Excerpta ex Martini Delrio Vindiciis Areopagiticis

From Chapter VIII.

How it came to pass that for so many years these Works of Dionysius lay hidden.

This ambiguity now remains: for to some it has scarcely seemed credible that for so many centuries the books of Blessed Dionysius the Areopagite, so famous and apostolic a man, could have been hidden; and it is suspicious that they emerged so suddenly out of such long-lasting darkness and hidden recesses. Nor is the question new, nor untouched by the defenders of St. Dionysius; they have rendered very suitable causes. The first is that of Suidas and Anastasius the Librarian, which John Sarrazin set forth in these words in his letter to Odo abbot of Saint-Denis: "Because Catholics were bound by the adjuration of St. Dionysius not to reveal his writings to the unskilful multitude, but only to the learned, as exceeding the capacity of many: when the learned, however, gradually failed (chiefly through the fault of those, as I suppose, who confer the prelacies of the churches upon any favourites of their own, and reject men of letters), they did not have anyone to whom they might commit them. Perhaps for that reason also Jerome did not reckon the most excellent Areopagite among the ecclesiastical writers, because he did not think his books, as being transcendent, appointed for common knowledge." Thus therefore this is the first cause, the mist and obscurity of the writing, which few were able to dispel and penetrate with understanding. For hence arose the fewness of copyists and the rarity of readers; which was followed by the sloth and neglect of those despising things not understood, as we see happen, and as the blessed Nazianzen reproached Julian the Apostate with doing. That there were always some who knew the books will be clear from what follows; wherefore they lay hidden unknown not to all, but to most, which is the less to be wondered at since we know it to have happened to most writers. Moreover, that adjuration of St. Dionysius is contained in On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 1, at the beginning and end; On the Divine Names, chapter 1; On Mystical Theology, chapter 1.

Where note that St. Dionysius everywhere impresses upon Timothy that he should communicate these writings only to prelates like himself, and keep them like certain sacred mysteries inaccessible to the common crowd and inviolate. At which no one will wonder who is not ignorant how studiously in the primitive Church the mysteries of the sacraments and sacred ceremonies and religion were wont to be hidden from uninitiated and profane men

might lie hid, lest that which is holy should be laid open to dogs, or spiritual pearls be cast before swine. Wherefore, although Origen, Eusebius, and St. Jerome, in weaving their catalogue of ecclesiastical writers, make no mention of the Works of St. Dionysius, it does not follow thence that these Works did not yet exist at that time, or were omitted by them out of ignorance; nay rather, they must be thought to have kept silence concerning the same out of religious zeal, lest, while their catalogues came into the hands of all men everywhere, if mention were made in them of these books (which the Church and Dionysius himself wished to be hidden from the more uncultivated no otherwise than the mysteries that are most accurately explained in them), a handle should be afforded to the curious for investigating them more eagerly, as we ever strive after what is forbidden, and consequently for divulging both them and the sacred mysteries contained in them to profane and impure men, contrary to the precept of the Lord and the mind of the Church.

Now this seems to me to have been the truest and most probable reason why the Works of St. Dionysius were not formerly reckoned in the common catalogue of writers. The epistle of Pope Nicholas to Charles the Bald, which Baronius mentions in vol. X, under the year of Christ 878, confirms this opinion of mine. For when John Scotus Erigena had studied at Athens, and there, as he was of an inquisitive disposition, had obtained by searching some Greek copy of St. Dionysius, he secretly transcribed it with his own hand and brought it with him into Gaul, and having translated it into Latin himself, dedicated it to Charles the Bald and published it. On learning this, Nicholas the Supreme Pontiff bore it ill, as was fitting, that under the patronage of the King of France the Works of St. Dionysius, which hitherto had been preserved in the Church among the sacred prelates like some sacred treasure, had been made public property, and that this had been done and attempted with rash daring without consulting him and without seeking his leave at all, and he admonished King Charles in these words: "It has been reported to our apostolate that the Work of the blessed Dionysius the Areopagite, which he wrote in Greek speech concerning the divine names, or the heavenly orders, a certain man, John, a Scot by race, has lately translated into Latin. Which according to custom ought to have been sent to us, and approved by our judgement," etc. By which words the Supreme Pontiff not obscurely signifies that those Works are by St. Dionysius the Areopagite and ought not to have been published without the special and express approbation of the Roman Pontiff. Assuredly he would by no means have written this to the King of France,

if the Church had wished these works also, like the works of the rest of the Fathers, to come into the hands of all men everywhere. Whence it is plain how frivolous is that negative argument upon which the adversaries chiefly rely, namely: St. Jerome and the other ancients make no mention of the works of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, therefore they are supposititious. For although in itself an argument of this kind from negative authority concludes nothing according to logicians, who would not see that this is much more confirmed by the fact that so many reasons are at hand why the aforesaid authors did not enter these Works of St. Dionysius into the common catalogue?

Another cause also the same Anastasius the Librarian gives, when he testifies that the opinion of the Greeks is true, who assert that the books of Dionysius were hidden by the ancient heretics for many centuries until through a certain Peter the Roman (as Maximus is author) they were brought forth from the Library of the Roman Church (which was ever the faithful guardian of the best copies) and carried away into Greece; and thus little by little those books became generally known, which previously few Greeks had known, and scarcely any Latins. Nor is it to be wondered at that a Greek author was manifested to the Greeks by the Latin Church; because he who at first was bishop of the Athenians, and afterwards of the Parisians, having been sent into Gaul by blessed Peter, left behind in the same place where he left his body, after suffering martyrdom, his books also, which were carried from Gaul to Rome. The authors who thought that he was also bishop of the Corinthians seem to have confused him with the other Dionysius of Corinth. Three things make this perfidy of the ancient heretics most probable to me. First, because we now see the Lutherans and Calvinists striving so hard to snatch the same books out of the hands of men, and to bury them in oblivion. Secondly, because I do not find these books cited by any heretics until the times of the Monothelites, who first abused them to establish their own error, as is plain from the Roman council under Martin I and the Constantinopolitan council in Trullo, in the time of the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, concerning which hereafter. Thirdly, because the same Anastasius writes in his Preface to the Areopagite: "That a great man (as he calls him) and preceptor of apostolic life, Constantine the philosopher, committed this whole codex of blessed Dionysius to memory, and was wont to commend to his hearers how much profit its marrow contained, and to say: That if it had happened to the saints, namely our former instructors, who scarcely and in a manner with a club beheaded the heretics, to have Dionysius, without doubt they would have slaughtered them with a sharp sword; hinting assuredly by such a saying that those whose mouth they stopped more laboriously, and perhaps more slowly, they would have caused to be silent more easily and swiftly." Which thing Michael Syncellus the martyr also testified concerning the Arians, in the Encomium of our martyr: and concerning the Innovators of our time all can testify who have read Dionysius and known their heresies. Therefore do these men now contrive so many things to wrest from us this divine discourse sharper than any sword: but, as the saying goes, it is not easy to wrest the club from Hercules.

A third cause Suidas and Pachymeres give, drawn from the ambition of the philosophers (which Tertullian assigns to the heretics as Fathers). For they say that these men, having perceived the depth and wisdom of the books of Dionysius, especially Proclus, hid them to the best of their power, and usurped from them the more celebrated sentences as their own, that they themselves might be held the authors of such illustrious discourses. That the same thing happened to the beginning of the Gospel of St. John, the great Basil complains. The same thing concerning the books of Dionysius and of other ancients Marsilio Ficino laments in On the Christian Religion, ch. 22, writing thus: "I certainly have found that the chief mysteries of Numenius, Philo, Plotinus, Iamblichus, and Proclus were received from John, Paul, Hierotheus, and Dionysius the Areopagite. For whatever concerning the divine mind, and the angels, and the rest of the things pertaining to theology, they uttered magnificently,

they manifestly usurped from them."

That the same thing was noted after the manner of an observation by a certain ancient Greek in the Scholia of St. Maximus of the manuscript Dionysian Codex, Lansselius remarks in these words:

From the Scholia of a certain most industrious man.

It must be known that certain of the philosophers without, and above all Proclus, have oftentimes used the contemplations of the blessed Dionysius, and even his very bare expressions themselves. And one may take a suspicion from this, that the more ancient of the philosophers at Athens, having appropriated his treatises, as he mentions in the present book, hid them away, so that they themselves might appear the fathers of his divine oracles; and by the dispensation of God the present treatise has now come to light for the refutation of their vainglory and unscrupulousness. And that it is customary with them to appropriate what is ours, the divine Basil teaches upon the text, In the beginning was the Word, upon the expression itself speaking thus: "These things I know many of those outside the word of truth, who boast greatly in worldly wisdom, have both admired and dared to incorporate into their own compositions. For the devil is a thief, and blabs out what is ours to his own prophets." And so much for him. And since Numenius the Pythagorean openly says, "For what is Plato, but Moses speaking Attic?" no one can deny it, since he is not one of ours, but of the adversaries, as Eusebius also, who presided over Caesarea of Palestine, testifies, that not now only, but even before the coming of Christ, it was customary for those outside wisdom to steal what is ours.

From the Scholia of a certain most diligent man.

It must be known that certain external philosophers, and especially Proclus, often used the speculations of blessed Dionysius, nay even the mere expressions themselves: whence from this one may suspect that the more ancient philosophers at Athens, claiming his works for themselves, as he mentions in the present book, hid them away, that they themselves might seem the authors and fathers of his divine books; but by divine dispensation the present work has now been shown forth to refute their vanity and wickedness. Moreover, that it was familiar to them to usurp what is ours, the divine Basil teaches upon that text: "In the beginning was the Word," discoursing thus upon that expression: "These things I know many of those who, devoid of the word of truth, glory in worldly wisdom, both admire and dare to insert into their own writings, for the devil is a thief, and whispers what is ours to his own interpreters through fables." And thus indeed he. And when Eumenius the Pythagorean openly says this: For what is Plato, unless Moses speaking Attic? no one can deny it, since he is not ours, but of the adversaries, even as Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, testifies, that not only now, but even before the coming of Christ, the profane wise men had it as a custom to steal what is ours.

From Chapter IX.

An argument drawn from the books of Dionysius themselves, to prove that the Works are genuine.

Now see whether our dart be more piercing, twofold only, yet tipped with good steel and well fitted with a thong, taken from the quiver of right argumentation, sharpened on the Lydian whetstone, which the more prudent critics have ever applied to deciding controversies of this sort. There is nothing in the whole work to indicate that it is falsely ascribed to the blessed Areopagite; on the contrary, all things persuade the opposite. Judgement concerning the author of a book depends on the style, the matter, the method, and the testimonies of others. The testimonies will be brought forward in the following chapters; those other points are to be weighed in this chapter. If you look at the style, nothing is more sublime than it, nothing breathes equally antiquity and the apostolic age, and the energy of sacred philosophy: nor do the adversaries deny it. The method is simple, and such as those earlier ecclesiastical writers used, mingling mystical contemplation with practice, concealing more art than it displays. If the dignity of the matter,

and the sublimity of the theological treatment, the depth, the most hidden mysteries you weigh; you will find a revealed, heavenly doctrine, equal to the grand words, and most worthy of a disciple of Paul. For Luther, Whitaker, and Scaliger, in censuring it, understood it no more than I do Japanese or Ethiopic letters: they are like frantic men, who think and pronounce that all others are out of their senses, and that they alone are wise. With the best right Syncellus the martyr calls our author most divinely wise among theologians, most all-holy among hierarchs, most brilliant among martyrs, and other things of this sort, running through the single books of Dionysius.

