on the reality of the distinctions within the
INFLUENCE IN RELIGIOUS HISTORY χει the wings of our aspiration and makes Deity impossible as an object of prayer.
Erigena was by no means a persona grata to the Church of his age. He was a metaphysician without the mystical tendencies of Dionysius, and while expounding the Areopagite’s ideas he aroused suspicion and resentment by the boldness of his conclusions. At the same time, his translations of Dionysius made the Greek Master’s principles familiar to the Latin world.
In the Eastern Church the Areopagite’s influence is clearly present in the great Greek theologian St. John of Damascus. When speaking of how inadequate human expressions are to represent the reality of God, John Damascene appeals to Dionysius.2 And the whole of his teaching on the Divine incomprehensibility is clearly due to the Areopagite’s influence. When we read that an inferior nature cannot comprehend its superior; when we find the distinction drawn between negative and affirmative theology, between the theology that declares what God is not and the one that declares what He is, and are told that the former presents the Divine superiority to all created things; when, further still, we read of the super-essential essence and the super-divine Deity, we see at once the influence of Dionysian conceptions.
Nevertheless St. John Damascene is anything but a blind adherent of the Areopagite’s teaching. On the contrary, it is profoundly true, as Vacherot3 has said, that he follows Dionysius with discrimination: or rather, perhaps, that he supplements the doctrine of the Divine incomprehensibility with very definite teaching on the reality of the distinctions within the