^ Ps. cxliii. lo. This is a further argument arisin<j; out of what has been said above. The point here is that we cannot limit the title "Good" to one Person of the Trinity. (The notion that the Father is stern and the Son mollifies His sternness is false.) The rest of the section takes other titles and shows how they are common to all Three Persons of the Trinity.
2 Kx. iii. 14. ^ Rev. i. 4, * Ps. cii. 27.
^ John XV. 26. ^ John v, 21. ' John vi. 63.
^ 2 Cor. iii. 17. " I Chron. xxix. 14. ^^ Rom. xi. 36.
" Ibid. 12 p^^ civ. 30.
TlIK DIVINE NAMES 67
tlic Divine Word Ilimsilf dcclaivd : "I and the Iv'Ulicr
arc onc,''^ and "All things that the Fatlier hatli are
mine,"- and "All mine arc thine, and thine are
mine."^ And ai^ain, all that belonj^eth to the Fatlier
and to Himself He also ascribes in the Common
Unity to the Divine Spirit, viz. the Divine operations,
the worship, the originating and inexhaustible crea-
tiveness and the ministration of the bountiful gifts.
And, methinks, that none of those nurtured in the
Divine Scriptures will, except through perversity, gain-
sa}' it, that the Divine Attributes in their true and
Divine signification all belong to the entire Deity.
And, therefore, having here briefly and partially (and
more at large elsewhere) given from the Scriptures
the proof and definition of this matter, we intend that
whatever title of God's Entire Nature we endeavour
to explain be understood as referring to the Godhead
in Its entirety.
2. And if any one say that we herein are intro-
ducing a confusion of all distinctions in the Deity,^
we for our part opine that such his argument is not
sufficient even to persuade himself For if he is one
utterly at enmity with the Scriptures, he will also be
altogether far from our Philosophy ; and if he recks
not of the Holy Wisdom drawn from the Scriptures,
how can he reckon aught of that method by which
we w^ould conduct him to an understanding of things
Divine ? But if he taketh Scriptural Truth as his
Standard, this is the very Rule and Light by which
we will (so far as in us lies) proceed straight to our
defence, and will declare that the Sacred Science
sometimes employs a method of Undifference and
sometimes one of Differentiation ; and that we must
neither disjoin those things which are Undifferenced
^ John X. 30. 2 John xvi. 15. ^ John xvii. lo.
* i. e. That we are seeking to destroy the distinction between the Persons of the Trinity.
68 Dionysius the Areopagite
nor confuse those which are Differentiated ; but follow-
ing the Sacred Science to the best of our powers,
we must lift up our eyes towards the Divine Rays ;
for, receiving thence the Divine Revelations as a
noble Standard of Truth, we strive to preserve its
treasure in ourselves without addition, diminution,
or distortion, and in thus preserving the Scriptures,
we also are preserved, and are moreover enabled by
the same to the end that we may still preserve them
and be by them preserved.
3. Now Undifferenced Names belong to the entire
Godhead ^ (as we showed more fully from the Scrip-
tures in the Outlines of Divinity). To this class
belong the following : " Super-Excellent," " Super-
Divine," " Super-Essential," " Super-Vital," " Supra-
Sapient," and thereto all those titles wherein the
negative expresses excess ; moreover, all those titles
which have a causal sense, such as " Good," " Fair,"
" Existent," " Lifegiving," " Wise," and whatever titles
are ascribed to the Cause of all good things from
Its bountiful gifts.^ The differentiated Names, on
the other hand, are the Super-Essential names and
connotations of "Father," "Son," and "Spirit." In
these cases the titles cannot be interchanged, nor are
they held in common. Again, besides this, the perfect
and unchangeable subsistence of Jesus in our nature
is differentiated, and so are all the mysteries of Love
and Being therein displayed.^
^ The method ot Undifference apphes to the ultimate Godhead, that of Differentiation to the emanatint^ Godhead. The absolute and the relative i)hine.s of Ik-ing both belong to (iod. On ihe absolute i)lane all distinctions are transcended, and the Persons exist in a manner in which They would appear to us to be merged, but on the relative plane we see that Tliey are eternally distinct. See Intr., p. 8.