I could wish that most eloquent Encomium by Syncellus to be read, which alone ought to suffice for blunting the petulance and pride of the Innovators. Next, the author of the book himself most openly manifests both who he is and his own age, and professes himself a disciple of blessed Paul and of Hierotheus, in On the Divine Names, ch. 2 and 3, and writes that he was present at the funeral of the blessed Virgin Mary, in the same book, ch. 3, and likewise that, while Christ was suffering, he observed that wonderful eclipse of the sun with Apollophanes the sophist, in Epistle 7 to Polycarp, which eclipse Phlegon, Eusebius, Maximus, Syncellus, and others also have mentioned. He relates that he was received in hospitality by Carpus in Crete, in the Epistle to Demophilus, of which Carpus there is mention in the Apostle (2 Tim. 4:13). He teaches that Timothy was his fellow disciple under Paul the master, in On the Divine Names, ch. 4. At his same request he composed the work On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and another work, On the Divine Names, ch. 2, On the Divine Names. He writes Epistles to blessed John the evangelist, foretelling to him his liberation from exile and their mutual sight of one another, Epistle 10; to Titus, Timothy's and his own fellow disciple, Epistle 9, to whom blessed Paul also wrote; likewise to Polycarp, bishop of the Smyrnaeans, whose age is plain because he makes mention of that sophist Apollophanes, Epistle 7. Blessed Ignatius also makes mention of Polycarp, and blessed Irenaeus teaches that he was a disciple of blessed John. He writes four epistles to Gaius the therapeut, which Gaius blessed Luke names (Acts 19:29), and to him St. John sent the third canonical Epistle, and perhaps Paul makes mention of him (Rom. 16:23). He uses also the testimonies only of illustrious men of that century, as of Saint Paul the Apostle, and of Hierotheus, whom some reckon to have been a Spaniard, in the places cited; and of the blessed Apostle Bartholomew, in Mystical Theology, ch. 1, and of Justus Joseph, in ch. 2 of On the Divine Names, of whom mention is made in Acts (Acts 1:23); of St. Ignatius the martyr, as was said before; and of Clement the philosopher, who whether he was Actius Clemens to whom Pliny the Younger writes, as Baronius thinks, or Clement the Roman Pope, as Pachymeres wills in his Paraphrase, it is established that he was very devoted to philosophy, from his epistle to James the brother of the Lord; and there is nothing to compel us to have recourse to Clement of Alexandria. He cites therefore a certain Clement more ancient than the Stromatist, in ch. 5 of On the Divine Names. Moreover, in ch. 3 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy he indicates that still in his own time the faithful in the Church were accustomed, with one precenting, all following after to sing, without the alternation of choirs, which blessed Ignatius first introduced at Antioch, and under the Emperor Constantine that custom was derived into all the Churches, as from Basil the Great and Socrates the historian Gilbert Génébrard noted in vol. II of his Chronography, in the 1st century. There are also not a few other things of this kind looking to the same point, but these will have sufficed for one studious of the truth.

What says the refuter to these things? The face of the man! He boasts with great gaping that all these things are fictitious and supposititious. Presumption favours us, and transfers the burden of proof onto him who strives with rash contention to weaken such clear testimonies by suspicions alone. Most weightily and most truly did Cardinal Baronius pronounce: "That it is unworthy and impious to suspect that so sublime and excellent a theologian, and one in mind divinely

illuminated, walking through the hinges of heaven, searching out the choirs of angels, approaching the throne of the Divinity, and exploring its secrets—that he himself, I say, like a stage-player on the scene, with a mask put on over his face, was playing a part, and wished mendaciously to feign himself another than he was, to counterfeit other persons, and wished to compose many falsehoods which he would have received by all as true and certain, and that to the great detriment of his own glory. For that immortal glory which he would have won for himself from his plainly divine writings, he would have seemed vainly to squander by concealing his own name and putting on another's; which glory if we should say he despised, as becomes a wise man, certainly to tell many lies was not the part of a wise man, especially of him who, treating of heavenly and divine things, ought to abhor and keep far from even the slightest suspicion of falsehood." Thus far he, adducing and gathering into one so many and such evident and pregnant reasons, that no one of sound mind ought any longer to gainsay them.

From Chapter X and the following.

Testimonies of the Fathers; and first from the blessed martyr Ignatius.

Guillaume Budé, the most diligent scholar of Greek wisdom of his time, had written on the margin of a Greek copy of Dionysius the Areopagite many testimonies of the Fathers, by which he was induced to deem these little works of the holy father genuine; which passages Guillaume Morel, Royal Printer in Greek, presented to us in the Paris edition in the year 1562, at which time as a boy I was devoting my study to those letters. I am compelled to repeat them here now, that the obstinacy of the adversaries may more clearly appear; but I shall add to them many others. For the rest, some of Budé's testimonies are open, others more obscure; which last I shall include in what follows. For I shall divide the array of proofs from testimonies into many companies, as it were, of witnesses, on account of their multitude. This proof from testimonies has always seemed to the orthodox to suffice, even in deciding questions of faith; which we always see determined in councils by the tradition of our ancestors and the judgement of the Catholic Fathers. Upon this I rely, and I value it more highly than any upstart subtlety. I come to the matter.

Budé relied first upon a somewhat obscure, yet probable conjecture from the writings of blessed Ignatius, and likewise from the writings of Nazianzen, Jerome, and Chrysostom. He held that the blessed martyr Ignatius had taken certain things from this work in his Epistle to the Trallians, when he writes: "For although I am in bonds, and am able to understand the heavenly things, and the angelic ranks, and the variations of archangels and hosts, and the differences of powers and lordships, and the distinctions of thrones and authorities, and the greatnesses of the ages, and the pre-eminences of the cherubim and seraphim, and the sublimity of the Spirit, and the kingdom of the Lord, and above all the incomparability of almighty God," etc., by which words it may appear that he not only alluded to the things handed down by blessed Dionysius, but even observed the very manner of speaking itself. For the supercelestial things, and the angelic orders, and the differences of archangels and hosts, the distinctions of powers and lordships, the distances of thrones and authorities, the magnificences of the ages, and the excellences of the seraphim and cherubim, he described in ch. 7 of the Celestial Hierarchy; the sublimity of the Spirit, the kingdom of the Lord, and beyond all things the incomparability of almighty God, he divinely set forth in the book On the Divine Names, ch. 12. From which things I gather two points: in the first place, that Luther was blasphemous, who did not shrink from saying that Dionysius in writing of these things was a doting old man and a mere dreamer, whereas we see all the same things confirmed by blessed Ignatius; and in the second place, that this was the doctrine, sense, and manner of speaking of the apostolic time; and since Ignatius only touched

lightly upon those things which Dionysius explained at such length, it ought to be judged not that the latter took from the former, but rather that the former borrowed from the latter.

Testimonies from Gregory Nazianzen, Jerome, and Chrysostom.

From these also Budé argued, thinking that Saint Jerome in Book II Against Jovinian received the series of the angelic orders from our Dionysius, in these words: "Why are there in the kingdom of heaven archangels, angels, thrones, domination, powers, cherubim, and seraphim, and every name that is named, not only in this present world, but also in that which is to come? Without cause is there diversity of names where there is no diversity of merits. An archangel is assuredly the archangel of other lesser angels: and powers and dominations have other things through which they exercise power, and subject things over which they hold dominion." If you say that Jerome borrowed from Paul himself, as to the names I shall readily assent, not as to that subordination which he added, and on account of which he subjoins: "This is in the heavens, this is in the mystery of God, lest after your wonted manner you mock and deride us if we set down emperors, and prefects, and counts, and tribunes, and centurions, and maniples, and the rest of the order of military service." I do not think that he looked to anything else than to the things handed down and most copiously explained by blessed Dionysius in the whole book On the Celestial Hierarchy, especially ch. 6.

St. Gregory the Theologian in his book On the Nativity wrote to this effect: "And so indeed the Holy of holies, which are covered by the seraphim, and are glorified by three sanctifications that unite into one lordship and deity: even as a certain other of the elders has philosophized both most beautifully and most sublimely." Who is that? Not Isaiah, for he would not call him "a certain other of the elders." Nicetas in his Annotations took it of blessed Athanasius; but neither does it seem that he would so call him when scarcely deceased. More probable is the opinion of Budé, who holds that blessed Dionysius the Areopagite is signified, who may deservedly be called so, and who philosophized most beautifully and most sublimely concerning these things in Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 7. Assuredly that Gregory Nazianzen was not only an assiduous reader, but a studious imitator of our Dionysius, was held by that best and most learned man Billy de Prunay, Abbot of St. Michel, in Book I of his Sacred Observations, ch. 23, to whom anyone, I believe, will grant a taste for Greek letters.

Certainly on account of the sublimity of those writings, blessed Chrysostom in the last book of his Sermons (thus Anastasius the Librarian cites him in his epistle to King Charles)—Chrysostom, I say, called our Dionysius the bird of heaven, the winged creature of heaven, because on a wing not fearing to be loosed, uplifted by the gentle breeze of divine grace, he raised himself even unto the throne of the Divinity, above the cherubim and seraphim.

Testimonies from Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria.

Among the works of Origen Adamantius in vol. II there are extant several homilies on various passages of the New Testament. In the first of them it is written: "For in Him, as the divine mouth speaks, we live, and move, and have our being (Acts 17:28): and, as the great Dionysius the Areopagite says, the being of all things is the superessence and divinity." You have the passage in our author in On the Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 4: "For the being of all things is the Divinity above being." If anyone denies that this homily is Origen's, he certainly cannot deny that it belongs to a most ancient writer, since Rufinus, or someone else, translated it from the Greek as Origen's. A later translator could have added something of his own to Origen, as we know was not seldom done; for mention is made in it of the Arians, who are younger than Origen: at least it will belong to some ancient anonymous Father.

At almost the same time at which Origen lived, blessed Dionysius of Alexandria flourished, according to some a hearer of Origen: that he wrote scholia on these little works of Dionysius the Areopagite is testified by Anastasius the Sinaite, Patriarch of Antioch, in the book which he calls Hodegos, and by Maximus the martyr on ch. 5 of the Celestial Hierarchy: "Whence they are refuted who have tried to attribute these little works to Dionysius of Alexandria." But why did Eusebius make no mention of these scholia of Dionysius of Alexandria? Following his own purpose, lest even so he should point out the books of the Areopagite. An evil mind betrayed itself because he kept silent about the writings of Dionysius of Alexandria in which Arius was punished so many years beforehand by a preliminary judgement of condemnation; on the other hand, he diligently made mention of those writings in which, disputing sharply against Sabellius, he seemed to certain Catholics to favour Arianism, not out of malice, but from incautious fervour against his adversary, as Basil the Great accuses him in Epistle 41 to Maximus the philosopher, which begins: "The images of souls." Therefore Dionysius of Alexandria, and Anastasius and Maximus who followed him, held these books as Areopagitic. For if Dionysius of Alexandria had held them for books of Dionysius of Corinth, Anastasius and Maximus would by no means have kept silent about that: as it is, they sufficiently indicate what I have said. Moreover, between Dionysius of Alexandria and Dionysius of Corinth there did not intervene a hundred years, so that it is not probable that the former composed scholia on the books of the latter. Let the suspicion therefore cease concerning Dionysius of Corinth as author, whom, a holy martyr of God, it is incredible to have wished thus under a mask to mock the Church of Christ. Yet even though the works were by Dionysius of Corinth, they would be esteemed of an antiquity of more than fourteen hundred years: but they are not his, as I have said. Finally, Eusebius and Hilduin testify that Dionysius of Corinth in his epistle to the Athenians made mention of our Dionysius, to whom he would have feared to ascribe things concerning which he would then so easily have been convicted.

From blessed Cyril of Alexandria, and blessed Maximus, monk and martyr.

Greece has scarcely given us a more learned man than blessed Cyril of Alexandria; that he borrowed certain things from the books of blessed Dionysius the Areopagite is testified by Liberatus the African, whose words I shall give below. I did not take the trouble to seek the passages in Saint Cyril, because I lack Greek copies, and I do not sufficiently trust the Latin ones; since I am aware that heretical translators conducted themselves after their wonted manner in the version of blessed Cyril. A great part also of the works of Cyril has perished, in which the things that Liberatus says could have been contained.

