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.
According to Dionysius, as understood by Baur, God is the absolute Unity which stands contrasted with the Many. The Many denotes the world of concrete reality. Doubtless there is a process from Unity to Multiplicity, affirmation and negation, but this process takes place solely in the subjective consciousness.
How, then, asks Baur, can this Areopagite conception of Deity be reconciled with the Christian conception, with which it appears to be in obvious contradiction?
The Areopagite speaks often of a Triad, and dwells on the Church's Doctrine of the Trinity. But the terms which in his system represent the Godhead are such as the super-good, the super-divine, the superessential. These terms represent an abstraction. If any distinction exists, that distinction in no case exists within the Deity, but only in the activities which proceed from God as the super-essential Cause. Distinctions exist in our subjective consciousness. But they have no objective reality. If we call the Divine Mystery God, or Life, or Essence, or Light, or Word, we only mean thereby the influences which emanate from that Mystery.
In Baur’s opinion, therefore, the Trinitarian conception, as held in the Tradition of the Church, is in the system of Dionysius reduced to little more than names.
Baur’s criticism on the Areopagite’s notion of Incarnation is not less severe.
The System of Dionysius allows no distinctive and peculiar Incarnation at all. It allows no special and new relationships, but only a continual becoming. The Incarnation is, in the Areopagite’s view, nothing more than the process from Unity to Multiplicity; which is essential to Its conception of Deity. If Dionysius speaks of the God-man as an individual, that is either a mere concession to Tradition, or a lack of clearness in its own conception. The union of God with an individual such as the Christian Tradition postulates cannot, in Baur’s opinion, be reconciled with the system of the Areopagite.
According to Dionysius, as Baur understands him, God is the absolute Unity which stands in contrast with the Many. The Many denotes the world of concrete reality. There is doubtless a process from Unity to Multiplicity, of affirmation and negation, but this process takes place solely in the subjective consciousness.
How, then, Baur asks, can this Areopagite conception of Deity be reconciled with the Christian conception, which it appears plainly to contradict?
The Areopagite often speaks of a Triad, and dwells on the Church's Doctrine of the Trinity. But the terms which in his system represent the Godhead are such as the super-good, the super-divine, the superessential. These terms represent an abstraction. If any distinction exists, it never exists within the Deity, but only in the activities which proceed from God as the super-essential Cause. Distinctions exist in our subjective consciousness, but they have no objective reality. If we call the Divine Mystery God, or Life, or Essence, or Light, or Word, we mean by this only the influences which emanate from that Mystery.
In Baur’s opinion, therefore, the Trinitarian conception, as held in the Tradition of the Church, is reduced in the system of Dionysius to little more than names.
Baur’s criticism of the Areopagite’s notion of the Incarnation is no less severe.
The System of Dionysius allows no distinctive and particular Incarnation at all. It allows no special and new relationships, only a continual becoming. In the Areopagite’s view the Incarnation is nothing more than the process from Unity to Multiplicity, which is essential to Its conception of Deity. If Dionysius speaks of the God-man as an individual, that is either a mere concession to Tradition or a lack of clarity in its own conception. The union of God with an individual, such as the Christian Tradition postulates, cannot in Baur’s opinion be reconciled with the system of the Areopagite.