* Sec Parma edition of St. Thomas, Tom. XV. Opusculum vii. pp. 259 '405.
Influence in Relic.Ious History 213
taincd. and he was credited with beiiit^, by apostolic
appointnic:U, first Bishop of Athens, these dis-
tinctions made suspicion of his orthodoxy seem
irreverent and incredible. But when the identifi-
cation was questioned by the historical critics of the
seventeenth century, and the tradition completely
dispelled, then the term Pseudo-Dionysius began to
be heard and to prevail, and criticism upon its
orthodoxy arose in the learned schools in France.
Le Ouien, in a dissertation prefixed to the works
of St. John Damascene, propounds the formidable
inquiry : Num Pseudo-Dionysius haereticus fuerit.^
Le Ouien is convinced that Dionysius employs
language which confuses the Divine and the Human
in our Lord ; fails to distinguish accurately between
person and nature ; and betrays unquestionable
monophysite tendencies.
On the other hand, Bernard de Rubeis, in his
Dissertation^^ says that Le Ouien fails to do justice to
the author's meaning; and that Aquinas understood
the author better, and thought him orthodox.
The University of Paris defended the Areopagite.
The University of Lou vain agreed. The Jesuits
eagerly advocated his orthodoxy. Lessius, the cele-
brated author of the Treatise on the Divine Perfections,
corresponding with another Jesuit, Father Lanssel,
declared that he had read the Areopagite frequently,
and had carefully studied all his writings. For thirty-
six years Dionysius had been his chosen patron,
always remembered b}^ him in the Sacrifice of the
Mass, with a prayer to be permitted to share the
Areopagite's wisdom and spirit.^ What disturbed
Lessius was that the Areopagite had not been better
1 Migne, Patrol Grccc, Tom. XCIV. i. 281.
* See also the Parma edition oi St. Thomas, Torn. XV. 430 ff. , wlure lliis Dissertation is printed,
^ Migne, Patrol. Grcrc, Tom. IV. 1002.
214 Dionysius the Areopagite
translated. Inadequate terms had been put in the
Latin rendering which might easily lead the reader
into error. For many instances of this might be
produced. Father Lanssel, however, is compelled to
admit quite frankly that the Areopagite's writings
contain difficulties which cannot be laid to the charge
of his translators. St. Thomas himself had said as
much.
That Master of the Schoolmen, that theologice
apex, who solved the hardest problems in theology
more easily than Alexander cut the Gordian knot,
did not hesitate to say that Dionysius habitually
suffered from obscurity of style. This obscurity was
not due to lack of skill, but to the deliberate design
of concealing truth from the ridicule of the profane.
It was also due to his use of platonic expressions,
which are unfamiliar to the modern mind. Some-
times the Areopagite is, in the opinion of St. Thomas,
too concise, wrapping too much meaning into a
solitary word. Sometimes, again, he errs the opposite
way, by the over-profuseness of his utterances.
Nevertheless, this profuseness is not really super-
fluous, for those who completely scrutinize it become
aware of its solidity and its depth. The fact is, adds
Father Lanssel, as Isaac Casaubon asserted, the Aero-
pagite invents new words, and unusual unheard-of
and startling expressions. The Confessor Maximus
admitted that his Master obscures the meaning of the
superabundance of his phraseology.
When we come to the nineteenth century we find
the Treatises of the Areopagite criticized, not only, or
chiefly, for their form and style, but also for their
fundamental principles.
The System of the Areopagite was subjected to a
very searching critical analysis by Ferdinand Christian
I^aur. {Christliche Lchre von dcr Dreicifiigkcit niid
Meiiscliwcrdnng (lottes, 1842; Bd. II. 207-251.)
Influence in Religious History 215
Accordinij^ to Dionysius, as understood by Baur,
God is tlic absolute Unity which stands contrasted
with the Many. The Many denotes the world of
concrete reality. Doubtless there is a process from
Unit}' to Multiplicity, affirmation and negation, but
this process takes place solely in the subjective
consciousness.