Blessed Maximus, monk, philosopher, and martyr, in Discourse 57 of his Theological Chapters, adduced from our Areopagite the passage: "Now that which is wholly deprived of the good, nowhere in any way either was, or is, or will be, or can be;" you have it in On the Divine Names, ch. 4, § 20: "And that which is in every way deprived of the good, nowhere in any wise either was, or is, or will be, or can be." The same wrote scholia on all the books of Dionysius the Areopagite, which we have subjoined to the text. The same, in his disputation against Pyrrhus the Monothelite, Patriarch of Constantinople, whereby he converted him from heresy to the Catholic faith, cited our Dionysius's Epistle to Gaius the therapeut. The same in his Ecclesiastical Mystagogy adjudges these books to the Areopagite. Now that Maximus was a supreme man; whose holiness his deeds, and whose knowledge of divine and human wisdom all the writers of that time deservedly celebrated, and very many books written by him testify; many of which Photius recorded, and Baronius more in his Annals, vol. VIII, under the year of Christ 657, to whom I refer you, reader. Many little works of the same Maximus against the Monothelites have lately come forth from the translation of our Francisco Torres, which I have not yet read. See below.

Testimonies of the two Anastasiuses, and of a certain uncertain Athanasius.

The testimony of Anastasius the Sinaite in the Hodegos I have already cited before: who lived under the Emperor Justinian I, most renowned in the praise of holiness and learning, and an unconquered pillar of the Church against the heretics of his time, as Theophanes, Evagrius, and others teach. Let there be added also his second testimony from Book VII on the Hexaemeron, rendered into Latin in these words by Hervet: "The most celebrated, therefore, and apostolic initiate of divine things, Dionysius, says in his most wise theology that God is called in Greek Theos, from the fact that He theorei, contemplates and beholds, and Lord, Kyrios, from the fact that He kyrieuei, holds lordship." Which is not slightly altered from chapter 12 of On the Divine Names, as in § 2: "Wherefore also lordship is from authority (kyros), both the lordly and that which holds lordship. And Deity is the providence that beholds all things, and in all-perfect goodness runs round and holds together all things, and fills them with itself, and transcends all things that enjoy its providence." That is: Wherefore lordship in Greek, with its name derived from kyros, is the same as firm and making firm or ratifying. And Deity, in Greek theotes, is the same as the all-beholding providence, in all-manner of goodness surveying and holding together all things, and filling them with itself, and surpassing all things that enjoy its providence.

Moreover, Anastasius of Nyssa composed certain lengthy questions on Holy Scripture, far different from the other shorter ones that are wont to be ascribed to blessed Anastasius of Alexandria. In them he cited many passages of the ancients, and among them certain testimonies of our blessed Dionysius the Areopagite, one lengthy one in Question 32, which Gentian Hervet translates thus: "From Dionysius, concerning those who have fallen asleep holily: Now I rightly know, following the divine Oracles, that each one will have the lot given to him. For God shut up against him, says the Lord, and each one shall receive through the body according as are the things which he has done, whether good or evil. And that the prayers of the righteous also, even in this life and not only after death, work only towards those who are worthy of sacred prayers, the sacred traditions of the divine Oracles teach us. For what did Samuel profit Saul? What did the prayers of the prophet profit the Hebrew people? Therefore the divine pontiff is, as the sacred Oracles say, the declarer of the justifications of God. For he is the angel or messenger of the Lord God Almighty. He has learned certainly from the Oracles given by God that to those who have lived holily a most bright and divine life is rendered according to their merits by a most just and divine balance, the clemency and benignity of God overlooking through goodness the stains that have been branded upon them by human infirmity; seeing that, as the divine Oracles say, no one is clean from filth. These things indeed the pontiff knows to be promised by the true Oracles; and he asks that these things may be done, and that sacred retributions may be rendered to those who have lived holily, at the same time benignly conforming himself to the imitation of God, asking gifts and graces for others no otherwise than for himself, and knowing likewise that the promises of God are infallible, he openly declares to those present also that those things which are asked of it by sacred right will assuredly come to pass for those who have consummated their life according to God. For neither will the pontiff, the interpreter and declarer of divine justification, be able to ask for those things which are not most pleasing to God, and divinely promised to be given by Him (wherefore these things are not promised to the profane who have fallen asleep), not only because he would depart from the order of a prophet or interpreter, and because he would insolently and arrogantly dare something of those things that pertain to the principle, not moved by the Prince of the sacred empire, but also because he will not obtain his holy wish from the just Oracle, himself also, as is fitting, hearing: You ask, and receive not, because you ask amiss (Jas. 4:3)." Behold one

of the passages on account of which these new Aerians rush with such hostile minds against these writings of Dionysius; because they see that concerning prayer for the faithful departed, concerning just retribution, and concerning the merits of good works, and concerning the pontifical dignity and office, a rule is prescribed against them. You have in chapter 7 of On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy: "Now I well know, following the Oracles, that each one will have a reciprocal allotment. For He shut up against him, says the Lord, and each one shall receive the things through the body according to what he practised, whether good or evil. And that the prayers of the righteous also during this life here, to say nothing of after death, work only towards those who are worthy of sacred prayers, the true traditions of the Oracles thoroughly teach us. Or what profit had Saul from Samuel? And what did the prophetic prayer avail the people of the Hebrews?" And presently: "The divine hierarch is the declarer, as the Oracles say, of the thearchic justifications; for he is the angel of the Lord God Almighty. He has learned therefore from the God-delivered Oracles that to those who have lived holily, the brightest and divine life is rendered in return according to their worth by the most just balances, the loving-kindness of the Thearchy in goodness overlooking the stains that have come to be in them from human weakness, seeing that no one, as the Oracles say, is clean from filth. These things, then, the Hierarch knows to have been promised by the true Oracles, and he asks that they may come to pass, and that the sacred retributions may be granted to those who have lived holily, at the same time moulding himself after a goodly form unto the imitation of God, and craving the gifts of others as his own graces, and at the same time knowing that the unlying promises will come to pass, and declaratively showing to those present that the things craved by him according to sacred law will assuredly come to pass for those who have been perfected according to a divine life. For the hierarch, the prophet of the thearchic justification, would never seek the things not most dear to God, and divinely promised to be given by Him. Wherefore he does not pray for these things for the unholy who have fallen asleep, not only because in this he will turn aside from the prophetic order, and will self-willedly dare some hierarchical act without being moved by the Perfection-ruler, but because he will also fail of his impure prayer, himself also not unsuitably hearing from the just Oracle: You ask, and receive not, because you ask amiss."

Our innovators are struck also by another flint from the Dionysian stream, which the same Anastasius hurls in Question 52, without adding the place of the book, but simply citing the Areopagite, in these words: For it is foreign to reason, and absurd, not to attend to the force of the purpose and aim, but to the expressions. And this is proper not to those who wish to understand divine things, but to those who admit bare sounds, and receive them from without as far as the ears, not passing through, nor do they wish to know what that expression signifies, and how one ought to make it clear through other expressions that have equal force and are more significant: and they are passionately attached to elements and lines that cannot be understood, and unknown syllables and expressions that do not pass through to the intelligent faculty of their soul, but resound outside on their lips and in their ears. What Apelles could have painted the wisdom of the adversaries with a more breathing brush? Who has more sharply condemned interpreters who repudiate all mystical sense? You will find all these things in our Dionysius in the book On the Divine Names, chapter 4: "For it is unreasonable, as I think, and perverse not to attend to the force of the aim, but to the expressions. And this is not proper to those who wish to understand divine things, but to those who take in bare sounds, and hold these from without, unpassing, as far as the ears, and who do not wish to know what such an expression signifies, and how one ought to make it clear through other expressions of equal force and more expressive, and who are passionately attached to uncomprehended letters and strokes, and syllables, and

unknown expressions, that do not pass through into the intellectual part of their soul, but buzz around outside about their lips and their ears," etc.

The same Anastasius in Question 6 of the latter copy transcribed from Dionysius the Areopagite, concerning those who have holily fallen asleep, these words: I say therefore, following the sacred Scriptures, that the prayers of the saints are altogether useful in this life, in this manner: If anyone desiring a gift, and religiously disposed towards participation in it, as recognizing his own smallness, approaches someone of the saints, and begs that he come to him as helper and intercessor, he will altogether receive from this a benefit that surpasses all things. For he will obtain the most divine gifts which he asks, through the divine goodness receiving him, both by his pious and religious recognition of himself, and his reverence towards the saints, and his praiseworthy desire for the sacred petitions asked, and a suitable and divine habit. For this also has been established by the divine judgements, that divine gifts should be bestowed upon those who are worthy to be partakers, in a most becoming order, through those who are worthy to impart them. If anyone spurns this beautifully established order, and puffed up unto a wretched persuasion concerning himself, thinks himself fit to hold converse with God, and despises the saints: nay more, if he asks petitions unworthy of God and not holy, and does not have an intense and suitable desire for divine things, through himself he will fall short of his foolish petition. Behold a third dart for the suffrages of the saints, that through them we may approach God, and the pride of the Calvinists clearly depicted, who, swollen with a wretched persuasion concerning themselves, despise and spit upon this order of dealing with God through the friends of God. Behold the words in our author in the seventh chapter of On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy: "And I say, following the Oracles, that the prayers of the saints are altogether profitable in this life here, after this manner. If anyone desiring sacred gifts, and having a sacred habit towards participation in them, as cognizant of his own smallness, coming to one of the holy men should ask him to become a helper and fellow suppliant for him, he will assuredly be profited from this with the profit that surpasses all. For he will obtain the most divine gifts for which he asks, the thearchic goodness accepting him both for his own devout self-knowledge, and for his reverence towards the holy men, and for his praiseworthy desire for the sacred petitions asked, and his suitable and godlike habit. For this also has been legislated by the thearchic judgements, that divine gifts are bestowed upon those worthy to partake, in an order most befitting God, through those worthy to impart. If then anyone should dishonour this sacred good order, and having come to a wretched conceit, should think himself sufficient for converse with the Thearchy, and should look down upon the holy men; and truly, if he should ask petitions both unworthy of God and not holy, and if he does not have an earnest desire for divine things and one suitable to himself, he will fail through himself of his unskilful petition."

Among the Works of St. Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, in vol. XI of the Commelin Graeco-Latin edition, there is published a little book of Shorter Questions to Antiochus; which is gathered not to be by that great Athanasius because in them St. Epiphanius and St. Gregory of Nyssa are cited, who are younger than that great Athanasius. Nor yet does the author seem to be the same as that Anastasius of Nyssa, although perhaps both write questions to the same Antiochus. This Athanasius in Question 8 asks how many essences and orders of angels there are. And he answers from St. Gregory of Nyssa indeed, that there is one and the same essence, just as also there is one essence of all men; but concerning the orders, that there are nine: angels, archangels, principalities, authorities, powers, lordships, six-winged seraphim, many-eyed cherubim, and thrones, as Dionysius, who is mighty in Theology, says: "And the ranks, as Dionysius, who is great in Theology, says, are nine, which are these: Angels, Archangels, Principalities, Authorities, Powers, Lordships, the

six-winged Seraphim, the many-eyed Cherubim, and the Thrones," clearly looking to the books On the Celestial Hierarchy, for thus they are distinguished there, ch. 6, although in a slightly different order. It may be that this Athanasius is some later bishop of Alexandria: whose work may also be the Book of Definitions, in which Gregory of Nyssa is cited; and the Book of Sayings and Interpretations of the Gospel Parables, where Gregory Nazianzen is cited. But these things are ambiguous: it is plain that he is a sufficiently ancient writer, who was received for the great Athanasius, and cites no one younger than Epiphanius.

Testimonies of the Catholic Sophronius, of the Monothelite heretics, and of the schismatic Greeks.

