P. Halloix, S.J., De S. Dionysii Areopagitae vita et scriptis quaestiones quatuor

The Four Questions of the Reverend Father Pierre Halloix of the Society of Jesus on the Life and Works of St. Dionysius.

Concerning the Life of St. Dionysius and his Works, there occur four most noble questions, divided among the various opinions of learned men.

The first is: Whether Dionysius the Areopagite, the disciple of Paul, is the same person who is also the Bishop of Paris and Patron of the Franks.

The second: Whether the Works which are now extant published under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite are in truth his own, or those of some later writer.

The third: Whether Timothy, to whom these books are inscribed, is that Timothy, the disciple and companion of Paul, or some other person proposed either by Lucius Dexter, or by Baronius, or by someone else.

The fourth: Which of the two today possess the body of St. Dionysius, the people of Paris or the people of Regensburg.

These four questions, by which as by so many columns the structure of the Life and Works of St. Dionysius is upheld, although they have been treated by some heretofore, and indeed not intelligently, it has seemed good to me nevertheless at present to treat anew at length more diligently. For I have both more studiously weighed the veteran weapons or ancient arguments of the opposing parties, and against novel assaults have brought together new forces for the better side; with this design, namely, that if any, imbued with foreign opinions, perchance despise this Life or value it less than is just, upon consulting these reasons for our opinion which they have at hand, and at the same time weighing in an even balance the weight of the arguments adduced on either side, they may more easily be led back from straying errors into the circle of reason.

FIRST QUESTION.

Whether Dionysius the Areopagite, the disciple of Paul, is the same as he who was also Bishop of Paris, the Apostle of the Franks.

That it is one and the same Dionysius who was first Bishop of Athens and afterwards of Paris is proved by these arguments:

First indeed, because when first this question began to be raised and the matter to be more diligently examined between the Greeks and the Franks, it was decided by the common judgement of both that there were not two, but a single one: who after the manner

customary with the apostles, after founding the Church at Athens and giving them a bishop, departed elsewhere, and at length came into Gaul. And as for the judgement of the Greeks indeed, it can be confirmed from the most eminent men of that age alike in holiness and in erudition, namely St. Methodius and St. Michael Syncellus; both of whom, as Cedrenus witnesses, under the Emperor Theophilus

the Iconoclast underwent martyrdom for the sake of religion. Of these men, therefore, at the time when the Emperor Louis the Pious was inquiring into the affairs and acts of his patron, the one embraced in an excellent panegyric the martyrdom of St. Dionysius, the other his whole life. And the words of the former indeed, that is, of Methodius, Patriarch of Constantinople, which pertain hereto, are of this sort: Τότε καὶ ὁ μακάριος οὑτοσὶ Διονύσιος τῷ τοῦ σταυροῦ ἀρότρῳ τὴν θάλασσαν διατεμὼν, ἀπὸ Ἀθηνῶν τὴν Ῥώμην κατέλαβεν οὐρανίῳ καὶ θείῳ θελήματι, ὡς ὑπὸ Θεοῦ ἠγαπημένος, ὁδηγούμενος. Then also this blessed Dionysius, furrowing the sea with the plough of the cross, crossed over from Athens to Rome, led by the heavenly and divine will, as one beloved by God. Thus he concerning the journey to Rome; and concerning his passage into France, he writes thus in the same place a little below: Ἀκοιτανίας δὲ τοῖς μέρεσι τὸν ἅγιον Ἀντωνῖνον ἀποστείλας, αὐτὸς σὺν τῷ ἁγίῳ Ἐλευθερίῳ ἐν Παρισίᾳ τῇ πόλει ἐπορεύθη. Having sent St. Antoninus into the parts of Aquitaine, he himself with St. Lucian and St. Rusticus and St. Eleutherius set out for the city of Paris.

And the words of Syncellus, presbyter of Jerusalem and a man endowed with great erudition, are these, where he treats of the martyrdom undergone by him at Paris: Καὶ δὴ καταμηνυθέντος αὐτοῦ τοῖς διώκταις ὑπαρχειν ἐν Παρισίᾳ, πολίχνῃ οὕτω καλουμένῃ , δρομαίως εἰσελάσαντες ἐκεῖσε κατέλαβον αὐτόν. And when it had now been reported to the persecutors that he was in the little town called Paris, riding in thither at a run they seized him there.

Moreover, that the judgement of the Franks was the same at the same period is clear from the writers of that age, Abbot Hilduin and Hincmar, Archbishop of Reims: the former of whom not only proves that Dionysius the Areopagite and Dionysius of Paris are the same person, but also vigorously refutes those who think otherwise or intimate it in any way whatsoever; while the latter, in the Epistle which he wrote to the Emperor and King of the Franks Charles the Bald, asserts that not only the Greeks and the Franks held this opinion concerning one and the same Dionysius, but also the Romans, and even the pontiff himself. For he says that he is sending to the emperor a copy of certain writings on this subject: "That if there be any remnants," he says, "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 the Gauls by Blessed Clement, they may recognize from the things which Greek testimony and the attestation of the Holy Roman See and Gallican witness intimate, that what was said long before us holds good in this cause. Because truth, the more often it is assailed, shines forth the more brightly into the light." Thus Hincmar.

Baronius cites the same words in Tome II of his Annals, at the year of Christ 109, but somewhat faultily. For Gallicana intima contestatio does not make sense; one must read intimat, which word was very frequent in that century. Nor likewise is it right that he enclosed in a parenthesis those words (quod longe ante nos dictum est), for this is Hincmar's sense: "That they may recognize that what was said long before us (namely, concerning one and the same Dionysius) holds good in this cause."

Anastasius, the Roman Librarian, wrote things conformable to these around the same time to the same Emperor Charles; where, after other things in which he says that he translated the Greek Life of St. Dionysius into the Latin tongue, he says: "Let therefore the opinion of certain persons now cease, who assert that he who is fragrant with his body and miracles near Paris is not Dionysius the Areopagite: since the pen of the Greeks also, agreeing with the Latin tongue, witnesses and proclaims this."

Nor indeed is this argument to be lightly esteemed, which is drawn from the consensus of the Greeks (who otherwise are wont enough to love both themselves and their own). For neither is there any doubt that such great men as Methodius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and the presbyter of Jerusalem,

Michael Syncellus, illustrious namely for the glory of erudition, gravity, and holiness, before they wrote the things which they wrote concerning St. Dionysius, expended some diligence in inquiring into the truth, especially in so great a matter. For to say or suspect that to curry favour with the emperor they wrote things which they themselves thought otherwise, is to attribute too light, nay even a perverse conscience to men who were ready and brave for martyrdom.

Secondly. That of so great a man as Dionysius was, so scanty a memorial and mention was formerly found in the East (where he flourished with Paul), whether concerning the time of his departure, or the manner of his death, or the place of his burial, is indeed a great argument that he (as almost all the disciples of the apostles then did) departed into other lands, and exchanged life far from his native borders.

Thirdly. Symeon Metaphrastes, Nicephorus Callistus, and others of the Greeks who more studiously searched out the memorials of the saints from ancient monuments, taught the same things concerning the migration of Dionysius into Italy and France. The words of the former are these: Τὴν βασιλίδα Ῥώμην καταλαμβάνει , καὶ πρόσεισι Κλήμεντι τὸν Ἀποστολικὸν τηνικαῦτα θρόνον διέποντι. He arrives at the royal city of Rome, and approaches Clement, who was then governing the Apostolic See. And a little below: Ὑπὸ τούτου προτρέπεται καὶ πρὸς Ἑσπέρια μεταβῆναι μέρη. By him he is urged to cross over also to the western parts. And again not much later: Καὶ τοὺς Ἑσπερίους καταλαβὼν Γαλάτας, οὐ διδαχῆς μόνον ῥήμασιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ σημείων ἔργοις ἀποστολῆς ἔργον εἰργάζετο. And having reached the Western Gauls, not only by words of teaching, but also by works of signs, as an apostle he discharged the work of his office.

The words of Nicephorus in the second book of his Ecclesiastical History, Chapter 20: Διονύσιος δὲ τὸν λόγον εὐσεβείας λαμπρῶς παῤῥησιασάμενος, ἐπὶ πολλοῖς ἔτεσι κατὰ τὴν ἑσπέραν δοξάσας Χριστὸν, εἰς βαθὺ γῆρας ἥκων , καὶ τῷ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ μαρτυρίῳ κατεκοσμήθη. Moreover Dionysius, after he had nobly and freely preached the word of piety, and for many years had glorified Christ in the West, having advanced to a great old age, was finally adorned with the crown of martyrdom on His behalf.

Fourthly. The Latin historians and chronographers and annalists have defended the same opinion concerning Dionysius: Vincent of Beauvais in the Historical Mirror, Book I, Chapter 1; St. Antoninus in Part I of his Historical Work, Title 6, Chapters 18 and 19; Petrus Equilinus, Book IX, Chapter 41; Génébrard, Mariana, Baronius, and everywhere all of them. Who, if they be said to be more recent authors, it must be said that those who think the contrary are much more recent even than they, and so born yesterday and the day before yesterday, as the saying goes.

