^ De Dil. Deo, chap. x.
40 Dionysius the Areopagite
inadequately applied to It, as a fire may be termed
*' warm " from its results though its actual tempera-
ture is of an intenser kind than this would
imply. And the name of " Godhead," which belongs
to It more properly, is given It (says Dionysius)
merely because it is the Source of our deification.
Thus instead of arguing from God's Divinity to man's
potential divinity, Dionysius argues from the acquisi-
tion of actual divinity by certain men to God's Supra-
Divinity. This is only another way of saying that
God is but the highest Appearance or Manifestation
of the Absolute. And this (as was seen above) is
only another way of stating the orthodox and obvious
doctrine that all our notions of Ultimate Reality are
inadequate.
VIII. — The Scriptural Basis of Dionysius's
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 says ^ that the Pro-
logue of St. John's Gospel reveals the mysteries of
^ Com, 071 St. John, Tr. I. i : "For who can declare the Truth as it actually is? I venture to say, my brothers, perhaps John hinisell has not declared it as it actually is, but, even he, only according to his powers. For he was a man sptaking about God — one inspired, indeed, by (Jod but still a man. liecause 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 possil)le for a man."
Scriptural 1l\Sis 41
Eternity not as they actuall)' are but as human
thoui^ht can c^rasp them.^ The neo-lMatonism oi
Dion)'sius does not invalidate Scripture any more
than that of Plotinus invah'dates the writings of Plato,
Dionysius merely says that there is an unplumbed
Mystery behind the words of Scripture and stream-
ing; throu£;h 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 P'^atherhood of God cannot be recon-
ciled with the doctrine of a Supra- Personal Godhead,
the answer is near at hand.^ For the Pagan Plotinus,
whose doctrine is similar to that of Dionysius, gives
this very name of " P^ather " to his Supra-Personal
Absolute — or rather to that Aspect of It which comes
into touch with the human soul.^ Moreover in the
most rigidly orthodox Christian theology God the
^ [What Augustine says is that St. John, l)ecause 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 questional)le whether Augustine would have accepted the statement that the Prologue of St. John's Gospel does not record the mysteries of Eternity ''as they actttally are.''' Augustine had a profound belief that God as He is in Himself corresponds with God as fie is revealed. — Ed.]
2 [The writer argues that Christ and Plotinus both employ the same expression, Father, to the Deity. Put 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 P'atherhood 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 IJeity. The Semitic conception of the Godhead was not that of a neo-Platonist metaphysician.— Ei).]
^ e.g. Enn. I. 6, 8 : "We have a country whence we came, and we have a Father there."
42 Dionysius the Areopagite
Father is not a Personality. St. Aui^ustine, for
instance/ teaches that the " Persons " of the Trinity
are Elements whose true nature is unknown to us.^
They correspond however, he says, to certain elements
in our individual personalities, and hence the human
^ [What Augustine says is that we do not speak of three essences anrl three Gods, but of one essence and one God. Why then do we speak of three Persons and not of one Person ?
" Why, therefore, do we not call these three together one Person, or one Essence and one God ; we say three Persons, while we do not say three Gods or three Essences ; unless it be because we wish some one word to serve for that meaning whereby the Trinity is understood, that we might not be altogether silent when asked, what three, while we confessed that they are three?"
I. Augustine's distinction is between the genus and the species. Thus Abraham Isaac and Jacob are three specimens of one genus. What he contends is that this is not the case in the Deity. 2. The essence of the Deity is unfolded in these Three. And " there is nothing else of that Essence beside the Trinity." " In no way can any other person whatever exist out of the same essence " whereas in mankind there can be more than three. 3. Moreover the three specimens of the genus man, Abraham Isaac and Jacob, are more, collectively, than any one of them by himself. " But in God it is net so ; for the Father, the Son and tlie Ploly Spirit together is not a greater essence than the Father alone or the Son alone." What he means is that the Trinity is not to be explained by spacial metaphors {De Trin. vii. 11).
Augustine then is not teaching thnt the Persons of the Trinity are Elements whose true nature is unknown to us. He certainly does teach that Personality in the Godhead must exist otherwise than vvliat we find under human limitations. ]?ut Augustine's conception of Deity is not the Supra-Personal Absolute. To him the Trinity wns not confined to the plane of Manifestation. We have only to remember how he regards Sabellianism to prove this. Moreover, who can doubt that Augustine's })sychological conception of God as the Lover, the Beloved and the Love which in itself is personal, represented to his mind the innermost reality and ultimate essence of the Deity? God is not for Augustine a supra-personal something in which both unity and trinity are transcended. '1 he Trinity of Manifestation is for Augustine that which corresponds with and is identical with the very essential being of Deity. God is not merely Three as known to us but Three as He is in Himself apart from all self-revelation. — En.]
^ De IViri. vii. ii : " Why . . . do we speak of Three ' Persons' . . . exce])t because we need some one term to explain the meaning of the word ' Trinity,' so as not to be entirely without an answer to the question : ' Three What ? ' when wc confess God to be Three."