In the times of the Roman Pontiffs Honorius and John IV there lived a certain Sophronius of Jerusalem, who almost first opposed himself to the Monothelites, the author of the Spiritual Meadow, around the year of the Lord 638. Hence in his epistle to Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, he writes thus: "Moreover we assert that to Christ belongs also that power which is called the new and God-manly operation, existing not as one, but of diverse kind and difference, which Dionysius from the Areopagus, divinely captured by the peerless Paul, asserted." Does he not point to the passage in the fourth epistle to Gaius the therapeut at the end, concerning Jesus: "And for the rest, not having done the divine things as God, nor the human things as man, but since God had become man, having administered for us a certain new theandric activity." For the rest, neither performing divine things according to God (understand here and in what follows, "only"), nor human things according to man; but since God had been made man, conversing with us and showing forth a certain new God-manly operation. This passage the most crafty heretics of that time produced for themselves, agreeing with the Catholics concerning the Areopagite as the author of the epistle. If the authority of Catholic monks does not avail among the Calvinists, let at least the judgement of heretics avail. It would avail, if it did not harm Calvinism. Yet I shall enumerate those heretics, that there may be certainty concerning the agreement of the world of that time regarding the writer of that epistle.

In vol. III of the Councils, in the synod held at Rome under Pope Martin I, secretarium 3, p. 121, there is extant the epistle of that Monothelite Sergius to Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria, by which epistle he receives the seventh chapter of Cyrus, in which he attributed this passage to Dionysius the Areopagite. And on page 123 Themistius the heretic says in his Epistle to Marcellinus the presbyter and Stephen the deacon concerning the operation of Christ: "Therefore Dionysius the Areopagite named it God-manly." The same thing Macarius, the heretical Patriarch of Antioch, asserted in the synod held at Constantinople in Trullo, in the time of the Emperor Pogonatus, act 2, at the end: "I," says he, "do not speak of a number, but of His God-manly operation, according to St. Dionysius." Cyrus the heretic in the aforesaid ch. 7 had said that he believed "the same one Christ and one Son to work things befitting God and human things by one operation of God and man according to blessed Dionysius," in the said vol. III, p. 120. In which words Cyrus was convicted by blessed Sophronius of having corrupted the text of Dionysius, and of having put "one" instead of "new," as Pyrrhus himself while still a heretic confesses, in his book against the dogmatic volume of Cyrus, in these words: "Now the most reverend Sophronius censures one chapter only, as falsifying the testimony of Dionysius of blessed memory by the change of a single word, the aforesaid man saying fitting and cautious things in those points in which the former asserts: 'but since God became man, bringing forth for us a certain new and God-manly operation.' For the volume in question contained 'one' in truth; yet not maliciously (far be it!) according to my word; but since 'new' cannot be understood otherwise than as 'one,' such a word was put by the most holy Cyrus: since through the negation of sublime things the blessed doctor constructing one confession, and expressing this in the singular, what else did he hand down more clearly by a certain word than to confess one operation, inasmuch

as Christ is of one?" Thus far the sluggish serpent Pyrrhus, who, being convicted, confesses the corruption which he could not deny; yet seeks praise out of his crime. The same Pyrrhus in his disputation with blessed Maximus, monk and martyr, near the end says: "And what do we say concerning St. Dionysius, who in the epistle to Gaius the therapeut said concerning Christ: ... having administered a certain new theandric activity?" Torres translates: What moreover shall we say concerning St. Dionysius, who in the epistle to Gaius the worshipper said of Christ that He exercised a certain new God-manly operation? You have five Monothelites, and consider, pray, that this judgement concerning the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite in that 7th century, in all the patriarchal sees, that is in the whole Church, was undoubted: for at Rome Martin, Honorius, and John asserted it; at Alexandria Cyrus, at Antioch Macarius, at Constantinople Sergius, at Jerusalem Sophronius.

See also in what manner today in this matter—I mean concerning the books of the Areopagite—the schismatic Greeks agree with the Roman Church. When Stephen Gerlach, Martin Crusius, and other Ubiquitarian Lutherans of Wittenberg and Tübingen, against the Catholic Jesuits of Germany and others, sought whence they might procure supporters for their sect, according to that saying of Virgil:

If I cannot bend the powers above, I shall move Acheron,

they sent an embassy to Jeremias, Patriarch of Constantinople, and afterwards inquired of him by letter what was the judgement of all Greece concerning this Dionysius, about whom Scaliger disputes, and his works. He replied through Theodosius Zygomalas his secretary in these words, which, taken from the first book of Turco-Graecia, column 97, our Pierre du Jarric of Aquitaine sent to me: "I wrote the life of the Areopagite, and sent it to you, as I well remember, and if you have sought it, you will find it there. And know that we hold such a one to be a divine man, and after the apostles of Christ the Church honours him, and we accept his book, and say that the things written in it are trustworthy." He says: I wrote the life of the Areopagite, and sent it to you, which I well remember, and you also will find it there if only you seek it. Know that that man is held by us to be divine, and is honoured by the Church next after the apostles of Christ, and that his book is approved by us, and the things that are written in it are accounted worthy of faith. What says Scaliger to this? He will laugh aloud at the Lutherans, because they consulted Jeremias rather than the Genevans and himself. But I return to our own, that is, the more ancient Fathers.

Testimonies of Theodore the presbyter, Sergius of Tempsa, and Antony Melissa.

To Sophronius let three others be added, concerning whom, because they are unknown, I have nothing else to say. In the Bibliotheca of Photius mention is made of Theodore the presbyter; what or when he lived, and what else he did or wrote, I know not. Photius says that he read a book of his, in which he had solved four objections of the adversaries (you have them above) and had proved that these monuments of the divine and great Dionysius were genuine, "that the book of the great Dionysius is genuine." Let the Calvinists believe the heretic Photius, as learned as he was impious, the fiercest adversary to the Roman see.

In the Lateran council under Martin I, consultation 3, Sergius, Bishop of Tempsa, acknowledges the said epistle to Gaius the worshipper, concerning which above, and confesses that those very words which Cyrus brought forward in his seventh chapter were by Dionysius the Areopagite.

A certain monk Antony, whose book called Melissa is extant, often cites our Dionysius. In Book I, discourse 19, at the end, he brings forward from him these words: It cannot be that those obtain pardon who do not repent of their sins; and in discourse 21: God is truth inasmuch as He is one, not many, according to nature. For the true

is one, whereas falsehood is manifold. For Christ also says: I am the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). In Discourse 75: That silence is held for consent is taught also by the proverb. None of these passages have I been able to find in the books that we have: it may be that they have eluded my diligence. In Book II, discourse 3, he cites these words: Those who approach the purest sacrifice must be thoroughly cleansed even from the last fantasies of the soul, and through likeness approach it as far as may be. This is extant in ch. 3 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy: "For those who approach the most all-holy sacred rite must have been purified even from the last fantasies of the soul, and through likeness approach it as far as is possible." And lest you doubt that these belong to the Areopagite, know that this Antony is wont to attribute the name of Dionysius simply to our author, whereas to the other Dionysiuses he is wont to add their native place, as in Book II, discourse 45, he adduces from Dionysius of Alexandria this saying: "Now strong and accurate speech says that bitter things also are the causes of sweet, and that pleasures are the fruits of labours. For without labour nothing noble can come to pass;" and in discourse 72, from the same Dionysius of Alexandria he brings forward: "To be angry among us extends so far as to allay sins. Be angry, says he, and sin not (Eph. 4:26). And extreme rigour of right is to be avoided, since Ecclesiastes says: Be not righteous overmuch (Eccl. 7:17)." Finally, it is well known among theologians that by the appellation of Dionysius par excellence the Areopagite is understood.

Testimonies from Elias of Crete and Andrew of Crete.

Elias of Crete composed eloquent and accurate Commentaries on many orations of blessed Gregory Nazianzen, in which he often makes mention of our Dionysius, as on Oration 1, Apologeticus, fol. 59 and 75, he says that Nazianzen borrowed the word photagogous, "illuminating," from the books of Dionysius, namely On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 5, § 2; and afterwards Elias on fol. 451 clearly alludes to the hierarchical books of Dionysius, writing thus: "For the things that are celebrated here in the Churches, St. Dionysius judges to be likenesses and images of those things that are celebrated in the heavens, and placing our hierarchy after the celestial hierarchy, he pronounces it its fellow minister, and says that thence according to benignity it receives suitable illumination, using namely these words: For the sake therefore of this our suitable deification, that benign principality of sacred ceremonies," etc., all which things one may read in the said ch. 5, from p. 355, and ch. 8, from p. 388, more copiously set forth. Likewise in his commentary on Oration 19 he cites the things that Dionysius wrote concerning the rite of consecrating priests, which are now extant in the said ch. 5, p. 364.

St. Andrew of Jerusalem, bishop of the Cretans and martyr, praised by Glycas, in his oration On the Dormition of the Virgin Mother of God, not only followed the narrative of our Dionysius concerning the passing of our Lady Mary, but also endeavoured to imitate his style and words; as anyone will easily gather who compares the Greek words of Andrew with those of Dionysius, vol. I, p. 539.

Testimony of Julian of Jerusalem, Epiphanius the presbyter, Glycas, and other Greeks.

St. Dionysius the Areopagite in the book On the Divine Names, ch. 3, at the end, writes thus: "Since even among our God-inspired hierarchs themselves, when we also, as you know, both yourself and many of our sacred brethren, came together for the beholding of the life-originating and God-receiving body, there was present also James the brother of God, and Peter the supreme and most ancient summit of the theologians. Then it seemed good after the beholding that all the hierarchs should hymn," etc. Since even among our own God-inspired princes of sacred things, when we also, as you yourself know, and many of our sacred brethren, came together to behold the body that gave the beginning of life and received God, there was present also James the brother of God, and Peter, who was of the theologians

the supreme and most ancient summit. And it seemed good that after that spectacle all the princes of sacred things should sing a hymn, etc.—as the true words of the Areopagite speaking of himself, the Greek Fathers with great consent received; and thence a most ancient tradition flowed into the Church, that at the death of the Virgin Mother of God all the apostles, and blessed Dionysius and Timothy, were present. At the time of the Synod of Chalcedon, at the request of Marcian and Pulcheria, Julian, Bishop of Jerusalem, testified to this in these words: "Now there were present at that time with the apostles the most holy Timothy, apostle and first bishop of the Ephesians, and Dionysius the Areopagite: even as this great Dionysius himself testifies in the things which he wrote concerning blessed Hierotheus, who himself also was then present, to the holy Apostle Timothy, speaking thus: Since," etc., for he subjoins the cited words of Dionysius. This testimony of blessed Julian the historian Euthymius brings forward in Book III, ch. 40, cited by blessed John Damascene in his oration On the Dormition of the Mother of God; and Nicephorus Callistus relates the same in Book XV of his History, ch. 14. The same authority and words as genuine words of the Areopagite are embraced also by Epiphanius the presbyter in his oration On the Dormition of the Mother of God, Simeon Metaphrastes, and Michael Syncellus in his praise of Dionysius, Maximus in his scholia on Dionysius, Glycas in Book I of his Annals, and other Greeks in a certain Canticle on the Mother of God. Read Peter Canisius in Book V of his Mariale, ch. 3, and Cardinal Baronius, in vol. I of his Annals, under the year of Christ 48, no. 8, where he learnedly shows that this is the true judgement of Dionysius.

The judgement of blessed Michael Syncellus and blessed John Damascene.

Blessed Michael Syncellus, presbyter of Jerusalem, of great renown for holiness and erudition, wrote certain works in the time not of the Emperor Maurice, but of Louis the Pious in the age of Hilduin, when he suffered many things for the Catholic faith at the hands of Theophilus, the iconoclastic Emperor of the Greeks, as Curopalates relates in his History, and he is praised by Theodore the Studite in Book II, Epistle 213. This Syncellus therefore, at the same time at which Methodius wrote the life and martyrdom of the Areopagite, himself also burning with love of martyrdom, composed a most eloquent Encomium of the same Dionysius, which was printed in Greek at Paris, with this beginning: "Truly heavenly," in which he cites many things from both hierarchies, the book On the Divine Names, the epistle to Gaius, and other things that are at hand to everyone.