Fifthly. This opinion is proved from many Lives of other saints, some of which saints are related to have accompanied Blessed Dionysius from Athens to Rome, others from Rome into Gaul. Now it is a grave thing, and little consonant with Christian piety and modesty, to abrogate credit from so many Lives of saints and narratives drawn from the archives of various Churches. They state, therefore, that St. Jon (whom some call Jonas, others Jonius, but both less correctly) came with Blessed Dionysius from Athens to Rome, and from thence migrated together with him into the Gauls. Whose martyrdom indeed gave its name to the place called Mount Saint-Jon near the district of Châtres, called in French Chastres sous Montlehery. They state also that Blessed Regulus, formerly a disciple of St. John the Apostle, upon his master's banishment to Patmos betook himself to Athens to Dionysius, and cleaved to him thereafter, and set out together with him for Rome, and from thence into the land of Gaul. Concerning which Regulus Petrus Galesinius writes thus in his Martyrology at the third before the Kalends of April: "Among the people of Senlis," he says, "the feast of St. Regulus the Bishop. He, a citizen of Nicaea and disciple of Blessed John the Evangelist, the partner and companion of Dionysius the Areopagite in his Gallic pilgrimage,

having been made Bishop of the people of Arles after Trophimus, illustrious for the praise of holiness from building the basilica of the apostles, rested in the Lord." Thus there. See more concerning the companions of the same Dionysius in Chapters 10 and 21 of his Life above.

Sixthly. From the Menaea of the Greeks, which at the 3rd day of October relate that after explaining the form of ecclesiastical order he set out for the western parts and underwent martyrdom at Paris. The very words of the Menaeon are extant above in Chapter 31 of the Life.

Seventhly. The little book of the passion of St. Dionysius, far more ancient than all the Greek writers already cited, containing both his mission by Clement into Gaul and the order of his torments and death, and likewise the very ancient treatise of Visbius concerning the same matters (for Visbius was the son of Lisbius, who was converted by St. Dionysius), found about eight hundred years ago by Hilduin, a diligent searcher of such writings, teach and prove the same thing.

Eighthly and lastly, it is confirmed from the most ancient martyrologies, breviaries, and missals, where that Dionysius, Bishop of Paris, is said to have been sent into the Gauls by Clement, the Roman Pontiff. I saw at Paris (for I had betaken myself thither for the sake of investigating these matters), I saw, I say, in the library of the most illustrious de Thou, and André Duchesne, a distinguished writer of our age, saw with me, two very ancient manuscript Martyrologies, in one of which it was stated that St. Dionysius was sent into the Gauls by the Roman Pontiff; and in the other (which of the two was the more ancient) it was expressly stated that he was sent by Clement, the Roman Pontiff. Moreover, concerning the diverse breviaries and missals of almost all Churches, and some also outside Gaul, I refer eager readers to the History of the Abbey of St. Denis, recently published by Jacques Doublet (with whom I also conferred at times in Paris). That man, if anyone else, was a most diligent investigator of all things that pertain to the affairs of St. Dionysius. And add as a corollary the Martyrology and Breviary which the Roman Church now uses, which most expressly declare that Dionysius the Areopagite was sent by Pope Clement into Gaul for the sake of preaching the Gospel. Yet no other Pope Clement can be assigned than that disciple of Peter and Paul who lived in the first century. For Pope Clement II lived only in the eleventh century. Therefore the Bishop of Athens and of Paris is one and the same, not two.

But what those who think the contrary oppose to these arguments must now be seen. They oppose, therefore, three things chiefly.

The first indeed, and that which surpasses the others, is that in the ancient Latin Martyrologies they have found St. Dionysius set down twice, namely once on 3 October, under these words: "At Athens, of Dionysius the Areopagite, who suffered under Hadrian by diverse torments, as Aristides is witness in the work which he composed concerning the Christian religion. This work is held most famous among the memorials of the ancients among the Athenians"; and once on the 9th of the same month, under this form: "At Paris, of Dionysius the Bishop with his companions, executed with the sword by Fescenninus." Thus the ancient Roman Martyrology, with which agree the Martyrologies of the Venerable Bede and of Ado of Vienne, so far indeed as pertains to the different days; in their words otherwise they favour us, as will be declared afterwards when answer is made to the second argument.

The second argument is from the authority of Gregory of Tours, Book I, Chapter 30, who says that Dionysius was sent into the Gauls under the Emperor Decius. Whence it would follow that he could not have been the Areopagite. For Decius lived in the third century, the Areopagite in the first.

The third is from the authority of Sulpicius Severus, Book II of his Sacred History, who writes that martyrdoms were first seen within the Gauls under Marcus Aurelius, the son of Antoninus Pius. From

which they gather that the Areopagite could not be said to have suffered at Paris under Hadrian, who reigned before Antoninus Pius.

These arguments at first sight appear probable enough; but when more closely inspected and examined, they are convicted of manifest falsehood. Let us therefore examine each one.

As to what pertains to the first, therefore, such is the answer: It does not follow, from the fact that someone is set down twice in a Martyrology on different days and under different words, that there are two different persons of the same name. For that the same person should be set down twice in a Martyrology happens in various ways. First indeed, when he was bishop in different places. For many, having held an episcopate somewhere and left their memorial there, departed elsewhere and established another see: as the Apostle Peter first at Antioch, afterwards at Rome; as St. Alexander (whose Life also, as being a writer, we have written) first in Cappadocia, afterwards at Jerusalem, whom you will find on two days in the Menologion, namely on 16 May and on 12 December; as the great Eustathius, first of Beroea, afterwards of Antioch, who also is set down twice in the Menologion on different days, once on 21 February and once on 5 June, and in the Roman Martyrology, both old and new, on 16 July.

Secondly, when the day of his undertaking the episcopate is celebrated at one time, and at another the day of his departure, ennobled either by martyrdom or by holiness of life, as happens in the case of Saints Basil the Great, Ambrose of Milan, and others. For the deposition or departure of Basil indeed is celebrated on the Kalends of January, and his ordination on the eighteenth before the Kalends of July, as may be seen in the Roman Martyrology. And the natal day of Ambrose is assigned to the day before the Nones of April, and his ordination to the seventh before the Ides of December, in these words: "At Milan, the ordination of St. Ambrose the Bishop, by whose holiness and doctrine the universal Church is adorned."

Thirdly, when once someone's natal day, or the day of his death, is celebrated, and once or more often the day of the translation of his body, or of certain relics, as we have shown in the case of St. Ignatius the Martyr; and just as in the case of Saints Andrew the Apostle, Luke the Evangelist, and Timothy the disciple of Paul, is learned from the writings of Blessed Jerome against Vigilantius; as may also be seen in St. Jerome himself and in St. Nicholas, Bishop of Myra, and in very many others, of whom not only the natal days, but also the days of the translation of their relics are found noted down on distinct days.

Fourthly, and more often, from the error of those who compiled the Martyrologies, and from various sacred books collected the saints to be inserted in them, partly from the Greek, partly from the Latin Church. Which happened the more easily because the Martyrologies were neither composed nor enlarged by one man, nor in one century, but by many men, one after another, and in all centuries. For he who first in the first century, or at the beginning of the second, composed a Martyrology, included only the saints of the first century; and after his death, according as some arose in the second century who seemed worthy of the Martyrology, so they were added by one and another, both by the Greeks in the Greek Church and by the Latins in the Latin Church: for both the latter and the former had distinct calendars. And so the Old Roman Martyrology, for example, which at the beginning was very small, as the number of the saints gradually increased, grew at an equal pace; and likewise the Menaeon of the Greeks; and then after several centuries, since many saints of the Latins were lacking in the Greek Menaea, and many of the Greeks were wanting in the Latin Martyrologies, there were certain men (especially after the times of St. Jerome) who added many saints to that first Roman Martyrology (which is now called the Old Roman Martyrology), and took them in great part from the Menaea of the Greeks. Now these were, first indeed the Venerable Bede, with his supplementer Florus the monk (for the former had left several days empty of the names of martyrs), next Usuard,

at the command of the Emperor Charlemagne; after him Ado, who so completed Bede—though already somewhat fuller through the additions of Florus, yet by no means complete in all parts—that he not only filled up the empty days, but also adorned them with brief acts of the martyrs themselves, as is clear from the Epistle of Ado himself, which our Heribert Rosweyde prefixed to the Old Roman Martyrology. I say, therefore, that from the beginning St. Dionysius was set down only once both in the Menologion of the Greeks and in the Martyrology of the Latins: and in the Menologion indeed on the third day of October, most briefly in this manner: "The contest of our holy Father Dionysius the Areopagite, Bishop of Athens." Where observe that it is passed over in silence where that contest or martyrdom took place, because the Greeks did not sufficiently know the place of one who had journeyed and died far from his native land. In the Menaeon, however, which is later than the Menologion and much fuller, although his natal day is set forth under this title only, Τοῦ ἁγίου ἱερομάρτυρος Διονυσίου τοῦ Ἀρεοπαγίτου, Of the holy hieromartyr Dionysius the Areopagite, yet in the subjoined compendium of his life and martyrdom he is written to have suffered at Paris.

Now neither the Menaeon nor the Menologion of the Greeks even now has the natal day of Dionysius the Areopagite and Bishop of Paris save on one and the same day, that is, on the third of October. The compiler, therefore, or rather the enlarger of the Roman Martyrology, brought into his Martyrology on the same day that which he found in the Menologion on the third day of October; and thus it came to pass that he who was on 9 October under the name of the Bishop of Paris, was also on the third day under the name of the Areopagite or Bishop of Athens. For since he was bishop in both places, both at Athens and at Paris, the Athenians enrolled and venerated him under the name of the Areopagite or Bishop of Athens, and the Parisians under the name of the Bishop of Paris.