^ Because we see things which are good, fair, existent, etc., we ajjply to God, their ultimate Cause, the titles "Good," "Fair," " l'"xistent," etc. See p. 36, n. 6.
^ /. e. ()v\\y the Second Person was Incarnate, was crucified, etc. '* Mysteries of Love and Being " — '^iXavO^xtiirias ovaiwdr] fivaT-qpia.
Ttte Divine Names 69
4. But needs must we, inctliinks, go deeper into the
ni.itter and thoroui^hly explain the difference between
Undiffcrence and Differentiation as concerning God,
in order that our wliole Discourse may be made clear,
and, being free froin all doubtfulness and obscurity,
may (to the best of our powers) give a distinct, plain,
and orderly statement of the matter. For, as 1 said
elsewhere, the Initiates of our Divine Tradition
designate the Undifferenced Attributes of the Tran-
scendently Ineffable and Unknowable Permanence
as hidden, incommunicable Ultimates, but the bene-
ficent Differentiations of the Supreme Godhead, they
call Emanations^ and Manifestatipns ; and following
the Holy Scripture they declare that some Attributes
belong especially to Undiffcrence, and some, on the
other hand, to Differentiation. ^ For instance, they
say concerning the Divine Unity, or Super-Essence,
that the undivided Trinity holds in a common Unity ^
without distinction Its Subsistence beyond Being, Its
Godhead beyond Deity, Its Goodness beyond Excel-
^ ■Kpo6Zo\js re KoX iK<pdva€is, — sc. the Persons of the Trinity. See Intr., p. 16.
^ The received text reads : ^aai . . . koI rris elprj/ifvrjs ^vuxrews rSio Koi avdis rrjs Sia/fpitrecDj eIua.L Tivas iSiKas Kal eywaas Kal diaKpicreis. This, as it stands, must be translated : " Tliey say that certain qualities belong to the said Undifference, and that to Differentiation, on the other hand, belong certain principles of Unity and principles of Differ- entiation." This would mean that the Persons of the Trinity, though distinct from Each Other, yet have a Common Unity, or else that Each has a Unity of Its Own making It distinct from the Other Persons.
I have ventured, however, to emend the text by omitting the last six words and making the sentence end at eluai. I believe the last six words have crept in from a marginal gloss or variant, which ran (I imagine) as follows : — eivai nvas l5iKas w.t.A. If the MS. belonged to a family having seventeen or eighteen letters to a column the eivai after SiaKpia-eccs would end a line, since there are 571 letters from the be- ginning of the chapter to the end of that word. Hence it would easily be confused with the dvai at the beginning of the gloss, which would thus creep into the text. And, since the added words amount to thirty-four letters, they would exactly fill two lines, thus making the interpolation easier. For the meaning, see Intr., p. 6f.
70 Dionysius the Areopagite
lence ; the Identity, surpassing all things, of Its
transcendently Individual Nature; Its Oneness above
Unity ; Its Namelessness and Multiplicity of Names ;
Its Unknovvableness and perfect Intelligibility ; Its
universal Affirmation^ and universal Negation in a
state above all Affirmation and Negation,^ and that
It possesses the mutual Abiding and Indwelling (as
it were) of Its indivisibly supreme Persons in an
utterly Undifferentiated and Transcendent Unity,
and yet without any confusion ^ even as the lights
of lamps (to use visible and homely similes) being
in one house and wholly interpenetrating one another,
severally possess a clear and absolute distinction each
from each, and are by their distinctions united into
one, and in their unity are kept distinct. Even so
do we see, when there are many lamps in a house,
how that the lights of them all are unified into one
undifferentiated light, so that there shineth forth from
them one indivisible brightness; and no one, methinks,
could separate the light of one particular lamp from
the others, in isolation from the air which embraces
them all, nor could he see one light without another,
inasmuch as, without confusion, they yet are wholly
commingled.