A little more ancient than Michael, and not less noble in the praise of confession, lived John Mansur of Damascus, the bright light and star of the eighth century, a diligent reader and candid praiser of these books of Dionysius; you have in Book I of On the Orthodox Faith, chapter 12: "These things therefore we have called to mind from the sacred Oracles, as the divine Dionysius the Areopagite said, that God is the cause and principle of all things, the essence of things that are, the life of the living, the reason of rational beings." All which things, although in another order, you will find in On the Divine Names, chapter 1: And these things indeed we have been taught by the sacred oracles, as the divine Dionysius the Areopagite says, that God is the cause and principle of all things, the essence of those things that are, the life of the living, and the reason of those that use reason, etc. The same John in Book II of the same Work, ch. 18, calls him "most holy and most skilled in theology." "And even as," says he, "the most holy and most theological Dionysius the Areopagite says, All the heavenly essences theology, that is divine Scripture, has called nine." And as the most holy and most skilled in theology Dionysius the Areopagite says: All theology, that is Holy Scripture, has said that the heavenly essences are nine. They are drawn from the book On the Celestial Hierarchy, chapter 5, towards the end. A third passage he brings forward in the book On Those Who Have Died in the Faith: "Therefore Dionysius, great and deep in divine things, said in his mystical contemplation concerning those who have fallen asleep, speaking thus, that from his divine and venerable words I may touch upon a clear demonstration: And that the prayers of the righteous also..."

Says Dionysius, the great and profound searcher of divine things, in his mystical contemplation concerning those who sleep, speaking thus, that from his divine and venerable discourses I may draw a demonstration: "And that the prayers of the righteous," etc. The passage of Dionysius is found in the last chapter of On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, which I have presented in full above from blessed Anastasius of Nyssa citing the same; therefore I neither repeat it, nor add the fourth testimony of Damascene, from his oration On the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary, where he confirms the narrative of our Dionysius, concerning which also above; which history blessed Michael Syncellus also elegantly expanded in the aforesaid Encomium of St. Dionysius.

Testimonies from Simeon Metaphrastes and Theodore Prodromus.

Blessed Simeon Metaphrastes, most celebrated among the Greeks (whose authority the oecumenical Synod of Florence under Eugenius IV, session 7, uses), is abundant in the commendation of these books, confirming that they are by blessed Dionysius the Areopagite. First in the Life of Dionysius, which we have in vol. V of Surius, on the 11th day of October; where he also sets forth the matter of the three books which we see in these of ours. Next, in vol. IV of the same Surius, in the oration On the Dormition of the Mother of God, he says: "And through a cloud He gathers His venerable disciples, that they might commit her venerable body to burial. Now lest what has been said concerning the gathering of the apostles that took place at the dormition of the Virgin should seem vain, it will be better to add summarily the things that are said by Dionysius the Areopagite in the 3rd book of On the Divine Names to Timothy." He uses "book" for chapter or section, and subjoins the words of Dionysius, which we have above.

I adjoin Theodore Prodromus, who, long after, lived in the times of the Emperor Andronicus the Younger; yet I adjoin him because, in reckoning up certain most weighty and most ancient and most holy Greek Fathers by whose writings the Church has been illuminated, he assigns the first place to our blessed Dionysius the Areopagite: to him he subjoins the great Athanasius, and Basil, and both Gregories, and Ephrem the Syrian, and John Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria, and our Maximus, and John Climacus, and Nilus; finally to all these whom I have named he subjoins, as worthy of their company, Simeon Metaphrastes: wherefore let him also now be associated with him.

From Suidas, and John of Scythopolis, and Gregory the Patrician.

That Suidas, whoever he was whose useful collections are extant, who lived after the thousandth year of Christ, in treating of our Dionysius makes him a disciple of blessed Paul and bishop of the Athenians, and from him relates the history concerning the eclipse seen at Heliopolis while the Lord was suffering, when Apollophanes was present, and cites the epistle of our Dionysius to Polycarp, which is worn by the hands of many; in which word for word all the things are contained that Suidas related. Afterwards he subjoins the whole matter of the book On the Divine Names to Timothy. He acknowledges also the hierarchical books, and the Mystical Theology, and all the epistles that we have, and among them that to Gaius and that to Demophilus, both of whom he calls Therapeutae. He cites also the Encomium of Michael Syncellus, of which we have already treated.

Many hold that the Prologue which is prefixed to the Greek Scholia of blessed Maximus is not by Maximus, but by a certain younger John of Scythopolis; nor indeed does it altogether agree with the style of Maximus, which is more concise and simpler. In this Prologue answer is made to certain arguments of the adversaries who endeavour to take these books away from Dionysius the Areopagite, which arguments we have already solved, and with most writers we attribute the Prologue to Maximus, from whom I think it ought not to be taken away on account of no great discrepancy of style. In the same Prologue there is subjoined an index of all the Works of Dionysius that are now extant, and moreover

of many that have perished, of which mention is made in those now extant, which there is no need now to recount again.

Finally there have come forth in print various Epigrams of George the Patrician, whose native place was Mitylene, in praise of the books of blessed Dionysius, On the Celestial Hierarchy, On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, On the Divine Names, and On Mystical Theology.

From Euthymius Zigabenus the monk.

He lived in the time of Alexius Comnenus, in the eleventh century, among the Greeks of his age the most learned and most diligent, as is plain from his books that are extant; namely his Commentaries on all the Psalms, and on the four Gospels, and his Panoplia against heresies, in which work he adduces many sufficiently ample passages of our Dionysius, as of that great Areopagite. I shall give several from the translation of Francesco Zini. He says in Part I of the Panoplia of the Orthodox Faith, title 2: "Concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the distinct and at the same time conjoined account of the divinity; of Dionysius the Areopagite, from the chapter on united and distinct theology: That the Father indeed is the fountain, so to speak, of deity, while the Son and the Spirit are divinely sprouting shoots, if one must so speak, of the God-generating deity, and flowers as it were, and lights surpassing essence, we have received from the sacred books: but in what manner these things are, we can neither utter nor understand." Are not these the words? "That the Father indeed is fountain-deity, while Jesus and the Spirit are God-planted shoots, if one must so speak, of the God-generating deity, and as it were flowers and superessential lights, we have received from the sacred Oracles; but how these things are, it is possible neither to say nor to conceive," On the Divine Names, ch. 2. You see how genuine these words of our Dionysius are, whose Greek grandiloquence scarcely any eloquence of Latin speech can fully express; which will be equally plain from the rest.

Likewise, from the first chapter of the book On the Divine Names: Wherefore in almost every theological disputation we see the supreme divinity holily celebrated; both as a monad and unity, on account of the simplicity and unity of its impartibility surpassing nature: from which as from a unifying power we are made one, and when our divided diversities are joined together above the worldly manner, we are gathered into a godlike monad and a union imitating God: and also as a Trinity, on account of the expression in three persons of its fecundity surpassing essence, from which all fatherhood in heaven and on earth exists and is named. These and all the remaining things that he subjoins are extant in our author, page 341: "Whence in almost the whole theological treatise we see the Thearchy sacredly hymned; both as a monad and henad, on account of the simplicity and unity of its supernatural indivisibility, from which as from a unifying power we are unified, and when our divided alterities are supermundanely folded together, we are gathered into a godlike monad and a God-imitating union; and as a triad, on account of the three-personed manifestation of its superessential fecundity, from which all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is and is named," etc.

Likewise from ch. 3 of On Mystical Theology this passage: In that book which we entitled On Theological Outlines, we declared what are the chief points of affirmative theology: how the divine and good nature is called one and three; what is the notion of the Father in it, and what of the Son; what the theology of the Holy Spirit signifies; in what manner from the incorporeal and undivided good the innermost lights of goodness sprout forth, and by a sprouting coeternal with it have so come forth in it, and in themselves, and in their abiding with one another, as never to depart from it. They are found in Greek in vol. II: "In the Theological Outlines, therefore, we hymned the most principal points of affirmative theology: how the divine and good nature is called singular, how triadic; what is the fatherhood and sonship spoken of according to it; what the theology of the Spirit means to signify; how

from the immaterial and indivisible good the cordate lights of goodness sprang forth, and have remained inseparable from their abiding in it, and in themselves, and in one another, coeternal with their sprouting forth."

There follow in Euthymius two passages from ch. 2 of On the Divine Names. The former is as follows: In the divine union, or that nature surpassing essence, there are conjoined indeed and common to the one and principal Trinity: existence surpassing essence, divinity superior to divinity, goodness more excellent than goodness, etc., from that passage: "In the divine union, or superessentiality, there is united indeed and common to the henarchic Trinity the superessential subsistence, the superdivine deity, the supergood goodness, the [identity beyond] all," etc. And the latter is from the beginning of the same chapter: None is good, save God alone (Luke 18:19). This also has been weighed and demonstrated by us elsewhere, that all denominations worthy of God are always celebrated in the sacred books not partially, but in the whole, perfect, entire, and full divinity, and that all of them indivisibly, absolutely, and beyond all observance of distinction, are attributed in an entire manner to the universal wholeness of the perfect and entire divinity, and the many things that follow: "None is good, save God alone. This therefore, having been examined by us elsewhere also, has been demonstrated, that all the God-befitting divine names are always hymned by the Oracles not partially, but with respect to the whole and all-perfect and entire and full deity, and that all of them indivisibly, absolutely, unreservedly, wholly, are ascribed to the entire wholeness of the all-complete and whole deity," etc. Behold five testimonies from a single title. I fear lest I be tedious if from the same work I recount all the rest; for they are many and exceedingly long. For in title 3 are contained twenty-seven fragments, cited paraphrastically from the book On the Divine Names and other works: one in title 5, and in title 7 two from the same book, one from Epistle 4 to Gaius, one from the book On Theological Elements, two from the Celestial and the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.

For the rest, in Part II, title 18, he records Epistle 5 of Maximus to Nicander, in which he explained at length that passage of blessed Dionysius concerning the God-manly operation from the Epistle to Gaius: which explanation, because it is very learned and shows the wisdom and erudition of Maximus, whose ignorance Scaliger boasts that he has shown, I shall write down in this place for Scaliger's sake, not in Greek because I lack a copy, but in Latin from the version of Zini. He says therefore: "The same thing we can say concerning the actions, nor yet on that account do we deny the singular expressions of the divine Fathers concerning the actions themselves (far be it!) which either the holy Dionysius, most excellent in explaining divine things, or the wise Cyril pronounced; by which the divine and at the same time human action is so declared that it appears to be conjoined and one. For the expressions devised by them on account of the conjunction and the altogether mutual coupling of the natural actions with one another are pious and to be approved. Even as those also which declare twofold actions on account of the difference subsisting in essence and nature. For that word 'theandric,' compounded by the doctor Dionysius, signifies both the divine and the human, and by a single pronunciation indicates the twofold action of the twofold nature. Again, the wise Cyril spoke of one and a conjoined action, in order to teach the kindred coupling of the natural actions." And after a few words: "Wherefore the one and conjoined action of both, as Cyril says, which has been demonstrated, no otherwise than that 'theandric' action of Dionysius naturally indicating the coupling of the actions, properly demonstrates their diverse and twofold character." The same Euthymius under the same title, ch. 83, cites a clearer explanation of the same Dionysian passage, handed down by blessed Damascene against the Monothelites, which is this: "Blessed Dionysius says that Christ used a certain new theandric

action; by which word indeed he does not take away the natural actions, but establishes one action consisting of the divine and the human. For in this way we should also speak of one new nature, which consists of the divine and the human. For of those things whose action is one, the essence also is one, as our divine Fathers hold. But since he wished to show the new and secret manner in which the natural actions of Christ were manifested, on account of the secret manner in which the natures of Christ mutually communicate with one another, he fittingly called His manner of life also, as far as pertains to humanity, new and wonderful. For neither do we say that the actions are divided, nor that the natures act separately, but that each acts conjointly in fellowship with the other, that which is proper to itself," etc., which he subjoins, down to: "This therefore the theandric action signifies, that since God became man, His human action also is divine, that is, deified, and not devoid of His divine action; and likewise that His divine action is not devoid of His human action; but that each is beheld together with the other. Now this manner of speaking is called periphrasis, when we embrace two things in a single expression. For just as we speak of one cut-burning, or burnt-cutting, of a red-hot sword, whereas cutting is one action and burning is another, and they proceed from one and another nature, namely burning from the fire, and cutting from the iron; so also when we speak of one theandric action of Christ, we understand the twofold actions of His two natures, the divine action of His divinity, and the human action of His humanity."