Note here also in passing that in the Old Roman Martyrology originally there was nothing on the third of October save this: "At Athens, of Dionysius the Areopagite, who suffered under Hadrian by diverse torments." While all this that follows: "As Aristides is witness in the work which he composed concerning the Christian religion. This work is held most famous among the memorials of the ancients among the Athenians," is the addition of some later hand. Which is clear from all the remaining body of the same Martyrology (where only the names of the martyrs and the place and day of their passion are recounted) and from the testimony of Ado in the epistle cited above. Now it seems to have been taken from Ado himself, who in his Martyrology has the same thing, and indeed in more words, in this manner: "As Aristides the Athenian, a man wonderful for faith and wisdom, is witness in that work which he composed concerning the Christian religion. This work is honoured in the highest degree among the Athenians, and is held most famous among the monuments of the ancients, as the more learned of the Greeks affirm." Hence therefore it was ineptly and unbecomingly thrust into the Old Roman Martyrology; for in enlarging any work, the form of the first work must be retained, and either the brevity or the prolixity of the author and source itself must be imitated. Those who offend in this kind declare themselves to be men, not indeed of perverse character, but of perverse judgement.

Thus offended he who in the same Martyrology at the eighth of November added thus: "And on the same day, of the Four Crowned Martyrs, Severus, Severianus, Carpophorus, Victorinus: whose feast Pope Miltiades appointed to be celebrated under the names of five martyrs, because their names were not found; but after the lapse of years they were revealed to a certain holy man." For he ought to have ended at Victorinus, and cast out those words, whose feast, etc. For by these words the form of the Martyrology is deformed. Moreover, how did Miltiades appoint it to be celebrated under the names of five martyrs, if there were only four? Take away five, therefore, for it is faulty, and restore four.

Therefore, to return to the proposed argument,

it came to pass through the error of later martyrologists that Dionysius was set down twice in the Martyrology. For when they had found written in the Menaeon of the Greeks and the Menologion at the third of October the natal day or contest of Dionysius the Areopagite, Bishop of Athens, supposing him to be different from Dionysius, Bishop of Paris, whom they had in their Martyrologies on the ninth day of the same month, they themselves also enrolled on the third day of October the natal day of Dionysius the Areopagite, just as they found it there, and thus out of one Dionysius they made two. Whence Molanus in his Notes on Usuard indicated that on the third of October what is found concerning St. Dionysius does not necessarily have to be read. For he affixed that little mark q, which in his Epistle to the Reader, number 12, he says signifies that up to that point it may be read in all Churches: "For those things," he says, "which follow the mark q, either are feasts of translations, taken for the most part from particular Churches, which it is not necessary to read everywhere throughout the Churches; or they are in very small type, concerning the uncanonized, etc." Thence Molanus, a man truly diligent and attentive in matters of this sort, judged that this Dionysius the Areopagite noted on 3 October is the same as Dionysius, Bishop of Paris; for why otherwise would he think that the Areopagite should not be read in all churches? Add that neither in the Martyrology of the Venerable Bede was there originally anything on 3 October, but only on the 9th, as now in the new and corrected Roman Martyrology. For Baronius testifies in Tome II of his Annals, at the year of Christ 109, that a most ancient manuscript Martyrology of Bede, received formerly from the relics of the monastery of St. Cyriacus, has only one Dionysius, namely him of Paris, on the seventh before the Ides of October. "Whence," he says, "those words concerning Dionysius the Areopagite must have been added not by Bede, but to Bede, namely out of the Menologion of the Greeks. For on that day, 3 October, the same treat of Dionysius the Areopagite." Thus Baronius, and rightly. Molanus also had indicated in the place cited above, by adding the letter G to the word Areopagita, that it had been taken from the Greek Menologion.

But our adversaries ask for examples of those who in like manner are set down twice in the Martyrology as if they were different, and yet are one and the same.

I answer indeed that what they ask is not necessary, since other arguments from elsewhere suffice; yet in this also we shall give them satisfaction, so that they too may the more willingly yield to us when they have received what they ask.

First, therefore, St. Crescens, the disciple of the Apostle Paul, who just like Dionysius was an apostle in the East and afterwards in the Gauls, is in like manner set down twice in the Martyrologies, once on 27 June in this manner: "In Galatia, of St. Crescens, disciple of the Apostle Paul, who, crossing over into the Gauls, converted many to the faith of Christ by the word of preaching; and returning to the nation to which he had been specially given as bishop, after he had confirmed the Galatians themselves in the work of the Lord even to the end of his life, finally consummated his martyrdom under Trajan." And once again on 29 December in this fashion: "At Vienne in Gaul, of St. Crescens, disciple of the blessed Apostle Paul and first bishop of the same city." Thus in the Roman Martyrology. Where you see that once his natal day is placed at Vienne, where he was bishop, with no mention made of Galatia; in the very same manner in which that of St. Dionysius, Bishop of Paris, is placed on 9 October without any mention of Athens; and in the ancient Martyrologies of Bede and Usuard and Ado, once likewise in Galatia on 27 June, on which day in Bede there is no mention of Vienne or of the Gauls. For he has only this: "In Galatia, of Blessed Crescens the Bishop, disciple of St. Paul the Apostle." And on the 29th day of December thus: "On the same day, of St. Crescens, disciple of the Apostle Paul, first teacher of the Church of Vienne." Moreover, when Usuard had recognized that he was the same person and had noticed that he was set down twice, he removed him once. For concerning Crescens on 29 December he has nothing. Thus the editors of the new Roman Martyrology,

when they discovered that the same Dionysius the Areopagite and Bishop of Paris was set down twice, expunged him once, and left him only on 9 October.

Secondly, St. Philip, Bishop of Gortyna in Crete, is found twice in the Old Roman Martyrology, once on 11 April in this manner: "At Gortyna, of Bishop Philip, who flourished in the times of Antoninus Verus and Lucius." And once on 8 October in this form: "At Gortyna, of Bishop Philip." Bede also has the very same man twice on the same days, once thus on the third before the Ides of April: "In Crete the city of Gortyna, of Blessed Bishop Philip." Where such a correction must be applied: "In Crete, in the city of Gortyna." For Crete is not a city of Gortyna, but the reverse. And apud Cretam is the same as in Creta, since it is frequent in the Martyrologies for apud to be put for in. Nor is there any reason why anyone should imagine that they are different men: for no trace is found anywhere of another Philip, Bishop of Gortyna, save of the single ecclesiastical writer (whose Life I too have written separately). And that the same man is denoted in both places is clear from Ado, who on 11 April has thus: "In Crete, in the city of Gortyna, of Blessed Bishop Philip, who was illustrious in life and doctrine in the times of the Emperors Antoninus Verus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus"; and on 8 October thus: "In Crete, in the city of Gortyna, of Blessed Bishop Philip, a man endowed with great virtues and the best studies."

Now who doubts that "to be illustrious in life and doctrine" and "to be endowed with great virtues and the best studies" are the same thing? Who likewise could doubt that those things are said of the same man, when the name of the man and of his dignity, and the island itself too and the city of that island agree?

Hence the revisers of the new Roman Martyrology, and before them Usuard, when they read of Blessed Philip on two different days, removed him in the latter place. For Usuard on 11 April relates his memorial thus, and nowhere else: "In Crete, in the city of Gortyna, of St. Philip the Bishop, who was endowed with great virtues and the best studies. Now he flourished in the times of the Emperors Antoninus Verus and Lucius Aurelius." Where you see that all the things which Ado had divided between two days are comprised in one and the same by the most learned Usuard. Thus it was done also in the new Roman Martyrology on the same day, where it reads thus: "At Gortyna in Crete, of St. Philip the Bishop, most illustrious in life and doctrine, who in the times of Marcus Antoninus and Aurelius Commodus, governing the Church entrusted to him, protected the same from the fury of the heathens and the snares of heretics." There is nothing concerning him elsewhere.

Thirdly, St. Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem, who suffered under Decius, is read of twice in the Menologion, once on 16 May and once on 12 December; likewise he is found twice in the Martyrology of the Venerable Bede, once on 30 January and once on 18 March; and similarly in Ado and in the Old Roman Martyrology; but in the new Roman Martyrology he has been removed once, and is now found only once, and likewise in Usuard. For they saw that he whom others thought to be two was the same man.

Now the cause of his twofold placement in the same Martyrology seems to be the same as that which was stated in the case of St. Dionysius. For he too was bishop twice, once in Cappadocia, once at Jerusalem. It would be tedious to seek out others who are found set down more than once in diverse Martyrologies. For St. Euphrosyne also is noted down twice by Usuard on different days and in different months: once on 1 January, where Bede and Ado and the new Roman Martyrology and others also place her; and once again on 11 February. Similarly Basil the Great also is placed once on 1 January, once on 14 June. And so with others.

But these examples can and ought to suffice to show that it does not necessarily follow that those of the same name who are set down twice in a Martyrology are different persons, even though the cause thereof cannot be discovered in the same place, since one or another of those causes which I have set down above almost always underlies it.