How, then, asks Baur, can this Areopa^^ite con-
ception of Deity be reconciled with the Christian
conception, with Avhich it appears to be in obvious
contradiction ?
The Arcopagite speaks often of a Triad, and dwells
on the Church's Doctrine of the Trinity. But the
terms which in his system represent the Godhead are
such as the super-good, the super-divine, the super-
essential. These terms represent an abstraction. If
any distinction exists, that distinction in no case
exists within the Deity, but only in the activities
which proceed from God as the super-essential Cause.
Distinctions exist in our subjective consciousness.
But they have no objective realit}'. If we call the
Divine Mystery God, or Life, or Essence, or Light, or
Word, we only mean thereby the influences which
emanate from that Mystery.
In Baur's o])inion, therefore, the Trinitarian con-
ception, as held in the Tradition of the Church, is in
the system of Dionysius reduced to little more than
names.
Baur's criticism on the Areopagite's notion of Incarnation is not less severe.
The System of Dionysius allows no distinctive and
peculiar Incarnation at all. It allows no special
and new relationships, but only a continual becoming.
The Incarnation is, in the Areopagite's view, nothing
more than the process from Unity to Multiplicity ;
which is essential to Its conception of Deit}\ If
Dionysius speaks of the God-man as an individual,
2i6 DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE
that is either a mere concession to Tradition, or a
lack of clearness in its own conception. The union
of God with an individual such as the Christian
Tradition postulates cannot, in Baur's opinion, be
reconciled with the system of the Areopagite.
A second modern opinion on the theological teach-
ing of Dionysius is given by that singularly clear
and sceptical Frenchman, Vacherot, in his Histoire
de FEcole d'Alexandrie, 185 1, Tome III. pp. 23 ff.
Vacherot considers the group of treatises ascribed
to Dionysius to be the most curious monument of
neo-Platonist influence over Christian theology.
Philosophy affirms that negations concerning Deity
are true on condition that they express nothing
definite. In the author's opinion Theology cannot
really give any positive instruction. Dionysius is under-
stood by Vacherot to teach that mystical theology is
the suppression of definite thought. To know God
we must cease to think of Him. The devout is
lost in a mystical obscurity of ignorance. Nothing
definite can in reality be said of Deity.
In Vacherot's opinion the orthodoxy of the Areopagite is more than doubtful.
The Christian conception presents the living
personal self-conscious God, Creator and Father of
the world, in eternal inseparable relation with His
Son and His Spirit, a Trinity inaccessible in itself,
but manifested directly in Incarnation.
But in the conception of this neo-Platonist thinker
Deity is removed to an infinite distance from the
human soul, and the Trinity is reduced to a mere
abstraction. We are here far removed from the
genuine Christian theology.
Dionysius is to Vacherot a neo-Platonist philo-
sopher in disguise, who while going over to Christi-
anity retained his philosophic ideas which he adroitly
combined with the principles of his new belief.
Influence in Religious Ulstury 217
A third inotloni critic of Dionysius is the Lutheran
theologian, Isomer. Dorner was concerned only
with the bearing of the Arcopagite principles on
the doctrine of the Person of Christ.^
In Dorner's opinion the mystical Christology of
the Arcopagite "forms an important link of con-
nection between Monophysitism and the doctrine of
the Church." " Not that wc mean to affirm that the
Arcopagite was a declared Monophysite ; certainly,
however, that his entire mode of viewing the world
and God belong to this family."
With regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, Dorner
holds that on the principles of Dionysius '' seeing that
God is the One Who is at once in all and above all —
yea, outweighs the negation of the many by the
Divine Unity — all idea of distinct hypostasis in God
ought consistently to be renounced ; in the Super-
Essential God everthing sinks down into unity with-
out distinctions. Much is said, indeed, of the Many,
along with the One ; but the Trinity in God retains
merely a completely precarious position."
Dorner adds : " The result as far as Christology is
concerned is very plain ; after laying- down such
premises, it was impossible for the Arcopagite to
justify, either anthropologically or theologically, a
specific incarnation in one individual. If he taught
it at all, it was because he had adopted it from the
Creeds of the Church, and he was quite unable to
put himself into a sincere and true relation towards
it."
