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.
DOCTRINES
In the treatise “Concerning the Divine Names,” Dionysius seeks to reconcile his daring conceptions with Scripture. Nor can he be said to fail. His argument, briefly, is that in Scripture we have a Revealed Religion and that things which are Revealed belong necessarily to the plane of Manifestation. Thus Revealed Religion interprets to us in terms of human thought things which, being Incomprehensible, are ultimately beyond thought. This is merely what St. Augustine teaches when he says1 that the Prologue of St. John’s Gospel reveals the mysteries of
1 Com. on St. John, Tr. I. 1: “For who can declare the Truth as it actually is? I venture to say, my brothers, perhaps John himself has not declared it as it actually is, but, even he, only according to his powers. For he was a man speaking about God—one inspired, indeed, by God but still a man. Because he was inspired he has declared something of the Truth—had he not been inspired he could not have declared anything of it—but because he was a man (though an inspired one) he has not declared the whole Truth, but only what was possible for a man.”
DOCTRINES
In the treatise “Concerning the Divine Names,” Dionysius seeks to reconcile his daring conceptions with Scripture. Nor can he be said to fail. His argument, briefly, is that in Scripture we have a Revealed Religion, and that things which are Revealed belong necessarily to the plane of Manifestation. Thus Revealed Religion interprets to us, in terms of human thought, things which, being Incomprehensible, are ultimately beyond thought. This is merely what St. Augustine teaches when he says1 that the Prologue of St. John’s Gospel reveals the mysteries of
1 Com. on St. John, Tr. I. 1: “For who can declare the Truth as it actually is? I venture to say, my brothers, that perhaps John himself has not declared it as it actually is, but he too only according to his powers. For he was a man speaking about God—one inspired by God, indeed, but still a man. Because he was inspired he has declared something of the Truth—had he not been inspired he could not have declared anything of it—but because he was a man (though an inspired one) he has not declared the whole Truth, but only what was possible for a man.”