Nor holds good the argumentation of those who from the fact that

on the third of October it is said, "At Athens, of Dionysius the Areopagite," etc., gather that he suffered at Athens; and from the fact that on the ninth of October it is said, "At Paris, of Dionysius the Bishop," etc., wish it to be understood that he suffered at Paris. Those names of cities do not signify this, nor do they wish this to be understood; but rather this, that his natal day is celebrated, or his memorial is celebrated, whether they suffered or died there or elsewhere. For otherwise many would be understood to have suffered there: and above all that inexcusable instance on the first of February, where it is said in the Old Roman Martyrology: "At Antioch, of Ignatius, Bishop and Martyr," whereas it is clearer than light that he suffered at Rome; and in Bede, where it reads thus: "At Antioch, the passion of St. Ignatius, Bishop and Martyr"; and in Ado: "On the same day, at Antioch, of Blessed Ignatius, Bishop and Martyr." In all which places, at the names of the cities or places there must be understood, as we have said, that the natal day is celebrated or the memorial kept. Thus in the Roman Martyrology at 31 August: "At Trier, the natal day of St. Paulinus the Bishop," namely is celebrated; and yet he did not die there, but in Phrygia or near Phrygia in exile.

Thus in the same Martyrology at the fourth day of September: "At Rimini, of St. Marinus the Deacon," who died not at Rimini, but on Mount Titano, as stands in his Life. Therefore one must supply in thought that his natal day is venerated.

Thus in the Old Roman Martyrology at the twenty-seventh of January, when it is said: "At Constantinople, of John Chrysostom," there neither ought to be nor can be understood "he died," but "his feast is celebrated." For he did not die at Constantinople, but in Pontus. Enough concerning the first argument; now let us come to the second, which is of this sort.

Gregory of Tours writes in the first book of his History of the Franks, Chapter 30, that in the time of the Emperor Decius seven bishops were sent into Gaul, among whom he reckons St. Dionysius, Bishop of Paris; therefore he is another than the Areopagite, who died long before under Hadrian.

The words of the same Gregory are these: "These therefore were sent: to the people of Tours, Bishop Gatianus; to the people of Arles, Bishop Trophimus; to Narbonne, Bishop Paul; to Toulouse, Bishop Saturninus; to the Parisians, Bishop Dionysius; to the Arverni, Bishop Austremonius; to the people of Limoges was appointed Bishop Martial." Now he is treating there of the times of Decius.

I answer that this authority collapses of its own accord. For it openly and evidently contains falsehoods. For St. Trophimus, the first Bishop of Arles, of whom he treats here (for no other is read of in that Church), was a disciple of St. Paul, and all the Martyrologies, both old and new, testify to this. For the Old Roman Martyrology on 29 December has thus: "Of Bishop Trophimus, disciple of the apostles." And the new or Ordinary Roman Martyrology reads thus: "At Arles, the natal day of St. Trophimus, of whom St. Paul makes mention when writing to Timothy, who, having been ordained bishop by the same apostle, was first directed to the aforesaid city to preach the Gospel of Christ. From the fountain of whose preaching (as Pope St. Zosimus writes) all Gaul received the streams of the faith." The Martyrology of the Venerable Bede writes thus concerning the same: "At Arles, the natal day of St. Trophimus, Bishop and Confessor, disciple of the Apostles Peter and Paul."

See the same things in Ado in his little book On the Feasts, and in others, both martyrologists and sacred historians: and yet in those words of Gregory he is placed under Decius. Concerning St. Martial, likewise a disciple of the apostles, the same Gregory erred in like manner, since no one besides him thought that St. Martial came into the Gauls under Decius, and he is the first author of that opinion. For almost all beforehand agreed that he was one of Christ's seventy-two disciples. Concerning whom see the Gallia Christiana of Claude Robert, where the Martyrology of Limoges writes thus

of him: "In Aquitaine, a province of Gaul, in the city of Limoges, the natal day of the most holy Martial, who, chosen as one of the seventy-two disciples, fulfilled great merit in the office of preaching with Peter the Prince of the Apostles, and afterwards, at the command of the Lord, converted Aquitaine. Who, chosen a virgin by Him and full of the Holy Spirit, was taken up into heaven with great and unspeakable glory in the fifty-ninth year of his age, and the twenty-eighth of his episcopate, in the 212th Olympiad, and the third year of the reign of Vespasian Caesar, and the fortieth after the resurrection of the Lord. All the years of his life are computed thus: he had completed fifteen years before his baptism; three he remained with the Lord, and five with Peter at Jerusalem, and seven at Antioch, and at Rome he remained one year, and in Aquitaine for twenty-eight years he persevered most gloriously in the episcopal ministry even unto the end: where he consecrated the church of St. Stephen the Levite and Protomartyr in the times of the Emperor Nero and Duke Stephen." Thus there.

In the case of St. Paul, the first Bishop of Narbonne, the same Gregory similarly blundered: concerning whom the Martyrology of the Venerable Bede writes thus on 22 March: "In the Gauls, in the city of Narbonne, of St. Paul, Bishop and Confessor, disciple of the apostles of Christ: whom they hand down to have been that very same Sergius Paulus the proconsul, a prudent man, from whom Paul himself obtained his name," etc. Other Martyrologies agree, both that old Roman one published by Heribert (where it reads thus: "At Narbonne, of St. Paul the Bishop, disciple of the apostles") and the customary and ordinary one; and likewise that of Ado and of others on this day, but that of Usuard on 12 December.

If therefore he manifestly erred in the case of these three, when he said that they came into the Gauls under Decius, that is, a whole century after they had died, how shall the same testimony avail against Dionysius the Areopagite, which availed nothing against them? Therefore what Gregory of Tours says concerning Dionysius "is as true (as Baronius deservedly writes) as what he asserts there, that in the time of the same Decius Trophimus was sent to Arles, Paul to Narbonne, and Martial likewise into the Gauls: who are established to have been disciples of the apostles, and to have been sent into the Gauls to preach the Gospel in the times of the apostles. But these things, like many others, must be pardoned to the simplicity of an author who so easily admitted many things, even as Hilduin also excuses him, saying thus: For the rest, indulgence must be shown to the simplicity of the religious man Gregory, Bishop of Tours, who, supposing many things to be otherwise than the truth is, committed them to writing not through the craft of cunning, but with the desire of kindness and simplicity." Thus they.

And I, to confirm their opinion concerning Gregory, and chiefly to corroborate our view concerning St. Dionysius the Areopagite, say that the same Gregory of Tours did not have it greatly at heart, especially in the case of the early emperors, to distinguish times accurately, but so confounded them that he mixed up and threw into confusion the things that were done under Antoninus Pius with those that happened under the philosopher Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Verus his sons, and with those under their successor Commodus, and those under others down to Decius. For between Antoninus Pius and Decius no mention is made by him of so many emperors who intervened: nothing of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, who reigned 19 years; nothing of Commodus, who reigned 12; nothing (to omit Pertinax and Didius as swiftly cut off) of Severus, who reigned seventeen years; nothing of Antoninus Caracalla, who reigned six years; nothing of Macrinus, of Heliogabalus, of Alexander Severus, who reigned thirteen years; nothing of Maximinus, nothing of Maximus and Balbinus, nothing of Gordian, nothing of Philip, who reigned six years.

If anyone, therefore, ignorant of history from other sources, should read Gregory of Tours here, he will surely believe that all the things which

were done under so many intervening emperors were done under Antoninus Pius, and consequently that Irenaeus suffered under the same emperor, and also Justin the Philosopher and Pothinus: which things nevertheless by the confession of the adversaries themselves are utterly false. For he writes thus in Book I, Chapter 28: "For under the reign of Antoninus the mad Marcionite and Valentinian heresy arose; and Justin the Philosopher, after writing books for the Catholic Church, is crowned with martyrdom for the name of Christ. And when a persecution arose in Asia, the most blessed Polycarp, etc. Moreover in the Gauls also many were crowned with heavenly gems through martyrdom for the name of Christ, etc. Of whom was also that first Bishop of the Church of Lyons, Pothinus, etc. And the most blessed Irenaeus, the successor of this martyr, etc." Who reading thus would not say that all these things happened under Antoninus Pius, namely at the same time when the heresies of Marcion and Valentinus arose? Yet the matter stands far otherwise. For Justin indeed, Polycarp, and Pothinus were put to death not under Antoninus Pius, but under his sons long after he was dead; and Irenaeus much later still under the Emperor Severus, concerning whom I treat more at length in their Lives or martyrdoms. And yet Gregory of Tours, on that very same page where he blunders concerning those seven bishops sent into Gaul under Decius, lapsing again into error writes that forty-eight martyrs (the first of whom was Vettius Epagathus) suffered after Irenaeus; whereas it is established from the epistle of the people of Lyons themselves written at the time concerning their martyrdoms, that they suffered along with Pothinus long before, while Irenaeus suffered, as I have said, much later under Severus.

The words of Gregory, lest I be believed on my bare word, are these: "The executioner dedicated Blessed Irenaeus to Christ the Lord through martyrdom after afflicting him with diverse torments in his presence. After him forty-eight martyrs also suffered, the first of whom we read was Vettius Epagathus." Thus he. Yet thirty years after those martyrs Irenaeus was still alive, as may be seen in his Life written by me. Whence I wonder that those who allege the authority of Gregory on their own behalf, while they observe—if indeed they do observe—his chronographical errors, so many and so gross and so close together, are not suffused with vehement shame. And indeed, how could Dionysius have been sent into Gaul under Decius, when the most ancient Martyrologies, as I have shown above, relate that he was sent thither by Clement, the Roman Pontiff, and there was no such Clement under Decius?