To these criticisms may be added the remarks of
a fourth modern writer, this time from the standpoint
of the Roman Church. Bach, in his very able
History of Dogma in the Middle Ages, says that,
in the works of the Arcopagite, Christ is frequently
treated in so idealistic a fashion that the concrete
* Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of Christy Div, IL i. 157 ff.
P
2i8 DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE
personality of the God-man is driven into the shade.
The mysticism of Dionysius is not founded on the
historical person of Christ, nor on the work of
Redemption as a fact once actualized in time.
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." ^ Dr.
Westcott went on to say of the Areopagite's prin-
ciples : " 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 per-
plexing 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 con-
sisted 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-
riatonism it is the philosophy which prevails, not with-
out serious results to the theology of the Church. His
greatest admirers appear to have employed him with
^ Westcolt, Rdigious Thought in the IVest^ p. i88.
Influence in Religious History 219
discretion ; to have balanced his statements with more
proportion, and to have read him in tlie hght of
stronj^ Cathoh'c 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.
Index to Text
AfiTinnalive Theology, 196
Bartholomew, 193
Clement, 141
Diflfeientiations in Deity, 67 ff.
Divine Names, 51-190
Elements of Divinity, 76, 83
Elymas, 157-158
Emanations, 79-80
Evil (Nature oO, 86 ff., 111-130
Fatherhood, 56
God as Goodness, 86 ff.
,, Light, 91-94
,, Beauty, 95 ff-
,, Love, 104
„ Being, 131 ff-
,, Life, 144
„ Wisdom, 146
,, Reason, 148-153
,, Power, 154
,, Righteousness, 158, 160
„ Great and Small, 162
,, Omnipotent, 169
„ Peace, 173-178
,, Holiness, 181
,, Perfection, 184
„ Unity, 185-190
Hierotheus, 76-83, 86-107 Hymns of Yearning, 107, iO«
Ignatius, 104
Illumination, 55, 58
Incarnation, 76
James, St., 84
Negative Theology, 196
Otit lines of Divinity, 51, 196, 1 97
Paul, St., 83 Peter, St., 84
Scriptures, 52, 53
Simplicity, 55
Super-essential, 52, 53, 54. S^j
59, 71, 139, 191
Super-excellent, 191
Super-intellectual, 52
Supra-Divine, 191
Symbolical Revelation, 56 ff.
Timothy, 191
Trinity, 56, 65, 66, 79, 191
Undifferenced Names of God, 65,
INDEX TO NOTES AND INTRODUCTION
Aquinas, 3, 81, 107, 143, 151,
171, 172, 212
Aristotle, 81, 92, lOl, 171
Augustine, 9, 10, 41, 42-65, 77,
Bach, 217
Baur, 214-216
Bergson, 143, 152, 195
Bernard de Rubeis, 213
Bernard, St., 165
Blake, 140
Bradley, 114, 192
Bronte, E., 186
Contemplation, 25, 30, 33
Damascenus, 211
Dante, 88, 107, 140, 173.
Dionysius, influence, 202-
writings, 47 Dorner, 217
Eckhart, 122, 181
Erigena, 3, 203-211
Evil, problem of, 20-25
Fox, George, 87
God as Unity, 65-80
,, Goodness, 86 130
„ Being, 131-143
,, Life, 144-146
,, Wisdom, 146 154
Power, 154-161
God as Great, 162-169
„ Almighty, 169-173
,, Peace, 1 73- 1 80
„ Holy, 181-183
,, Perfection, 184, 190
Godhead, 4-6, 6-19
Hierotheus, 107
Hugh of St. Victor, 212
Ignatius, St., 104 Inge, 29, 210, 211
John of the Cross, 103 Julian of Norwich, 102, 143
Lanssel, 213
Lateran, C. (649), 213
Le Bon, 109
Le (^uien, 213
Lotze, 192