Testimonies of Nicephorus Callistus, George Pachymeres, and Cardinal Bessarion.

Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus wrote an Ecclesiastical History, with great diligence indeed, in the time of Andronicus Palaeologus the Elder, around the year of the Lord 1311. He in Book II, ch. 22, from the narrative of our Dionysius, whom he calls the Areopagite, in the said ch. 3 of On the Divine Names, recounts what happened at the funeral of the Blessed Virgin Mary. And in ch. 21 he speaks thus of our author: "Now so great was his faith in Christ, that not only was he worthy of the divine laver, but even by the hands of Paul himself was appointed bishop of the Athenians, abounding in altogether wonderful and divine charisms. He lived also on familiar terms with the divine man Hierotheus, to both of whom Paul (even as, caught up into the third heaven and paradise, he had been initiated into them) communicated and handed down the highest matters concerning theology, namely the account of God the Word, and also concerning the celestial hierarchy, and the most complete disposition and ordering of all things, which matters Dionysius afterwards also committed to writing; and he, using great boldness in magnificently preaching the word of piety and true worship, and glorifying Christ for many years in the western parts, came to a great old age, and was honoured with the crown of martyrdom for Him. And they relate that, carrying in his hands his own head, which had been cut off with the sword, he bore it for two miles, and there handed it over as a deposit to a woman whom he had met. Now what writings he composed, in sublime contemplation of divine things, in thoughts and expression altogether admirable and excellent, and far removed from those things that are put forth according to the capacity of men, are as follows.

The first work indeed, On the Divine Names, he wrote in thirteen chapters, in which up to a hundred other heads also are added, full of divine wisdom.

A second book was written by him, to which he gave the title On the Celestial Hierarchy, having fifteen chapters.

The third, On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, of seven chapters.

The fourth, On Arcane or Mystical Theology, of five chapters.

He left also ten epistles, the last of which is written to John the Evangelist, who leaned upon the breast of the Lord. And these writings of his indeed are circulated even today.

He himself also makes mention of other works of his, such as are those which are named by him Theological Outlines; likewise Symbolic Theology; moreover On Angelic Properties and Orders, a Commentary On the Soul, On the Just and Divine Judgement, On Divine Hymns; likewise On Those Things Which Are Apprehended Either by Intelligence or by Sense; but those commentaries have not been seen at all, nor known either to us or to those who were before us." So much Nicephorus, with whom he plainly agrees concerning the writings of the Areopagite.

George Pachymeres under Michael Palaeologus and Andronicus around the year 1260, is a little more ancient; whose Aristotelian epitomes we have, and Areopagitic paraphrases on all the books that are extant, as well as the Scholia of Maximus: of the remaining books, which he says are not found, he sets down the names: On Angelic Properties, On the Soul, On the Just and Divine Tribunal, On Divine Hymns, On Intelligible and Sensible Things, On Theological Outlines, On Symbolic Theology.

As to the surviving books, Suidas also agrees with these as far as the titles are concerned; for as to the chapters they vary, which matters little. Now Suidas enumerates the books thus: "To Timothy, Bishop of Ephesus, himself also being a disciple of Paul, On the Divine Names, 12 books," and he subjoins the titles of the chapters. "To the same Timothy another book, On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, 15 chapters. To the same, On the Celestial Hierarchy, 15 chapters. To the same, On Mystical Theology, 5 chapters."

Next he enumerates these epistles: "To Gaius the therapeut, 4. To Dorotheus the minister, 1. To Sopater the priest, 1. To Polycarp, hierarch of Smyrna, 1. To Demophilus the therapeut, 1. To John the theologian, apostle, and evangelist, 1." Where you see passed over the epistle to Titus the bishop, which Maximus, Pachymeres, and Nicephorus recognize. For the index of Maximus, or of John of Scythopolis, is similar to the enumeration of Pachymeres; except that it adds the passages of Dionysius where he cites his own books that are not extant.

Around the year of Christ 1371, when Greece was already falling, there lived George of Trebizond, Theodore Gaza, and the most learned Cardinal Bessarion, who dissented from Gaza and, following his ancestors, attributed these works to the Areopagite. For in Book II of In Defence of Plato, ch. 3, he writes thus: "The most holy man Dionysius the Areopagite, who was the first and supreme author of Christian theology, had no writer on divine things before him save the Apostle Paul, and Hierotheus, pontiff of Athens, whom he himself had as preceptors." Thus Morel from the codex of Budé. I ask, what other writings of Dionysius on divine things did Bessarion praise in this place, beside ours? Whose judgement therefore in these matters I do not fear to prefer to ten Gazas and a hundred Scaligers.

Testimonies from the councils of the Greeks.

The same thing I can prove not only through single Fathers, but collectively also through synods. The first oecumenical Synod of Nicaea, and the chief (so to speak) of universal councils, in the fuller canons which among our men Pisanus and Torres published, following the Arabic copies, in canon 31, which is on receiving those returning from heresy, enacted thus: And after the bishop, or the priest in whose hands he is, has done these things, he ought to anoint him with the prayer of chrism, and sign him thrice with the sign of the cross, anointing and praying over him the prayer of Dionysius the Areopagite. Our author therefore had certainly instituted some formula of praying. For it is extant in the last chapter of On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and there you will find it.

In the sixth universal synod, which was the third of Constantinople, in the time of Pope Agatho and the Emperor Constantine IV in the year 678, these works are received as Areopagitic. For in action 8, p. 279, we read: "Likewise there was read another testimony from the same codex of St. Dionysius, Bishop of Athens and martyr, from the book of the Divine Names, and the text of the testimony was similarly collated, containing thus: Now the most benign operation of God towards us is distinct through this, that the Word which is above substance was according to us and from us wholly and truly made man, both to work and to suffer whatever things are special and choice belonging to His human divine operation. For in these things the Father and the Spirit in no wise communicate, unless someone should say according to the most benign mercy and will (which words were cut off from the same testimony by the same men) and through all the most sublime and ineffable operation of God, which He wrought when made according to us unchangeable, inasmuch as He was God and the Word of God." It cites the passage from the second chapter: "And it has been distinguished from the good-befitting theurgy towards us by the fact that the superessential Word was according to us from us wholly and truly substantiated, and did and suffered whatever things are choice and special belonging to His human theurgy. For in these things the Father and the Spirit have communicated on no account; unless perhaps one should say according to the good-befitting and man-loving will, and according to all the transcendent and ineffable theurgy which the Unchangeable wrought when He came to be according to us, in so far as He was God and the Word of God."

Do you wish also something from our Decrees of Gratian, with which you are ill pleased? Read ch. 6, which begins, Omnis, distinction 38. But, lest you be disgusted, know that the same is found in the Second Oecumenical Council of Nicaea, which was the seventh universal council; where the essence of our hierarchy is handed down as placed in the oracles handed down by God, that is, in the true science and knowledge of divine things, "even as that great Dionysius says." That 11th canon is framed thus: "For the essence of our hierarchy is the God-delivered Oracles, that is, the true knowledge of the divine Scriptures, even as the great Dionysius declared." You have it today in ch. 1 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, except that today kath' hemas is read instead of kath' hemon, with the same sense, and by an easy change.

Testimonies from the councils of the Latins.

In the Latin councils often many Greeks, as in the Greek councils Latins, were present; for this is the condition of universal councils: but I call them Latin because they were celebrated in the West; Greek, because in the East.

At Rome in the Lateran in the year 650 a council was celebrated under Pope Martin I: at that time the Fathers held these works as genuine works of Dionysius the Areopagite, as is plain from secretarium 3, p. 122. For there "Martin, the most holy and most blessed bishop of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God of the city of Rome, said: Let those whom it concerns produce in the acts the codex of St. Dionysius, Bishop of Athens. Theophylact, chief of the notaries of the holy Apostolic See, said: Bringing it forth according to the command of your Beatitude from the venerable library of your see, I have the codex of blessed Dionysius in my hands; what do you command? Martin, the most holy and most blessed bishop of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God of the city of Rome, said: Let the codex of blessed Dionysius be received, and from the epistle that is deposited therein, directed to Gaius, let that passage in question, of which Cyrus made mention in his chapter for the approbation of his novelty, be read aloud in order before the holy council. And Paschal, regional notary of the Apostolic See, taking it, read aloud the testimony itself translated from the Greek into the Latin tongue, containing thus: Of St. Dionysius, from the Epistle

directed to Gaius, at the passage: Having wrought neither divine things according to God, nor human things according to man; but since God became man, showing forth for us a certain new God-manly, that is theandric, operation." Afterwards Martin and the rest of the Fathers approve them as the words of Dionysius; which we have already often said are extant today in the 4th Epistle to Gaius.

The eighth general synod, under Eugenius IV at Ferrara, in session 7, receives the oration of Simeon Metaphrastes on the Life of St. Dionysius, in which (as was said above) these Works of our Dionysius are recorded as genuine works of blessed Dionysius the Areopagite.

Testimonies of Gregory the Great and Martin I, Roman Pontiffs.

I come to the Roman Pontiffs, the successors of the Apostle Peter; whom whoever refuses to believe, refuses to believe Peter; without whose approbation not even general councils are held to be of certain faith, whereas if they have approved them, we confess that the Holy Spirit has breathed upon the dogmas enacted.

St. Gregory the Great in Homily 34 on the Gospel of Luke, chapter 15, writes thus: "Dionysius the Areopagite, an ancient and venerable Father namely, is said to state that from the ranks of the lesser angels some are sent forth outwardly to fulfil a ministry, either visibly or invisibly; namely because for human consolation either angels or archangels come. For those higher ranks never depart from the innermost places." He does not cite the very words of Dionysius, but the doctrine of Dionysius, which he explained throughout almost the whole book On the Celestial Hierarchy, especially ch. 7, 9, and 13. He said "is said," either because he himself had not read Dionysius, or because the book was not yet sufficiently known generally to the Latins. Assuredly that Gregory attributed that work to Dionysius not hesitantly, but assertively, Pope Adrian I held, as you will see below.

St. Martin I, the glorious martyr, in the said Lateran synod, secretarium 1, citing various Fathers, praises our author also in these words, p. 119: "The peerless Dionysius proclaims that He has both a fleshy mass and a bodily weight; and that with a bodily mass and weight He walks upon the waters without wetting His feet: and teaching this in his little works On the Divine Names, he says: We know not how from the Virgin He was formed by another law beside the natural, and how with unwetted feet having a bodily mass and material weight He walked upon the moist and unstable substance. And again in his epistle written to Gaius he says: And truly coming unto substance, He was substantiated above substance, and above man He wrought the things that are of man. And this the Virgin shows, bringing forth above nature; and the unstable water bearing up the weight of earthly and material feet, and not yielding, but by a supernatural power standing together without diffusion." The former passage is extant in the second chapter of On the Divine Names: "And we know not how from virginal blood He was fashioned by another law beside nature, and how with unwetted feet, having a bodily bulk and weight of matter, He traversed the wet and unstable substance." The latter is in the same place in the 4th Epistle to Gaius: "And having truly come into substance, He was substantiated above substance, and above man He wrought the things of man. And a Virgin shows this, conceiving supernaturally; and unstable water, sustaining the weight of material and earthly feet, and not giving way, but by a supernatural power standing together unto non-diffusion."

Finally in secretarium 3, p. 122, he speaks thus: "Wherefore the Lord has manifested these men to you, as you see, through this testimony of blessed Dionysius which has been read aloud at present, showing them more clearly to be speakers of falsehood, that concerning them also that which was spoken by the Lord may be fulfilled, wherein He says: When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it (John 8:44).