And Bede himself (whom they cite on their own behalf, because on different days he seems to adduce two Dionysii) in this makes very greatly for us, in that he says that that Bishop of Paris was sent by Pope Clement. For thence it follows that he lived in the first century, and by no means under Decius, who lived in the third century; for there was no Pope Clement then—or if there is, let them produce him. The words of the Venerable Bede on 9 October are these: "At Paris, the natal day of the holy martyrs Dionysius the Bishop, Eleutherius the Presbyter, and Rusticus the Deacon. Which blessed bishop, having been directed into the Gauls by Pope Clement of Rome that he might bestow the labour of preaching upon peoples estranged from the faith of Christ, came at length to the city of the Parisians, and having faithfully and ardently executed the holy work for several years, was seized by the Prefect Fescenninus Sisinnius, and with him the holy presbyter Eleutherius and Rusticus the deacon, being executed with the sword, completed their martyrdom."

And because not rarely, while they vainly boast of their Gregory, they demand from us an equally ancient author who is on our side, behold, we set against them one contemporary with Gregory, and perchance even older by birth, in learning certainly either his equal or his superior, Venantius Fortunatus, who composed a notable hymn concerning our Dionysius, in which he expressly makes mention of his mission by Clement, the Roman Pontiff. Abbot Hilduin had formerly cited that hymn, but had not published it; Jacques Doublet has now given it to the light at the end of Book I of his Antiquities, and it is as follows:

Hymn of Venantius Fortunatus on Blessed Dionysius.

Let the people with heart and voice resound the brave, faithful soldier who followed the Prince of heaven, Dionysius the martyr.

Sent from the city when Clement was prelate at Rome, he arrived, that there might be fruit for Gaul of the seed of the supernal Word.

He builds a sacred work; he teaches the faith of baptism; but the blindness of the hearers repels the gift of the seed.

While the sacred prelate presses on to free the people from error, cutting off the hope of salvation, it inflicts the torments of death.

Pleasing to the altars of Christ, he is held fast by the heathens; out of love for so great a glory he gladly receives the punishments.

The one thing that was lacking to him, he gave up his neck for the King; he manifested the love of his breast by his severed neck.

The great priest, who used to offer the consecrated gifts of the temple, by pouring forth his blessed blood became himself the victim.

Happy from his pious wound, what a punishment afforded the palm! He who by death crushes death now possesses the kingdom of heaven.

Glory be to God the Father, glory to the Only-begotten, together with the Holy Spirit, unto everlasting ages.

Thus he: to whom, assuredly nowhere faltering in his writings, much greater credit is to be given than to Gregory, who stumbles so often and so openly.

Finally, Hilduin adds that the Athenians declared that they had received both from the most ancient monuments of certain writers and from the continuous traditions of their ancestors, "that Dionysius, after substituting a bishop in his place, went to Rome, and (as they learned) was consummated by a glorious martyrdom among the nation of the Gauls. Which matter also Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople," he says, "carefully investigated through his legates; and being assured that the matter stood thus, he restored to the same city of the Athenians the archiepiscopal pallium (which had been withdrawn from it for so long a time on account of a certain contention that had arisen), and by synodal consent honoured it with the authority of a Metropolis, which it had previously enjoyed." Tarasius lived in the eighth century, in the time of Pope Hadrian I, and finally accepted the patriarchate (which he had previously refused) on this condition, that a council should be convened and measures taken for restoring the veneration of images (which had been abolished by the Greek emperors). He was declared patriarch in the fifth year of the reign of Irene and her son Constantine. See Cedrenus at that year.

To the third argument, drawn from the authority of Sulpicius Severus, answer must now be made, nor is the answer a matter of difficulty. The words of Sulpicius are: "After Hadrian, during the reign of Antoninus Pius, the Churches had peace. Then under Aurelius the son of Antoninus the fifth persecution was stirred up. And then for the first time were martyrdoms seen within the Gauls, the religion of God having been received later across the Alps." Thus therefore they argue from this: If martyrdoms were first seen in Gaul during the reign of the philosopher Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, therefore Dionysius the Areopagite was not a martyr at Paris under Hadrian, that is, forty years and more before Marcus Aurelius.

The answer is that Sulpicius in that passage briefly touches upon all the severer persecutions of the Church which took place before his time, as will be clear to anyone who attends to that passage; and that on that account he is treating of martyrdoms which were wrought in great numbers at one time (as is wont to happen in severe persecutions), and does not deny that

some at times at various periods (which oftentimes happened even outside those general persecutions) suffered martyrdom. For without doubt Sulpicius looked to those words of Eusebius in his Chronicle at the seventh year of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus: "Very many in Gaul were gloriously slain for the name of Christ, whose contests, recorded in books, endure unto the present day."

Therefore, just as there was no such persecution throughout the Gauls heretofore, so Sulpicius names it the first, and deservedly. For just as one swallow, as the saying goes, does not make a spring, so the martyrdoms of a few persons in one whole nation do not oblige a historian (and especially one who professes to recount briefly only the weightier matters) to make mention of them. For Sulpicius indeed comprised the whole sacred history from the creation of the world down to his own times in two little books. Which he began thus: "I have undertaken to compress briefly the events set forth in the sacred Scriptures from the beginning of the world, and to recount them selectively with distinction of times down to our own memory, as many were eagerly demanding this of me who were hastening to learn divine things by a compendious reading." Whence it is no wonder if he neglected mention of certain particular martyrs. Nay, he does not make mention by name even of Pothinus or of Irenaeus (although the former was taken away along with forty most illustrious martyrs, and the latter with almost the whole city of Lyons).

Therefore what he says, that before that time martyrdoms were not seen within the Gauls, must be taken and understood in the same manner as that which he subjoins, "the religion of God having been received later across the Alps," namely openly and by whole peoples. For who would say that the Catholic religion was received by none at all in the Gauls before the philosopher Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, that is, before about the one hundred and sixtieth year from Christ? Would then Peter and Paul, one of whom was at Rome so long, and the other also long enough, and who flew through all regions like lightning either in person or through their disciples, have had blind eyes towards Gaul—towards Gaul so near, so renowned? The thing is not only difficult to believe, but even unworthy to be heard. For from what has been said before it is established that various men at various times both were in Gaul and underwent martyrdom in Gaul.

And concerning St. Ursinus, the first Bishop of Bourges, Gregory of Tours himself confesses that he was sent into the Gauls by the disciples of the apostles. For in his book On the Glory of the Confessors, Chapter 8, he writes thus: "Now the city of Bourges first received the word of salvation from St. Ursinus (who, having been ordained bishop by the disciples of the apostles, was appointed to the Gauls), and he first established and governed the Church of Bourges; and departing from the world, he was laid to burial in a field among the other tombs of the people. For that people did not yet understand how to venerate the priests of the Lord and show them due reverence." All the Martyrologies agree at the 9th day of November. "Eutropius also, martyr of the city of Saintes (the words are those of the same Gregory of Tours in the first book of his Miracles, Chapter 56), who is reported to have been directed into the Gauls by Bishop Clement, was consecrated by the same with the grace of the pontifical order," etc. With these agrees the Roman Martyrology at the thirtieth of April. Now if anyone should say that from Dionysius the Areopagite down to the Bishops of Paris who now are, when the years of each are computed, the full number is not found, if indeed we assert that he lived in the first century, or at the beginning of the second; we can answer with truth that after Dionysius, on account of the flames of persecution, the bishopric remained vacant for a long time. For if from the time of Decius (who reigned only in the third century) down to the first year of the Emperor Constans, the bishopric of Tours ceased for thirty-seven years, as Gregory of Tours himself states in Book X of his Histories, Chapter 31, how much more in the second century

may the see of Paris have remained vacant for as great or even a greater interval, when namely both the supply of bishops and teachers was smaller, and Gaul was more destitute in the number of Christians? Nor indeed is this a new thing or peculiar to the Church of Paris, that in that age it lacked a continuous succession of bishops. For this happened to many others also. And concerning the Church of Reims indeed, the presbyter Flodoard, a weighty writer (whom not so long ago our Sirmond and Georgius Colvenerius published and excellently illustrated), expressly writes that after those first pontiffs of the same Church—Blessed Sixtus and Sinicius, I mean, disciples of St. Peter the Apostle—down to the reign of Constantine the Great, that is, through three centuries, only a single prelate, Amansius, is recorded. And lest the words of that author be wanting, I subjoin them. Accordingly, in Book I of the History of the Church of Reims, after he has treated above of the first men sent by Peter into that vineyard, in Chapter 5 he subjoins thus: "While frequent tempests of persecutions, therefore, were thundering, the bark of our Church, tossed about and overwhelmed by diverse waves, since it could scarcely lift up its head, for how long a time the see itself remained vacant of a worthy ruler is not easily unfolded: so much so that after those fathers of our faith sent before, Blessed Sixtus and Sinicius, we find only a single prelate, Amansius, down to the reign of Constantine: under whom is found Betausius, who with his deacon Primogenitus is read to have been the first from this province of Belgica to attend the first Synod of Arles, reported by Bishop Marinus to the most blessed Pope Sylvester, in the consulship of Volusianus and Annianus. After whom Aper, then Maternianus," etc.

