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.
Eternity not as they actually are but as human thought can grasp them.1 The neo-Platonism of Dionysius does not invalidate Scripture any more than that of Plotinus invalidates the writings of Plato. Dionysius merely says that there is an unplumbed Mystery behind the words of Scripture and streaming through them, just as Plotinus and other neo-Platonists hold that there is an unplumbed Mystery streaming through from behind Plato’s categories of thought. And if it be urged that at least our Lord’s teaching on the Fatherhood of God cannot be reconciled with the doctrine of a Supra-Personal Godhead, the answer is near at hand.2 For the Pagan Plotinus, whose doctrine is similar to that of Dionysius, gives this very name of “Father” to his Supra-Personal Absolute—or rather to that Aspect of It which comes into touch with the human soul.3 Moreover in the most rigidly orthodox Christian theology God the
1 [What Augustine says is that St. John, because he was only human, has not declared the whole Truth concerning Deity. But this is very different from saying that what St. John has declared does not correspond with the eternal Reality. While Augustine holds that the Johannine Revelation is not complete, he certainly held that it was correct as far as it goes. Augustine had no conception of a Deity whom the qualities of self-consciousness and personality did not essentially represent. It is more than questionable whether Augustine would have accepted the statement that the Prologue of St. John’s Gospel does not record the mysteries of Eternity “as they actually are.” Augustine had a profound belief that God as He is in Himself corresponds with God as He is revealed.—ED.] 2 [The writer argues that Christ and Plotinus both employ the same expression, Father, to the Deity. But the use of the same expression will not prove much unless it is employed in the same meaning. No one can seriously contend that the Pagan Plotinus meant what Jesus Christ meant of the Fatherhood of God. Surely it is unquestionable that the Fatherhood of God meant for Jesus Christ what constituted God’s supreme reality. It was employed in a sense which is entirely foreign to the metaphysical doctrine of a Supra-Personal Deity. The Semitic conception of the Godhead was not that of a neo-Platonist metaphysician.—ED. | S e.g. Hnn. I. 6,8: We have a country whence we came, and we have a Father there.”
Eternity, not as they actually are but as human thought can grasp them.1 The neo-Platonism of Dionysius no more invalidates Scripture than that of Plotinus invalidates the writings of Plato. Dionysius merely says that there is an unplumbed Mystery behind the words of Scripture and streaming through them, just as Plotinus and other neo-Platonists hold that there is an unplumbed Mystery streaming through from behind Plato’s categories of thought.
And if it is urged that at least our Lord’s teaching on the Fatherhood of God cannot be reconciled with the doctrine of a Supra-Personal Godhead, the answer is near at hand.2 For the Pagan Plotinus, whose doctrine is similar to that of Dionysius, gives this very name of “Father” to his Supra-Personal Absolute—or rather to that Aspect of It which comes into touch with the human soul.3 Moreover, in the most rigidly orthodox Christian theology God the
1 [What Augustine says is that St. John, being only human, did not declare the whole Truth about Deity. But that is very different from saying that what St. John did declare does not correspond with the eternal Reality. While Augustine holds that the Johannine Revelation is incomplete, he certainly held that it was correct as far as it goes. Augustine had no conception of a Deity not essentially represented by the qualities of self-consciousness and personality. It is more than doubtful whether he would have accepted the statement that the Prologue of St. John’s Gospel does not record the mysteries of Eternity “as they actually are.” Augustine believed profoundly that God as He is in Himself corresponds with God as He is revealed.—ED.]
2 [The writer argues that Christ and Plotinus both use the same term, Father, for the Deity. But the use of the same term proves little unless it carries the same meaning. No one can seriously maintain that the pagan Plotinus meant by the Fatherhood of God what Jesus Christ meant. Surely it is beyond question that for Jesus Christ the Fatherhood of God expressed what constituted God’s supreme reality. He used it in a sense wholly foreign to the metaphysical doctrine of a Supra-Personal Deity. The Semitic conception of the Godhead was not that of a neo-Platonist metaphysician.—ED.]
3 E.g. Enn. I. 6, 8: “We have a country from which we came, and we have a Father there.”