Yea, if any one takes out of the dwelling one of
the burning lamps, all its own particular light will
therewith dejjart from the place without cither carry-
ing off in itself aught of the other lights or bequeath-
ing any of its own brightness to the rest. For, as
^ CJ. Myst. Theol. I. 2. This universal Affirmation is not pantlicism because evil, as such, is held to be non-existent. It is only all good- ness that is affirmed of God, though lie surpasses it. God is present in all things, but not equally in all.
^ " Yes " implies the ]iossil)ility of " No," and " No " the possibility of ♦•Yes." Thus "Yes" and "No" belong to the relative world. Ciod's absolute existence is beyond such antithesis. See Intr., p. 4 f.
•■' The Persons, though fused, are yet not confused because the Godhead /rawj^^wflf^ unity. See Intr., j). 5.
The Divine Names 71
1 said, the entire and complete union of the Hghts
one with another brpiight no confusion or commixture
in any parts — and that though the h"i,dit is Hterally
embodied in the air and streams from the material
substance of fire. The Super-Essential Unity of God,
however, exceedeth (so we declare) not only the
unions of material bodies, but even those of Souls
and of Intelligences, which these Godlike and celestial
Luminaries in perfect mutual interpenctration super-
naturally and without confusion possess, through
a participation corresponding to their individual
powers of participating in the All-Transcendent
Unity.i
5. There is, on the other hand, a Differentiation
made in the Super-Essential Doctrine of God — not
merely such as I have just mentioned (viz. that in
the very Unity, Each of the Divine Persons possesses
without confusion Its own distinct existence), but also
that the Attributes of the Super-Essential Divine
Generation are not interchangeable.^ The Father
alone is the Source of the Super-Essential Godhead,
and the Father is not a Son, nor is the Son a Father ;
for the Divine Persons all preserve. Each without
alloy. His own particular Attributes of praise. Such,
then, are the instances of Undifference and of
Differentiation in the Ineffable Unity and Subsistence
of God. And if the term " Differentiation " be also
applied to the bounteous act of Emanation whereby
the Divine Unity, brimming Itself with goodness in
the excess of Its Undifferenced Unity thus enters
^ Material things are merged by being united {e. g. drops of water). Souls or angels being united through love (whereby they participate in God) aie noi merged but remain distinct even while being, as it were, fused into a single spiriiual unity more perfect than the fusion of water with wine. The Persons of the Trinity are siill more perfectly united and at the same time still more utterly distinct.
- Two kinds of Differentiation : (i) Distinctness of Existence, (2) Difference of Functions.
72 Dionysius the Areopagite
into Multiplicity,^ yet an un differenced unity worketh
even in those differentiated acts whereby, in ceaseless
communications, It bestows Being, Life, and Wisdom,
and those other gifts of the all-creative Goodness in
respect of which (as we behold the communications
and the participants thereof) we celebrate those
things wherein the creatures supernaturally partici-
pate. Yea, 'tis a common and undifferenced activity
of the whole Godhead that It is wholly and entirely
communicated unto each of them that share It and
unto none merely in part ; ^ even as the centre of a
circle is shared by all the radii which surround it in
a circle ; ^ and as there are many impressions of a
seal all sharing in the seal which is their archetype
while yet this is entire, nor is it only a part thereof
that bclongeth unto any of them. But the Incom-
municable All-creative Godhead transcends all such
symbols in that It is beyond Apprehension nor hath
It any other mode of communion such as to join It
unto the participants.*
Perhaps, however, some one will say : " The seal is
not entire and the same in all the printed copies."
I answer that this is not due to the seal itself (for it
gives itself wholly and identically to each), but the
difference of the substances which share it makes the
impressions of the one, entire, identical archetype to
be different. For instance, if they are soft, plastic,
and smooth, and have no print already, and are
neither hard and resistent, nor yet melting and
unstable, the imprint will be clear, plain, and per-