Next, it can be answered that even setting aside a vacancy of the episcopal throne, there is no mention of the intervening bishops, not because they were lacking, but because either they were obscure, since there were none to write of them, or if they were formerly written down, nevertheless they have been effaced by the ravages of time. In almost the same way in a similar matter answers Jean Dadré in his Chronology of the Archbishops of Rouen, where he treats of the interval between St. Nicasius and St. Mellon.

Wherefore, that we may at length put an end to this disputation,

let it be held firm and fixed that it is one and the same man who was formerly first Bishop of Athens and afterwards of Paris. Concerning which matter, as the sentiment of Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples, a man at once learned and pious, pleases me much, so it is by no means to be omitted here. "Moreover," he says, "it has seemed to me to have been wrought not without divine ordination and supreme providence, that this most sacred Father, by far most illustrious in divine wisdom, first as prelate of the Athenians governed the Attic Church, and illuminated that foremost city, the parent of all letters. Which having been illuminated, being presently sent as an apostle into the Gauls by the most blessed Clement, he chose his see at the distinguished city of the Parisians (whether they called it Parrhisium or Lutetia). Which could better have been called Dionysia from Dionysius its first prelate and apostle, its first sponsor and regenerator, than from Isis, or from mud, as some will have it. For he first raised it up, a little child in Christ, at the fountains of life (for first sponsors are wont to bestow names); he first drove away death from it and brought in life, which he finally confirmed in Christian worship by his own blood and by willingly undergoing the contrivances of all torments. Whence also as a victor, having triumphed over the world, he ascended to God Who had sent him. Then God foreordained that place to be a fountain of pious studies, as one to which, for a sure proof of the outcome of the matter, He directed from Athens a man learned above all human wisdom. Do you therefore, O Dionysian academy of all good letters, the same also as the Parisian, which one and the same Father made companion and sister to Athens, applaud your apostle, your first prelate and parent, your first sponsor unto life and illuminator, and receive his sacred teachings in honour, and make progress in those same both day and night." Thus he.

And this indeed is better than vainly consuming time in seeking out useless arguments against this opinion received through so long an interval. And I pray that no place be given to that complaint: The sons of my mother have fought against me (Song 1:5).

SECOND QUESTION.

On the Writings of St. Dionysius.

This has always been and even now is a most celebrated question among learned men, whose are those writings which have come to light under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, whether they are in truth of the Areopagite himself, or of another.

Many have treated it, partly Greeks, partly Latins; partly Catholics, partly heretics. And indeed those who have held the affirmative side, namely that those writings are truly of Dionysius the Areopagite, have almost all been of the Catholic body; while those who have held the negative have been for the greatest part heretics, albeit also Catholics in some number.

And lest it come into anyone's mind that after so many who have treated of this question I seem to be doing what has already been done, whosoever shall apply their mind will learn from this treatise of ours that in not a few points we have held a better way of refuting than those who have gone before us, and likewise have either detected the flaws or increased the weight of certain arguments adduced on either side.

The first opinion, therefore, and the true one, is this: The Works which are inscribed with the name of Dionysius the Areopagite are truly his, and ought to be accounted as such.

First argument. Because if in a doubtful and uncertain matter, such as some wish this to be, the condition of the possessor is better, how much more that of one possessing in good faith for so long a time and for so many centuries, with his right always defended? For from time immemorial these Works have been accounted as the works of the Areopagite,

since no period can be assigned in which they were accounted the works of another and not his. For from a thousand years ago and more Dionysius the Areopagite is found cited by name as the author of these works; and there has been no one hitherto so imprudent or impudent, so bold or rash, as to publish those Works under another's name. There have been some indeed who applied their slender conjectures, scarcely worthy of refutation, either to Apollinaris or to another Dionysius than ours, whether of Corinth or of Alexandria; but there have been none who seriously endeavoured to maintain and defend this, or dared to prefix the name of any of those men to these writings.

Now as for those who cited this Areopagite a thousand years ago, I have at hand Leontius of Byzantium and St. Anastasius of Sinai, men of great learning and authority, both during the reign of Justinian (he undertook the empire in the year of Christ the Lord 527), illustrious for their writings and furnished with very extensive reading of the holy Fathers. The former of whom, in Book II against Nestorius and Eutyches, when about to bring forward the testimonies of the ancients, prefaces thus: Since by the grace of Christ we have solved according to our strength the questions which may have a semblance of probability, and have promised to confirm what we have said by the testimonies of the ancients, receive for assurance a multitude of testimonies giving forth an even and melodious harmony of truth. Then after certain other words of the same preface, while he brings forward the testimonies, in the very first

place he sets down Dionysius the Areopagite in this manner: Of Dionysius the Areopagite, of the age of the apostles, from the book On the Divine Names: But corruption is weakness of nature, and defect of natural habits, and of operations and powers, etc. Thus the Latin translator of Leontius: for I could not obtain a Greek copy.

But the same writer, in his book On the Sects (which we have at hand both in Greek and in Latin), openly enumerates the same Areopagite among the holy Fathers who are comprised in the intervening period from Christ to Constantine the Great. For in the third Lecture, near the middle, he writes thus: Ἐγένοντο δὲ ἐν τοῖς χρόνοις τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς γεννήσεως τοῦ Χριστοῦ μέχρι τῆς βασιλείας Κωνσταντίνου, διδάσκαλοι καὶ πατέρες οἵδε· Ἰγνάτιος ὁ Θεοφόρος, Εἰρηναῖος, Ἰουστῖνος φιλόσοφος καὶ μάρτυρ, Κλήμης καὶ Ἱππόλυτος ἐπίσκοποι Ῥώμης, Διονύσιος Ἀρεοπαγίτης, Μεθόδιος ἐπίσκοπος Πατάρων. Γρηγόριος ὁ θαυματουργὸς, Πέτρος ὁ Ἀλεξανδρείας ἐπίσκοπος καὶ μάρτυρ. Now there were in the times from the nativity of Christ down to the reign of Constantine these teachers and Fathers: Ignatius Theophorus, Irenaeus, Justin the Philosopher and Martyr, Clement and Hippolytus, Bishops of Rome, Dionysius the Areopagite, Methodius, Bishop of Patara, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Peter, Bishop of Alexandria and Martyr, etc. Those things from Leontius. Where it is to be noted that St. Hippolytus is called by him (as also by certain other Greek writers, to which I wished attention to be drawn in his Life) Bishop of Rome, because he was bishop in Portus Romanus, a city of Italy, and not because he held the principal see of the city of Rome itself.

St. Anastasius of Sinai, Bishop of Antioch, cites the same St. Dionysius by name at the beginning of Book VII of his Anagogical Contemplations on the Hexaemeron: "Therefore," he says, "the most celebrated and apostolic initiate of divine things, the teacher Dionysius, in his most wise theology says that God is called Θεός from the fact that He θεωρεῖ, that is, contemplates all things," etc.

Before those authors, therefore, those works concerning which there is now controversy were accounted to be those of Dionysius the Areopagite. Nay more, the ancient Fathers, although they did not cite them by name, are nevertheless detected by no obscure traces to have read and imitated them. That Nazianzen certainly followed this author in not a few points is shown by manifest tokens by the most learned Billy. For he composed an entire chapter on that subject in Book I of his Sacred Observations, and that is number 23, which begins thus: "There are several passages in Gregory," he says, "so very similar to the words of Dionysius the Areopagite that he may not undeservedly seem to anyone to have borrowed them from him. And lest anyone think that I am inventing this, it will be no trouble at all to bring forward the passages themselves. In Oration 2 on Easter, speaking of God, Gregory says: Ὅλον ἐν ἑαυτῷ συλλαβὼν ἔχει τὸ εἶναι, He holds the whole of being comprehended in Himself. And Dionysius in Chapter 5 of the book On the Divine Names: Ὅλον ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὸ εἶναι συνειληφώς, Having comprehended the whole of being in Himself. In the same place Gregory says that God is πέλαγος οὐσίας ἄπειρον καὶ ἀόριστον, an infinite and boundless sea of substance. Which words are not far removed from these of Dionysius in the book On the Celestial Hierarchy, Chapter 9: Θεαρχικοῦ φωτὸς ἄπειρόν τε καὶ ἄφθονον πέλαγος, an infinite and ungrudging sea of thearchic light." Thus far from Billy. See much more there.

And indeed it is very credible that St. Gregory Nazianzen, when he was residing at Athens for the sake of his studies and enjoyed the familiarity of the chief philosophers and theologians there (as may be learned from his Life written by me), fell in with those books as full of the loftiest philosophy, and perused them thoroughly.

The same can also be said of St. John Chrysostom, who flourished in the same place with no less glory than Nazianzen: namely, that he read through the writings of the same Dionysius, and marvelling at the sublimity of the knowledge and of the Spirit that spoke in him and related wonderful things concerning God and the heavenly powers, called him τὸ πετεινὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, the Bird of heaven.

