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.
Here may be added a criticism on Dionysius from a Bishop of the English Church. Bishop Westcott wrote—
“Many, perhaps, will be surprised that such a scheme of Christianity as Dionysius has sketched should even be reckoned Christian at all”1 Dr. Westcott went on to say of the Areopagite’s principles: “It must be frankly admitted that they bear the impress not only of a particular age and school, but also of a particular man, which is not wholly of a Christian type.” And again elsewhere “very much of the system was faulty and defective.”
In closing this short survey of the place of Dionysius in the history of religious thought it is evident enough that we are confronted with an exceptional figure of unusual ascendancy. He is not made less perplexing by the variety of estimates formed upon his theology by men of different schools and of marked ability. The student must be left to draw his own conclusions. But if those conclusions are to be correctly drawn he must have before his mind, at least in outlines, the fact of the Areopagite’s historic influence.
The general impression left upon the mind by the Areopagite’s critics is that the author’s strength consisted in his combination of philosophy with mysticism; but that he was far more strong as a philosophic thinker than he was as a Christian theologian; and that in his efforts to reconcile Christianity with neo-Platonism it is the philosophy which prevails, not without serious results to the theology of the Church. His greatest admirers appear to have employed him with discretion; to have balanced his statements with more proportion, and to have read him in the light of strong Catholic presuppositions which to some extent neutralized his over-emphasis, and supplemented his omissions. It is an interesting speculation for the theological student what the position of these writings would have been if their author had never been identified with the disciple of St. Paul. fl ee LUE
1 Westcott, Religious Thought in the West, p. 188.
Here may be added a criticism of Dionysius from a Bishop of the English Church. Bishop Westcott wrote:
“Many, perhaps, will be surprised that such a scheme of Christianity as Dionysius has sketched should be reckoned Christian at all.”1 Dr. Westcott went on to say of the Areopagite’s principles: “It must be frankly admitted that they bear the stamp not only of a particular age and school, but also of a particular man, and that stamp is not wholly of a Christian type.” And again, elsewhere: “very much of the system was faulty and defective.”
In closing this short survey of the place of Dionysius in the history of religious thought, it is evident enough that we are confronted with an exceptional figure of unusual ascendancy. He is made no less perplexing by the variety of judgements formed on his theology by able men of different schools. The student must be left to draw his own conclusions. But if those conclusions are to be drawn correctly, he must have before his mind, at least in outline, the fact of the Areopagite’s historic influence.
The general impression the Areopagite’s critics leave on the mind is that the author’s strength lay in his combination of philosophy with mysticism; but that he was far stronger as a philosophic thinker than as a Christian theologian; and that in his efforts to reconcile Christianity with neo-Platonism it is the philosophy that prevails, not without serious consequences for the theology of the Church. His greatest admirers appear to have used him with discretion, to have balanced his statements with a better sense of proportion, and to have read him in the light of strong Catholic presuppositions which to some extent neutralized his over-emphasis and supplied what he omitted. It is an interesting speculation for the theological student what the standing of these writings would have been if their author had never been identified with the disciple of St. Paul.
1 Westcott, Religious Thought in the West, p. 188.