Rolt states the constraint his author works under: he "accepts the Eternal Distinctions of the Trinity because They have been revealed", and simultaneously "sees that they must belong to the sphere of Manifestation or They could not be revealed". A doctrine held on authority and a doctrine held on argument are being made to occupy the same sentence, and Rolt does not smooth it over. Whether that is Dionysius's tension or Rolt's reading of it is a question this note deliberately leaves open — the held text supports the observation and not the attribution.
On the Divine Names and the Mystical Theology — trans. C. E. Rolt
Open to all
page 6
The translator’s English as printed (C. E. Rolt). The original-language text is not held; names are romanised as the translator printed them.
III.—THE RELATION OF THE GODHEAD: TO
CREATION
This principle of Plurality which is thus transcendently contained in Its Undifferentiated Nature compels It to an eternal act of Creation. For all things pre-exist in It fused and yet distinct, as (shall we say?) in a single sensation of hunger there are indivisibly felt the several needs for the different elements of food which are wanted respectively to nourish the various kinds of bodily tissues, or as a single emotion contains beforehand the different separate words which issue forth to express it. Even so the Ultimate Godhead, brimful with Its Super-Unity, must overflow into multiplicity, must pass from Indifference into Differentiation and must issue out of its Super-Essential state to fashion a world of Being.
Now since the Godhead thus pours Itself out on to the plane of Being (which plane itself exists through nothing but this outpouring), it follows that the Godhead comes into relation with this plane: or rather (inasmuch as the act is timeless) stands in some relation to it. If the Godhead acts creatively, then It is related to the world and sphere of creation : eternally to the sphere of creation (which otherwise could not exist), and thus potentially to the world even before the world was made. Hence the Godhead, while in Its ultimate Nature It is beyond all differentiations and relationships, and dwells in a region where there is nothing outside of Itself, yet on another side of Its Nature (so to speak) touches and embraces a region of differentiations and relationships, is therefore Itself related to that region, and so in a sense belongs to it. Ultimately the Godhead is undifferentiated and unrelated, but in Its eternal created activity It is manifested under the form of Differentiation and Relationship. It belongs concurrently to two worlds: that of Ultimate Reality and that of Manifested Appearance. Hence, therefore, the possibility not only of Creation but also Revelation (ἔκφανσις). Just as the Godhead creates all things by virtue of that Aspect of Its Nature which is (as it were) turned towards them, so It is revealed to us by virtue of the same Aspect turned towards our minds which form part of the creation. Hence all the Scriptural Names of God, and this very Name “God” itself, though they apply to the whole Nature of the Godhead and not merely to some particular element or function thereof, yet cannot express that Nature in Its Ultimate Superessence but only as manifested in Its relative activity. Dionysius, in fact, definitely teaches that doctrine which, when revived independently of recent years by Dr. Bradley was regarded as a startling blasphemy: that God is but an Appearance1 of the Absolute. And this is, after all, merely a bold way of stating the orthodox truism that the Ultimate Godhead is incomprehensible: a truism which Theology accepts as an axiom and then is prone to ignore. The various Names of God are thus mere inadequate symbols of That Which transcends all thought and existence. But they are undifferentiated titles because they are symbols which seek (though unsuccessfully) to express the undifferentiated Super-Essence. Though the terms “God,” “King,” “Good,” “Existent,” etc., have all different connotations, yet they all denote the same undifferentiated Deity. There are, however, some Names which denote not the undifferentiated Godhead, but certain eternally differentiated Elements in Its Manifestation. These are the Names of the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity. Whereas the terms “God,” “King,” “Good,” “Existent,” etc., denote (though they cannot express it) the same Reality: the term “Father” denotes something different from that of “Son,” and both of these from that of “Holy Ghost.” The whole Manifested Godhead is “God,” “King,” “Creator,” “Saviour,” “Lord,” “Eternal,” “Living,” etc., but only One Persona of the Godhead is Father, or Son, or Holy Ghost. The undifferentiated titles differ from each other merely through our feeble grasp of the Manifestation, and coalesce as our apprehension of it grows; the differentiated titles (διακεκριμένα or διακρίσεις) represent actual distinctions in the eternal Manifestation Itself. Thus the Absolute Godhead is the Super-Essence ; the eternally Manifested Godhead is the Trinity. As to the reasons of this Dionysius deprecates all inquiry. He does not, for instance, suggest that Relationship in this its simplest form cannot but exist within that side of the Godhead which embraces and enters into this relative world. Here, as elsewhere, his purpose in spite of his philosophical language, is in the deepest sense purely practical, and mere speculations are left on one side. He accepts the Eternal Distinctions of the Trinity because They have been revealed; on the other hand, he sees that they must belong to the sphere of Manifestation or They could not be revealed.