That long-sought passage of Chrysostom I at length

found in his discourse on false prophets and false teachers. For there, after the middle, he writes thus: Ποῦ Εὐώδιος, ἡ εὐωδία τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, καὶ τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων διάδοχος ; Ποῦ Ἰγνάτιος, τὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ οἰκητήριον ; Ποῦ ὁ Διονύσιος τὸ πετεινὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ; Ποῦ Ιππόλυτος ὁ γλυκύτατος καὶ εὐνούστατος ; Ποῦ Βασίλειος ὁ Μέγας, καὶ μικροῦ δεῖν τῶν ἀποστόλων ἰσόῤῥοπος ; Ποῦ Ἀθανάσιος ὁ ἅγιος καὶ πλεονέκτης τῶν ἀρετῶν ; Ποῦ Γρηγόριος ὁ θεολόγος, καὶ ἀήττητος στραῦτιώτης, καὶ ὁ δεύτερος τούτου συνώνυμος ; Ποῦ Ἐφραὶμ ὁ πολὺς, ἡ παραμυθία τῶν ἀθυμούντων ; Where is that Evodius, the sweet odour of the Church, and successor of the holy apostles? Where is Ignatius, the dwelling-place of God? Where is Dionysius the Areopagite, the bird of heaven? Where is Hippolytus, most sweet and most benevolent? Where is Basil the Great, and almost equal to the apostles? Where is that holy Athanasius, rich in virtues? Where is Gregory the Theologian and unconquered soldier, and the other of the same name with him? Where is that famous Ephrem, the awakener of the sluggish, the consoler of the afflicted? And lest anyone should deny that discourse to St. Chrysostom, it is now six hundred years since Anastasius the Librarian cited it under his name, as may be seen in his epistle to the Emperor Charles the Bald.

Moreover, Du Perron, Bishop of Évreux, said that when he was at Venice he saw that Greek discourse of Chrysostom in which that eulogy concerning Dionysius is recited, and that the title of the same Homily is The Swan-Song of Chrysostom, which namely he delivered at Constantinople before he was driven into exile. Now as for what pertains to that title, it is clear enough that it was not given to that discourse by Chrysostom, but by some copyist who had regard to the time and subject matter of the speaker.

Moreover, to the authority of our Fronton du Duc (who on account of a difference of style, as he indeed thinks, rejected it among those which he believes not to be Chrysostom's) I oppose: First, that the difference of style is not so great as he makes it; secondly, that granting there be some, it ought not to seem at all wonderful. For one is the style of an old man, another that of a young man; one that of a man grieving, and anxious, and solicitous for his flock about to be left behind, and on the point of departing from it; and another that of a man calm and residing in his episcopal see with all quiet and security. Now this discourse was written not long before his departure from life, as the exordium declares and expressly announces. And so here he inculcates those things which at such a time are wont to be inculcated by good pastors: first, that heretics and false prophets must be shunned; secondly, that one must apply oneself to the reading of the sacred Scriptures; thirdly, that the judgement of God must be pondered and dreaded; fourthly, that one must persevere in good works, and especially in compunction and repentance, and not put this off for a long time. What then are the genuine lineaments of the discourses of St. Chrysostom, if these are not?

Assuredly even that single passage alone, which I shall bring forward here, would prove that the author of this discourse is Chrysostom. For after various passages of Scripture, and after that one of Paul, Beware of dogs (Phil. 3:2), "Truly tears," he says, "rise up in me when I hear certain persons of our Church saying that these things are not said in the divine Scriptures: and that not only by laymen, but even by those who seem to be pastors, and who hold the place of the apostles and prophets, but not their morals. To whom it is seasonable to say: Woe unto you, blind and unlearned and inconstant guides, who delight in the ornament of garments, and not in the reading of the sacred books," etc. For that zeal of Chrysostom for the sacred books is known everywhere.

Furthermore, it can be proved that this discourse is Chrysostom's because in the passage cited above Chrysostom himself, as one born at Antioch, bringing forward the names of true pastors and bishops worthy to be imitated, in the first place introduces his own patrons and the prelates of his own city of Antioch next after the Apostle Peter, Evodius and Ignatius, then Dionysius the Areopagite their contemporary, and afterwards the rest, as above.

There is added thirdly that if this discourse had not been Chrysostom's, but of another later than he, certainly that writer, whoever he had been, would have made mention of Chrysostom no less than of Basil and the two Gregories. For he was no less famous than they, whether in life, or in dignity, or in writings.

Add fourthly, if you please, that just as this author makes mention of no Catholic writer who was not before Chrysostom, so he makes mention of no heresiarch who lived afterwards. For he reckons Eunomius, against whom Basil and Gregory of Nyssa wrote, last by name. For he writes thus: "Where is Simon Magus, first in heresy, the disciple and forerunner of Antichrist? Where is his evil offspring and the successor of his madness and wantonness, Montanus? Where is Marcion? Where is Valentinus? Where is Manes? Where is Basilides? Where now is Nero? Where is Valens? Where are the other kings and mighty ones? Where is Julian the transgressor? Where, moreover, is Arius? Where is Eunomius, and the remaining heresiarchs?"

Thus Chrysostom according to the translation of Gerardus Vossius, who obtained a better and more complete Greek copy than that which our Fronton inserted in Tome VI of the Graeco-Latin Works of Chrysostom. For in Fronton's copy four rather large lacunae are seen, in that of Vossius none. It must also be noted that in Fronton's Greek it wrongly reads, Ποῦ Νεστόριος ; where is Nestorius, in place of which must be restored, ποῦ Εὐνόμιος ; where is Eunomius? This is clear both from the translation of Vossius itself, which the same Fronton produced, and especially because in the citation of the holy Fathers set down above, where the adversaries of the heresiarchs are praised, the author of this discourse would by no means have passed over in silence St. Cyril of Alexandria, the chief adversary and vanquisher of Nestorius, if indeed he had named Nestorius among the heresiarchs, just as he did not pass over in silence the opponents of the other heresiarchs. But for establishing the testimony of Chrysostom and vindicating that discourse of his, thus far is enough.

Now not only those whom I have mentioned seem to have known the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, but even more ancient writers, in whom I seem to have detected some imitations of Dionysius. For Clement of Alexandria also, a man by far most learned, since he was born and educated at Athens, and indeed in the century next after our Dionysius, is believed by no small tokens to have read and imitated him.

St. Dionysius has in the book On the Divine Names, Chapter 3, excellent similitudes whereby he shows that by our prayers to God we do not draw Him to us, but rather ourselves to Him. I have noted those similitudes above in Chapter 22 of the Life. The second of them, therefore, which is drawn from a ship bound by cables to the rocks, Clement imitated thus in Book IV of the Stromata towards the end: Καθάπερ οὖν ἐν θαλάττῃ ἀπὸ ἀγκύρας τονούμενοι ἕλκουσι μὲν τὴν ἄγκυραν, οὐκ ἐκείνην δὲ ἐπισπῶνται, ἀλλ' ἑαυτοὺς ἐπὶ τὴν ἄγκυραν· οὕτως οἱ κατὰ τὸν γνωστικὸν βίον ἐπισπώμενοι τὸν Θεὸν, ἑαυτοὺς ἔλαθον προσαγόμενοι πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. Θεὸν γὰρ ὁ θεραπεύων ἑαυτὸν θεραπεύει· Just as, therefore, those at sea who are held taut from an anchor pull indeed the anchor, yet do not draw it to themselves, but rather themselves to the anchor; so those who in the gnostic life (which obtains the gift of knowledge) draw God, imperceptibly bring themselves to God. For he who worships God tends himself.

And the Greek words of St. Dionysius in the place mentioned are these: Ὥσπερ εἰς ναῦν ἐμβεβηκότες καὶ ἀντεχόμενοι τῶν ἔκ τινος πέτρας εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐκτεινομένων πεισμάτων, καὶ οἷον ἡμῖν εἰς ἀντίληψιν ἐκδιδομένων οὐκ ἐφ' ἡμᾶς τὴν πέτραν, ἀλλ' ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς τῷ αληθεῖ καὶ τὴν ναῦν ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν προσήγομεν, Just as if, having embarked upon a ship and holding fast to the cables stretched out to us from some rock, and as it were given out to us for a hold, we were drawing not the rock to us, but in truth ourselves and the ship to the rock. The Latin words may be seen above in Chapter 22 of the Life.

What Dionysius therefore has here, εἰς ναῦν ἐμβεβηκότες, having embarked upon a ship, Clement expressed as οἱ ἐν θαλάττῃ, those at sea; and what the former has, ἀντεχόμενοι τῶν ἔκ τινος πέτρας εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐκτεινομένων πεισμάτων, holding fast to the cables stretched out to us from some rock, Clement expressed more briefly as ἀπὸ ἀγκύρας τονούμενοι, held taut from an anchor. Thus where Dionysius said ἐπὶ τὴν πέ-

to the rock, Clement used, to the anchor: and what Dionysius applied to those praying to God, Clement adapted to those living piously and devoting themselves to God through contemplation.

The same Dionysius holds, both in the book On the Celestial Hierarchy, chapter 11, and in the book On the Divine Names, the teaching concerning the knowledge of God by negation. Which Clement seems to have imitated in book 5 of the Stromata, towards the middle, where he writes thus: "If therefore, after taking away all things that are in bodies and in those things that are called incorporeal, we cast ourselves into the greatness of Christ, and thence advance by holiness into immensity, we shall in some way arrive at the understanding of the Almighty, knowing not what He is, but what He is not. Now figure, and motion, or standing, or throne, or place, or right hand, or left hand, are in no way to be thought of concerning the Father of the universe. And yet these things also are written. However, what each of these signifies will be said in its own place. Wherefore the first cause is not in a place, but above both place and time and name and understanding." I have omitted the Greek, lest I be too lengthy in these matters.