For iniquity has lied to itself (Ps. 26:12), in these unstable men assuredly existing as unstable. For whereas blessed Dionysius asserts, as you have heard, most beloved brethren, that a certain new God-manly operation was conversant among us, both of them have most openly lied against the Father. And Cyrus indeed in his seventh chapter, by changing 'new,' and asserting 'one' instead of 'new' God-manly operation, alleging as though the doctor had said so; and Sergius in his epistle written concerning a question of this sort to Cyrus, both confirming with him the change of 'new,' and not only this, but also cutting off altogether the doctor's word 'God-manly,' and dogmatizing one operation absolutely in Christ God: working deceit like a sharp razor, and by no means considering what is written in the Psalm: Shall not God search out these things? for He knows the secrets of the heart (Ps. 43:22), and the thoughts of such men, that they are vain (Ps. 93:11); for they have spoken vain things every one to his neighbour: deceitful lips, with a double heart have they spoken evil: may the Lord destroy all deceitful lips, and the tongue that speaks proud things, who have said: Our lips are our own, who is Lord over us (Ps. 11:3–5)? For if they retained these things in memory, they would by no means leap forth to such iniquity, that is, the alteration and destruction of the ancestral traditions and dogmas." Thus far the holy Pope Martin. What would he say to you now, heretics? If to take away one little word and substitute another from that book of blessed Dionysius is to alter and destroy the ancestral traditions, what is it to abolish the whole book, and make it spurious instead of genuine; to make of a holy martyr and most weighty doctor of the Church a mask, an ape, a counterfeit? See whether you be not of those whose lips are deceitful, and their tongue boastful, admitting curbs neither from pontiffs nor from synods? See lest God search out these things from you, lest He cut you in sunder, Who knows the secrets of the heart and the most hidden thoughts. Sharper is your razor than that of Sergius and Cyrus: they cut one word, you have cut to pieces so many little works. Moreover the words of Dionysius from the epistle to Gaius which are in question I have presented above, and they are found at the end of the said 4th Epistle to Gaius the therapeut, which Maximus and Pachymeres expound as 'monk,' rightly; or 'worshipper' of truth with Torres, or 'physician' with Zini. For monks chiefly devoted themselves above others to divine worship and to the medicine of their own soul, and thus progressed from the purgative to the illuminative, and from this to the unitive way of the spiritual life; so that you may cease at length to think of your physicians of bodies.

Testimonies of Pope Agatho, Adrian I, and Nicholas I.

Pope Agatho in his epistle to the Emperor Constantine, and Heraclius and Tiberius the Augusti, read in the said Third Council of Constantinople, p. 252, writes thus: "St. Dionysius the Areopagite also, Bishop of Athens, in the book of the Divine Names, ch. 2, similarly teaches: Now there is distinguished from the most benign operation of God towards us this, that the Word which is above substance was according to us from us wholly and truly made man, both to work and to suffer whatever special and choice things belong to His human and divine operation. For in these things the Father and the Spirit in no wise communicate; unless someone should say, according to His merciful and most benign will, and through all the most sublime and ineffable operation of God, which He wrought when made according to us unchangeable, inasmuch as He was God and the Word of God." You have the passage today, and I have set it down above.

Pope Adrian I in his writing to the Emperor Charlemagne On the Veneration of Images, as you have it in vol. III of the Councils, p. 616, speaks thus of our author: "St. Dionysius the Areopagite, who was also Bishop of Athens, was assuredly greatly praised by the holy Pope Gregory, who confirms that he is an ancient

Father and doctor. He was in the times of the apostles, and is shown in the Acts of the Apostles. Whence by our aforesaid most holy predecessors the pontiffs, in their sacred councils, his truthful testimonies for the veneration of sacred images were confirmed: among other things embracing those from the epistle of St. Dionysius, Bishop of Athens, which is directed to St. John the Evangelist." And below: "What wonder, if Christ is true, and the unjust cast His disciples out of the cities, themselves adjudging to themselves what is according to their desert, and the polluted severing themselves from the holy and departing? In truth and manifestly the visible things are images of the invisible. For neither in the ages to come will God be the cause of the just separations from Himself," etc. "Likewise of the same, concerning the celestial soldiery: For the aforesaid incorporeal hosts are figured with diverse colours, and he handed down compositions through various colours, to the end that silently through ourselves by means of the most sacred effigies we may pass with pious mind to the simple and incorporeal beings. For it is impossible for our mind to reach to that invisible and incorporeal imitation and vision of the heavenly soldiery, unless through that of the elements we shall be able to attain through the visible and invisible and most beautiful effigy, and the visible and fragrant images by rational tradition shine forth as invisible," etc. These two passages you will find in our author: one in Epistle 10, the other in the Celestial Hierarchy, which Adrian after the manner of Holy Scripture calls "soldiery," ch. 1. The words of the former are: "What wonder if Christ is true, and the unjust drive His disciples out of the cities, themselves meting out to themselves what is according to their worth, and the polluted severing themselves from the holy and departing? Truly the visible things are manifest images of the invisible. For neither in the ages to come will God be the cause of the just separations from Himself," etc. You will find this passage handed down more clearly by the translators of Dionysius than in the pontifical epistle; to which what solid answer the iconoclastic deserters of the Dionysian faith can make, I do not see, when they perceive this epistle so clearly attributed to the Areopagite, and this same writer affirmed to have been praised by St. Gregory the Great, and by other most holy pontiffs his books, concerning which we dispute, confirmed as truthful writings in councils over which the Holy Spirit presides. Even that single testimony ought to suffice for a Catholic man. The words of the other passage on the said p. 3, vol. I, are: "Wherefore also our most holy hierarchy the perfection-ruling sacred institution deemed worthy of the supermundane imitation of the heavenly hierarchies, and having diversified the aforesaid immaterial hierarchies with material figures and formative compositions, handed them down, to the end that analogously to ourselves we might be led up from the most sacred formations to the simple and unfigured elevations and assimilations. Since neither is it possible for our mind to be stretched up to that immaterial imitation and contemplation of the heavenly hierarchies, unless it use the material guidance by the hand that is according to it, reckoning the visible beauties as copies of the invisible comeliness," etc. All which things have been rendered into Latin with sufficient clearness by Ambrose of Camaldoli, and even more faithfully by John Scotus himself, who, almost a contemporary of Charlemagne, translates in this manner: Wherefore also our most holy hierarchy the most perfect disposition of sacred things, judging worthy of the supermundane imitation of the heavenly hierarchies, and diversifying the said immaterial hierarchies with material figures and formal compositions, handed down: that proportionally to ourselves, from the most sacred formations, we may ascend unto simple and unfigured heights and likenesses. Since neither is it possible for our mind to ascend to that non-material both imitation and contemplation of the heavenly hierarchies, unless it use that material guidance by the hand which is according to it, reckoning the visible forms as images of the invisible beauty

and imaginations, etc. In what manner could these things be approved by our Iconoclasts?

Finally Pope Nicholas I in an epistle to the perfidious Emperor Michael addresses him thus: "If it still pleases you to know something concerning this that may delight you, command the words of the ancient Father and venerable doctor Dionysius the Areopagite to Demophilus to be recited to you; who sanctions that it is unlawful for a priest offending even in a cause of piety to be judged by lesser men or inferiors: lest anything disorderly be done in the Church of God, and her state be confounded in aught." Today that epistle is inscribed to Demophilus the therapeut (that is, monk; see above), and is the eighth in number of the epistles of Dionysius; in which are contained the words that Nicholas cites: "It is not lawful for a priest to be called to account by the ministers above you, or by the therapeuts of the same rank with you." It is unlawful for a priest to be judged by ministers, or by therapeuts who are of the same order with you.

Testimonies of Liberatus the African, and of Deusdedit, Bishop of Cagliari.

I have produced witnesses from Asia and Europe, I shall produce one also from Africa; I have produced from the mainland, I shall produce one from the island of Sardinia. For into all parts of the world, over land and ocean, this judgement has penetrated and prevailed.

Liberatus the African in his Breviarium, concerning the Nestorian and Eutychian cause, ch. 10, wrote thus: "Cyril wrote four books, three against Theodore and Diodore as authors of the Nestorian dogma, and another book on the Incarnation. In which are contained the uncorrupted testimonies of the ancient Fathers: of Felix the Roman Pope, of Dionysius the Areopagite, Bishop of the Corinthians, and of Gregory the Wonderworker, surnamed Thaumaturgus."

Against this testimony two things could be objected by the adversaries. First, that certain Catholics have denied that these books are by St. Cyril; led by this reason, that Cyril had not objected these testimonies to them while living, and that therefore this work does not seem to be Cyril's. It can be answered that he objected them only then, because not having remembered them previously, they came into his mind afterwards; likewise that after they were dead he composed this work against those with whom while living he did not dispute, being still a younger man: whereas he disputed against their disciples Nestorius and Theodoret.

Secondly, it can be objected that the passage is corrupt, and that the word "Areopagite" should be struck out. I could wish ancient copies to be consulted; for it may be that the passage is by no means corrupt, but that Liberatus shared the error of those who thought that Dionysius the Areopagite after the see of Athens was translated to that of Corinth, before he migrated into Gaul.

Adeodatus, or Deusdedit, the venerable bishop of the Church of Cagliari of the island of Sardinia, in the Lateran synod under Martin I, in consultation 5, spoke thus: "Receiving a word consummated and shortened from the Lord, your venerable Beatitude compendiously and alike diligently has demonstrated to us both the false speaking and the novelty which Cyrus and Sergius have most openly wrought against the holy Fathers and dogmas of the Catholic Church, through the things which he has most prudently spoken at present, showing them entangled in the confession of heretics through this, that according to the execrable Themistius and Severus they declare the God-manly operation to be one, and not wonderful in this and marvellous, since in an undivided union he shows without confusion two natural operations of one and the same Christ God, that is the divine and the human, in most true proof that the same is naturally God and man; which assuredly, as blessed Dionysius says, is the supereminent new thing of all new things. For the aforesaid Father taught through this compound word of his not the destruction of either, but an undivided unity. For he wished to show a true union, and not any diminution of the natures which are substantially preserved in one Christ God, or of His natural

operations, which namely through their own writings, which have been read aloud at present, Cyrus and Sergius denying, and therefore also adulterating the testimonies of the holy Fathers, have deservedly been condemned by your apostolic and pious sentence, whom we also consonantly with it therefore condemn: and also Pyrrhus the successor of Sergius, since he himself also none the less is recognized to have received Cyrus with Sergius, and strove to act as advocate for him in the aforesaid seventh chapter, and testifies this in writing against him, because he altered the expression of blessed Dionysius, and because he was justly rebuked for an alteration of this sort by Sophronius of blessed memory: for thus Pyrrhus writes upon the one dogmatic volume of the same: Now the most reverend Sophronius censures one chapter only, as falsifying the testimony of Dionysius of blessed memory by the change of a single word: the aforesaid man saying fitting and cautious things in those points in which the former asserts: 'But since God became man, bringing forth for us a certain new God-manly operation;' for the volume in question contained in truth 'one' instead of 'new;' yet not maliciously (far be it!) according to my word, but since 'new' cannot be understood otherwise than as 'one,' such a word was put by the most holy Cyrus: since through the negation of sublime things the blessed doctor constructing one confession, and expressing this in the singular, what else did he hand down more clearly by a certain word than to confess one operation, inasmuch as Christ is one? Behold, most openly through his own words Pyrrhus both confessed that the expression of blessed Dionysius had been falsified by Cyrus, and showed that he was deservedly rebuked on that account," etc. He is treating of that passage of Dionysius in the fourth Epistle to Gaius, which the Monothelites, having corrupted and wrongly cited it, abused against the truth of the twofold will in Christ.

Testimonies from Hilduin, Hincmar, Anastasius the Librarian, and Hugh of St. Victor.