Scriptural T3asis 43
soul is created (he tells us) not in the imaj^c of one
Person in the Godhead but in the image of the whole
Trinit}'.^ Thus he by implication denies that God
the Leather is, in the ordinary sense of the word, a
Personal it)-. And the teaching of St. Thomas
Aquinas is very similar.- It may, perhaps, even be
said that the germ of the most startling doctrines
which Dionysius expounds may be actually found in
Scripture. A state, for instance, which is not know-
ledge and yet is not ignorance, is described by St.
Paul when he says that Christians " know God or
rather are known of Him."^ This is the mental
attitude of Unknowing. For the mind is quiescent
and emptied of its own powers and so receives a
knowledge the scope and activity of which is outside
itself in God. And in speaking of an ecstatic experi-
ence which he himself had once attained St. Paul
seems to suggest that he was, on that occasion, outside
of himself in such a manner as hardly, in the ordinary
sense, to retain his own identity.'^ Moreover he
suggests that the redeemed and perfected creation is
at last to be actually merged in God (n-a fj 6 Qeo^ xa
ndvia ev TidoLv^). And the doctrine of Deification is
certainly, in the germ, Scriptural. For as Christ is
the Son of God so are we to be Sons of God,^ and
Christ is reported actually to have based His own
claims to Deity on the potential Divinity of the
human soul.^ Moreover we are to reign with Him ^
and are, in a manner passing our present apprehen-
sion, to be made like Him when we see Him as
He is.»
Now all the boldest statements of Dionysius about
^ De Trin. vii. 12. ^ Stnnma^ Pars I. Q. xlv. Art. \ii.
^ Gal. iv. 9. '* 2 Cor. xii. 2-5.
'" I Cor. XV. 28. ^ New Testament, /rtci-;'//;.
' John X. 34 36. ^ 2 Tini. ii. 12 ; Rev. i. 6; v. 10 ; xx. 6.
^ I John iii. 2.
44 Dionysius the Areopagite
the ultimate glory for which the human soul is
destined are obviously true of Christ, and as applied
to Him, they would be a mere commentary on the
words "I and the Father are One." ^ Therefore if
Christ came to impart His Life to us so that the
things which are His by Nature should be ours by-
Grace, it follows that the teaching of Dionysius is in
harmony with Scripture so long as it is made to rest
on the Person and Work of Christ. And, though
Dionysius does not emphasize the Cross as much as
could be wished, yet he certainly holds that Christ is
the Channel through which the power of attainment
is communicated to us. It must not be forgotten
that he is writing as a Christian to Christians, and so
assumes the Work of Christ as a revealed and
experienced Fact. And since he holds that every
individual person and thing has its pre-existent
limits ordained in the Super-Essence, therefore he
holds that the Human Soul of Christ has Its pre-
existent place there as the Head of the whole
creation. That is what he means by the phrase
'' Super-Essential Jesus," and that is what is taught
in the quotation from Hierotheus already alluded
to. No doubt the lost works of Dionysius dealt more
fully with this subject, as indeed he hints himself.
And if, through this scanty sense of the incredible
evil which darkens and pollutes the world, he does
not in the present treatise lay much emphasis upon
the Saviour's Cross, yet he gives us definite teaching
on the kindred Mystery of the Incarnation.
IX. — Conclusion
A few words on this matter and the present sketch is almost done. The Trinity (as was said) is Super-
' John X. 30,
Conclusion 45
Essential or Sui)ni-rcrsonal. It is that Side of tlic
Godhead which is turned towards the plane of
Creation. Each " Person " possesses the whole Super-
Essence and yet Each in a different manner. For
the Father is originative and the other Two" Persons"
derivative. The entire Super-Essence timelessly wells
up in the Father and so passes on (as it were), time-
less and entire, to the Son and Spirit. Thus the
Second " Person " of the Trinity possesses eternally
(like the other Two " Persons " in the Godhead)
nothing but this Formless Radiance. But when the
Second "Person" becomes Incarnate this Formless
and Simple Radiance focuses Itself (shall we say ?)
in the complex lens of a Human Individuality. Or
perhaps Christ's Humanity should rather be compared
to a prism which breaks that single white radiance
into the iridescent colours of manifold human virtues.
T hence there streams forth a glory which seeks to
kindle in our hearts an answering fire whereby being
wholly consumed we may pass up out of our finite
being to find within the Super-Essence our pre-
determined Home.
Such is, in outline, the teaching of this difficult
writer who, though he tortured language to express
the truth which struggled within him for utterance,
yet has often been rashly condemned through being
misunderstood. The charge of Pantheism that has
been laid at his door is refuted by the very extrava-
gance of the terms in which he asserts the Transcend-
ence of the Godhead. For the title " Super-Essence "
itself implies a Mystery which is indeed the ultimate
Goal of the creatures but is not at present their actual
plane of being. It implies a Height which, though it
be their own, they yet can reach through nothing
else than a complete self-renunciation. With greater
show of reason Dionysius has been accused of
hostility to civilization and external things. Yet here