page 6
III.—THE RELATION OF THE GODHEAD: TO
CREATION
This principle of Plurality, transcendently contained in Its Undifferentiated Nature, compels It to an eternal act of Creation. For all things pre-exist in It, fused and yet distinct. It is (shall we say?) as in a single sensation of hunger we feel, indivisibly, the several needs for the different elements of food required to nourish the various kinds of bodily tissue; or as a single emotion contains in advance the separate words that issue forth to express it. Even so the Ultimate Godhead, brimming with Its Super-Unity, must overflow into multiplicity, must pass from Indifference into Differentiation, and must issue out of Its Super-Essential state to fashion a world of Being.
Now since the Godhead thus pours Itself out onto the plane of Being (a plane which itself exists only through this outpouring), it follows that the Godhead comes into relation with this plane, or rather (since the act is timeless) stands in some relation to it. If the Godhead acts creatively, then It is related to the world and to the sphere of creation: eternally to the sphere of creation (which otherwise could not exist), and so potentially to the world even before the world was made. Hence the Godhead, while in Its ultimate Nature It is beyond all differentiations and relationships and dwells in a region where there is nothing outside Itself, yet on another side of Its Nature (so to speak) touches and embraces a region of differentiations and relationships. It is therefore Itself related to that region, and so in a sense belongs to it.
Ultimately the Godhead is undifferentiated and unrelated, but in Its eternal creative activity It is manifested under the form of Differentiation and Relationship. It belongs to two worlds at once: that of Ultimate Reality and that of Manifested Appearance. Hence the possibility not only of Creation but also of Revelation (ἔκφανσις). Just as the Godhead creates all things by virtue of that Aspect of Its Nature which is (as it were) turned towards them, so It is revealed to us by virtue of the same Aspect turned towards our minds, which are part of the creation. Hence all the Scriptural Names of God, and this very Name “God” itself, though they apply to the whole Nature of the Godhead and not merely to some particular element or function of it, cannot express that Nature in Its Ultimate Superessence, but only as manifested in Its relative activity.
Dionysius, in fact, plainly teaches the doctrine which, when Dr. Bradley revived it independently in recent years, was regarded as a startling blasphemy: that God is but an Appearance1 of the Absolute. And this is, after all, merely a bold way of stating the orthodox truism that the Ultimate Godhead is incomprehensible: a truism which Theology accepts as an axiom and then tends to ignore. The various Names of God are thus merely inadequate symbols of That Which transcends all thought and existence. But they are undifferentiated titles, because they are symbols which seek (though without success) to express the undifferentiated Super-Essence. Though the terms “God,” “King,” “Good,” “Existent,” etc., all have different connotations, they all denote the same undifferentiated Deity.
There are, however, some Names which denote not the undifferentiated Godhead but certain eternally differentiated Elements in Its Manifestation. These are the Names of the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. Whereas the terms “God,” “King,” “Good,” “Existent,” etc., denote (though they cannot express it) the same Reality, the term “Father” denotes something different from that of “Son,” and both of these from that of “Holy Ghost.” The whole Manifested Godhead is “God,” “King,” “Creator,” “Saviour,” “Lord,” “Eternal,” “Living,” etc., but only One Person (Persona) of the Godhead is Father, or Son, or Holy Ghost. The undifferentiated titles differ from one another only because of our feeble grasp of the Manifestation, and they merge as our understanding of it grows; the differentiated titles (διακεκριμένα or διακρίσεις) represent actual distinctions in the eternal Manifestation Itself. Thus the Absolute Godhead is the Super-Essence; the eternally Manifested Godhead is the Trinity.
As to the reasons for this, Dionysius discourages all inquiry. He does not, for instance, suggest that Relationship in this, its simplest form, cannot but exist within that side of the Godhead which embraces and enters into this relative world. Here, as elsewhere, his purpose, despite his philosophical language, is in the deepest sense purely practical, and mere speculations are left aside. He accepts the Eternal Distinctions of the Trinity because They have been revealed; on the other hand, he sees that they must belong to the sphere of Manifestation, or They could not be revealed.