Hilduin, abbot of the monastery of blessed Dionysius near Paris, where the body of the most blessed martyr is believed to be preserved (although the people of Ratisbon contend that it was translated to their city by the gift of the kings of France, and is held today in the noble monastery of St. Emmeram)—Hilduin, I say, writing to the Emperor Louis the Pious, son of Charlemagne, testifies that the writer of these books, most noble by birth and distinguished in the mastership of philosophy, was famous at Athens: and he proves it from the apostolic Acts, and from the epistle of Aristarchus the Greek chronographer to Onesiphorus the primicerius, on the site of Athens; by whom he says there is narrated "the origin of his family and his learning, and the order of his manner of life, or the time of his age, and also his ordination and preaching, the substitution also of a bishop in his place, and his coming to Rome." There among other things he writes thus concerning these books: "For the rest, concerning the knowledge of his books, which he wrote in his native speech, and at whose request he composed them, the reading satisfies us through the grace of God and your ordinance, by the dispensation of which our chests unlock them translated to those who ask. Moreover, the authentic books themselves written in the Greek tongue, when the steward of the Church of Constantinople and the other envoys of Michael discharged a public embassy to your glory by a direct route, on the very vigil of the solemnity of St. Dionysius, we received as a great gift. Which gift to our devotion, as though brought from heaven, divine grace so attended that on the same night Christ the Lord deigned to work nineteen most renowned miracles in the healing of the sick from various infirmities, among persons best known and bordering upon our neighbourhood, to the praise and glory of His name, through the prayers and merits of His most excellent martyr." After these things Hilduin shows the slip of Bede and Gregory of Tours concerning this our Dionysius,

and answers those who on the authority of Bede and Gregory had tried to make another Dionysius, of Corinth, the author of those books. Finally the same Hilduin in the Passion of blessed Dionysius the Areopagite, which he professes to have collected from the Greeks, sets down the summary of the things that are treated in the books which we have today, and in the order in which they are published.

Hincmar, Bishop of Rheims, the disciple of Hilduin, writing to the Emperor Charles the Bald, proves the things that Hilduin had handed down from Greek writers by the testimony of blessed Sanctinus, who was first bishop of Chartres and afterwards of Meaux, and a disciple of Dionysius the Areopagite, by whom his Acts and martyrdom were written, which Hincmar says he transcribed from most ancient parchments, and transmits a copy to Charles the Bald: "That if there are any remnants," says he, "of those who denied that our lord and father, your patron Dionysius, was the Areopagite, baptized by the blessed Apostle Paul, and ordained bishop of the Athenians, and directed into Gaul by blessed Clement, from the things which the Greek testimony, and the attestation of the holy Roman see, and the Gallican witness intimates, they may recognize as ratified even in this cause what was said long before us: because truth, the more often it is buffeted, shines forth the more into the light." He proves it by three arguments, which we also have used and do use: 1. By the testimony of the Greeks, namely of the envoys of the Emperor Michael, to whom I have added several decuries of Fathers. 2. By the attestation of the holy Roman see, namely through Anastasius the Librarian, concerning whom presently, to whom I add the clear testimonies of Gregory the Great, Martin I, Adrian I, Nicholas I, and Agatho. 3. By the Gallican witness, namely of Hilduin, and, concerning which hereafter, of the Emperor Louis. The words of blessed Sanctinus concerning the coming of our blessed Dionysius into Gaul were: "St. Dionysius the Areopagite, illuminated with the truth of the faith by the peerless preaching of the blessed Apostle Paul, etc., having by revelation set in order the Church committed to him, came to Rome, etc., and having been lovingly and honourably received by blessed Clement, the successor of the Apostle Peter, after some space of time was directed with others into Gaul to dispense the seeds of the divine word, and preaching and confirming the word by the signs that followed, arrived at Paris, under the guidance of the Lord:" where he also suffered martyrdom; therefore (as Hilduin noted) among the Greeks his memory was for some time interrupted.

Anastasius, Librarian of the Roman See, whose History our John Busaeus caused to be printed at Mainz, wrote an epistle to the same Charles the Bald against those who asserted that blessed Dionysius, first bishop of Paris, was not the Areopagite: and he contends, relying on the authority of Greek and Latin codices, that he is the same, and that he composed his lofty writings in Greek speech: what writings, pray, unless these very ones, which, translated into Latin by Erigena at the command of Louis, and corrected by himself, Anastasius dedicated to Charles the son of Louis, together with the Passion of blessed Dionysius translated by himself from Methodius? Concerning which namely in another epistle to the same Charles he wrote thus: "It is to be noted that although this St. Dionysius was of such great glory and such great knowledge, or antiquity, yet whatever written tradition of the orthodox hands down, unless I am mistaken, never published any little Works of his before the Roman Pontiffs Gregory, Martin, and Agatho made mention of his sayings in their writings." And presently: "Whence I conjecture the opinion of the Greeks to be true, who assert that his books were hidden by earlier heretics, until a long time afterwards, of his little works, the single codex which is now had was found at Rome, and while the rest were not yet found, was carried away into Greece." Thus he: but I have shown that to certain Greeks, even before the holy Pope Gregory, these Areopagitic works were known; this much is true, that after Gregory they were received by common consent, until these sons of earth, and enemies of heavenly

things, renewed in the marshy mud that ancient complaint of anonymous men with a swollen and heavy, yet thankless and useless croaking.

Hugh of St. Victor, canon regular, so bright a light of his time that he was called another Augustine, first of the Latins ventured upon an explanation of the Celestial Hierarchy of the great Areopagite, using the version of John Scotus, and dedicated it, comprised in ten books, to Louis, King of the Franks, son of Louis the Fat; and in ch. 4 of his Prolegomena he gives the reason "why the theologian and narrator of the sacred hierarchies and powers, Dionysius" (so he calls him) judged that work of the Celestial Hierarchy should be composed by him. Let Hugh close the column of the Fathers; for those whom I shall subjoin were called Schoolmen, from their manner of disputing more adapted to the schools.

Testimonies of the Schoolmen.

Peter Lombard, who is commonly called the Master of the Sentences, in Book II, and the Schoolmen who followed him, held them for undoubted works of the Areopagite; and therefore they always cited his sayings concerning the heavenly hierarchies, and concerning the divine properties and other things, as ratified and supremely venerable: nor, except Thomas de Vio, have I read any of them who even slightly doubted concerning the author of those little works. Their consensus (which Denis the Carthusian in his Preface to our author calls the common judgement of all) is plain from the fact that Alexander of Hales in Part II, from q. 36; Albert the Great on 2 Sentences, dist. 9 and 10; blessed Thomas in Part I, q. 108 and passim; blessed Bonaventure on the said dist. 9 and 10; Durandus, Scotus, Richard, Gabriel, and others in the same place, without any addition, by antonomasia, always called him Dionysius; neither about to call him so, nor to value him so highly, if they had held him for uncertain, doubtful, or supposititious. With the same confidence and reverence St. Bonaventure, cleaving to his imitation and footsteps, composed a learned book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and St. Thomas published Commentaries on the book On the Divine Names; as also Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, on the angelic hierarchy. Alfonso de Madrigal, Tostado, Bishop of Ávila, also held them for Areopagitic, in his Commentaries on Joshua, ch. 10, q. 88.

Recollection of authorities, adapted to the single works of St. Dionysius.

Since this controversy which I have with Joseph Scaliger depends chiefly upon authority and ancient prescription, it has seemed good at the end of the book to gather together the suffrages by way of recapitulation, that fair judges may have at one glance what may move them justly to award or reject the Vindiciae.

For Scaliger (who thinks that he was the first to doubt) there were formerly indeed Greeks, but anonymous, whether Catholics or heretics is uncertain. In France also some, in the reigns of Louis the Pious and Charles the Bald, but they themselves also anonymous. Within the memory of our grandfathers there dug up the buried error, and hawked it about as new, Theodore Gaza and Lorenzo Valla the grammarians, Desiderius Erasmus of uncertain faith, Cajetan a Catholic, but too credulous towards Erasmus, Luther the heresiarch with his followers, Calvin the other heresiarch with his followers, and in these years Joseph Scaliger and Didier Hérault. You see a thin maniple, and of light-armed skirmishers.

There stands on the other side a dense and plainly unconquered legion, the strength of the triarii, called forth from Asia, Africa, and Europe: universal councils, Roman Pontiffs, patriarchs, bishops, doctors of the Church, theologians, historians, philosophers, all once celebrated on earth, many now glorious in the heavens.

Of these, some have received all the books of Dionysius that we have, others certain of them, as genuine works of blessed Dionysius the Areopagite.

All the books indeed have been received by all who

published Scholia on them, as Maximus the martyr and Pachymeres among the Greeks; or presented them to Latium, as Scotus, Hilduin, Anastasius the Librarian, and others; or wove indexes of them, as John of Scythopolis, Suidas, Simeon Metaphrastes, Nicephorus, and Hilduin; or who expressly affirmed that they are by Dionysius the Areopagite, as Theodore the presbyter, and the same Anastasius and Hilduin, Guillaume Budé, Matthew Galenus, Alan Cope, Cardinal Baronius, and our Cardinal Bellarmine, to whom one may add Jeremias of Constantinople and many others; or who, taking testimonies promiscuously from these little works, proved theological axioms thence, as with the Master of the Sentences Saints Bonaventure and Thomas, and all the rest of the Schoolmen; likewise those who simply made mention of the writings of the Areopagite, or collected certain fragments from uncertain places, as St. Cyril above, Liberatus, Saints Sanctinus and Hincmar, Anastasius of Nyssa, Antony Melissa, Theodore Prodromus, Cardinal Bessarion, and the eighth general Synod of Ferrara.

And certain and definite passages of the extant little books very many have produced. For example: from On the Celestial Hierarchy, blessed Ignatius the martyr, St. Jerome, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Chrysostom, St. Dionysius of Alexandria, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, Origen Adamantius, Michael Syncellus, St. John Damascene, George the Patrician, Euthymius Zigabenus, St. Gregory the Great, Pope Adrian I, Hugh of St. Victor, and Robert, Bishop of Lincoln.

From On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, Anastasius of Nyssa, Elias of Crete, St. Michael Syncellus, St. John Damascene, George the Patrician, Euthymius Zigabenus, the First Synod of Nicaea, the Second Synod of Nicaea, ch. Omnes, dist. 38, from the Decretum of Gratian, St. Bonaventure.

From the book On the Divine Names, St. Ignatius the martyr, St. Maximus the martyr, St. Anastasius the Sinaite, St. Andrew of Crete, Bishop of Jerusalem, Glycas, Julian, Bishop of Jerusalem, Euthymius the historiographer, St. John Damascene, St. Simeon Metaphrastes, Nicephorus Callistus, Epiphanius the presbyter, St. Michael Syncellus, the Greeks in a certain canticle on the Mother of God, George the Patrician, Euthymius Zigabenus, the Sixth General Synod, the holy Pope Martin I, Pope Agatho, Saint Thomas Aquinas.

From the book On Mystical Theology, George the Patrician, and that monk Euthymius Zigabenus.

Of all the Epistles those make mention who enumerate all the Works; and of certain of them singly and specially the following, in this manner.

Of the fourth Epistle to Gaius the Therapeut, St. Sophronius, Bishop of Jerusalem, St. Maximus, St. Michael Syncellus, St. John Damascene, Euthymius Zigabenus, the Lateran Synod under Martin I, the holy Pope Martin I, Sergius of Tempsa, Deusdedit of Cagliari. All these are Catholics, and from the Monothelites you have five: Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Macarius, patriarchs, and Themistius the philosopher.

Of the Epistle to Demophilus the Therapeut, Pope Nicholas I.

Of the Epistle to St. John the Evangelist, Pope Adrian I. Are they numerous and worthy enough? Relying therefore on these forces I have come forth into the battle-line: overshadowed by this cloud of witnesses, I do not fear the lightnings of Salmoneus or the thunders of Claudius. I have produced witnesses who were the most prudent, most holy, and most wise of many centuries and of the whole Christian world: many of whom spoke in oecumenical councils under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; many enrolled in the number of the blessed, illustrious by martyrdoms and miracles, etc.