He also has certain other things similar to these lower down in the same book concerning God, Whom he calls ineffable, because He is neither genus, nor difference, nor species, etc. See in the Graeco-Latin Clement.

A second argument for the works of Dionysius can be taken from their subject matter, and from the time of writing: now these are of such a kind as to show an author contemporary with the apostles, a great philosopher, an ardent theologian, in short a man by no means unequal in thoughts and words to a most sublime subject, and truly a disciple of Paul; for the subject matter or theme is God, the Trinity, the angels, the Church, the pontiffs, the sacraments or the description of ecclesiastical ranks and offices necessary for bishops to know; while the speech and style is that of a man extraordinary in contemplating and, so far as is possible, matching his words to his contemplation, and, as Denis the Carthusian calls the Areopagite, "a man of a most profound and most fervent heart." So indeed does he rise aloft into the sublime, so does he bubble forth into new and singular expressions, namely for some adumbration of things otherwise inexplicable; so is he lifted up on high in thoughts and meanings into immensity, that not undeservedly that great Hugh of Saint Victor (who obtained to be called a second Augustine from the acuteness of his mind and speech) thinks that the things written by blessed Dionysius concerning the Seraphim are the words of an angel rather than of a man. The same was the mind of Suidas concerning him, the same his judgement. "For if anyone," says he, "should look at the elegance of his speech, and the depth of his thoughts, he will judge them to be by no means the offspring of human nature, but of some immortal and divine faculty." If anyone should prefer the Greek, it runs thus: For if anyone should look upon the beauties of his words, the depths of his thoughts, he would not deem these the offspring of human nature; but of some undefiled and divine power. The same was also the sentiment of our preceptor Leonardus Lessius, the same his judgement. "As far as elocution is concerned," says he, "you would also call it angelic rather than human; so sublime is it indeed, that the sublimity of the speech equals the sublimity of the conceptions. Who after the apostles ever spoke thus of divine things: Superessential, and superdivine, and supergood Trinity," etc., which see in his epistle prefixed by Petrus Lansselius to the Works of St Dionysius the Areopagite. Likewise our Nicolaus Caussinus, in his Parallels of Eloquence, writes thus concerning the same among other things: "Does not this man, speaking of God and His most beautiful workmanship, seem like an eagle withdrawn from the sight of men by a most intense flight to plunge himself into the high clouds, and there play among the bolts of lightning, among the snows and hailstorms, and presently walk abroad among the stars? Yet when he contemplates that Triad, when he discourses of the divine Word, and depicts the majesty of the divine mysteries, he is no longer an eagle, but some angel speaking out of the whirlwind, or as

Elias, carried on a fiery chariot above the clouds and rains and winds, and whatever is mortal, rises up with a most bold effort." Thus he, and well.

Now concerning the time of writing, a most certain argument is drawn from the works themselves, that they were written in the first century, since their author makes mention of no writer or other illustrious man who did not live in the times of the apostles; and what is the chief point, calls himself a disciple of Paul the apostle, and writes to Titus, and to Timothy and others of that age.

Since therefore those writings have always come forth under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, and the same Dionysius was pre-eminently versed in every kind of erudition and a philosopher distinguished among few (for the Areopagus admitted almost only men of that sort, as has been proved elsewhere) and moreover a disciple of Paul the apostle, from whom he was able, as being most capable, to learn and imbibe both extraordinary virtue and the highest mysteries; who could doubt that these are his true and genuine writings?

"But indeed the style of these books," says Abraham Scultetus the Calvinist, "is not simple and sincere, but overly subtle; it is inflated and affected and little apostolic." However, the dishonest writer is wickedly mistaken. For what he denies to be simple and sincere, those who follow better things say is most simple and most sincere, not indeed with the simplicity of a speech creeping on the ground (for such a style is to be used in small matters and those creeping on the ground), but with a simplicity whereby matters are explained by great and proper words suited to themselves, rather than by long circumlocutions and metaphorical expressions. For since that man penetrated divine and celestial things with a wonderful and elevated acuteness of mind, and endeavoured to explain his thoughts in the highest matters, and did not find words equal to them, he used new words, yet formed in the Attic manner, in new matters transcending common comprehension. Likewise they say it is most sincere, but with a sincerity that is noted so to represent things as they are, not however with that which admits deceit, whereby small and base things may seem great and beautiful, or on the contrary.

Furthermore, as to what he asserts to be overly subtle, and inflated, and affected, and little apostolic; all this I deny, and I say that Scultetus in the former points indeed is greatly deluded; while in the last, where he calls it little apostolic, he himself divines foolishly not a little, but much.

For if Dionysius expounded small or mediocre matters in that style, and in those words which he uses here, then indeed I would make no objection against his being called inflated and affected: but if the words here are grand, and the matter itself also much grander, what is there that can be censured? Nor indeed does another spirit and eloquence appear in the books of Dionysius than in some Epistles of his preceptor Paul, where the speech is sometimes such, and so lofty in words, and so adorned with figures, that if the words of Scultetus had place in Dionysius, they would seem able to attack even Paul himself. For certainly the style of Paul by the confession of all is far different both from the Gospel and from the writings of the other apostles. Wherefore if the style of Paul both elsewhere and in the second Epistle to the Corinthians is apostolic, that of Dionysius also, since it is sublime in sublime matters and celestial in celestial matters, can and ought to be called apostolic; especially where under those words which he uses, so great an esteem of divine things and piety also shines through.

The third argument is that when formerly, that is, around the four hundredth year of Christ, a question had arisen concerning the Works of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, and some for certain reasons doubted whether they were his legitimate offspring, Theodore the presbyter wrote a single book, in which he taught that those Works were the genuine and legitimate works of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, and dissolved the four arguments that were chiefly objected to the contrary. Photius testifies to this in his Bibliotheca, codex 1, in these words: There was read the book of Theodore the presbyter, showing that

the book of Saint Dionysius is genuine. And in the discourse four objections were dissolved. There was read the book of Theodore the presbyter, in which he teaches that the work of St Dionysius is genuine. Now in that book four arguments were dissolved.

Then Photius subjoins those arguments, but without the solutions, because the book of Theodore the presbyter in which those solutions were contained was sufficiently well known. Below, in the refutation of the contrary opinion, I shall bring forward both the arguments themselves and the solutions (which indeed could or ought to have been adduced, since those of Theodore are not extant).

Lastly the same Photius adds these words: Having therefore striven to dissolve these four difficulties, he confirms, so far at least as lies in him, that the book of the great Dionysius is genuine. Having therefore endeavoured to dissolve these four difficult arguments, he confirms, so far at least as lies in him, that the book of the great Dionysius is legitimate.

And lest anyone suppose that those words favour the contrary opinion, let him know that the very same Photius (concerning whose distinguished erudition and exact judgement in assessing books Catholics and heretics alike agree), having weighed the reasons and considerations of both opinions, at length adjudged those books which are here in question to Saint Dionysius the Areopagite as his own. Which is clear from the same Bibliotheca of his, codex 231, where in the review of various authors whom Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem, had cited, he speaks thus of our Areopagite: And Dionysius, great indeed in speech, but greater in contemplation, the disciple of Paul, and martyr of Christ, and bishop of the Athenians. And that Dionysius, great indeed in speech, but greater in contemplation, the disciple of Paul and martyr of Christ, and bishop of the Athenians. Thus he. Which things he certainly would not say unless he adjudged the Works that are inscribed with the name of the Areopagite to the Areopagite. For whence would he know him to be great in speech, if he had seen nothing of his Works? And whence would he know him to be greater in contemplation than in speech, if he had read no contemplation of his? For under the name of this Dionysius nothing else is extant besides those works which we are now discussing. Either therefore he saw and read and weighed them, or certainly he assented to those who saw and read and weighed them. And observe also that the second argument set down above, where the elocution and contemplation of Dionysius were treated, is confirmed, since those words of Photius manifestly tend directly against the adversaries, and commend both his speech and his contemplation.

The fourth argument is drawn from the authority of great men, and those indeed no less illustrious for learning than for piety, whole troops of whom one may behold in the Vindiciae of Martinus Delrius: in comparison with whose multitude, those who stand on the opposite side are counted very few indeed.

For of scholastic theologians, if we omit heretics, they have almost solely, or certainly chiefly, Cajetan. We, however, have Alexander of Hales, Albert the Great, St Thomas Aquinas, St Bonaventure, Durandus, Scotus, Richard, Gabriel, and the rest. Of others endowed with various erudition they have Theodore Gaza, Lorenzo Valla, Desiderius Erasmus, Joseph Scaliger, Desiderius Heraldus, and a few others of any note.

But to these are opposed Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, a man called from his genius and memory a miracle of nature, Marsilio Ficino and Lilio Giraldi, men as great in genius as they were varied in knowledge, of whom the former indeed was a translator and admirer of the books of Dionysius himself, while the latter preferred the same Dionysius to all others in the explanation of the divine names. Budé and Billy, two most illustrious lights of Greek letters in France, Gilbert Génébrard, and Arnaud de Pontac, noble for their equal zeal for letters and cultivation of sincere friendship. Likewise Caelius Rhodiginus, by the variety of his very extensive reading scarcely knowing an equal

(whose words, as most full of piety, I shall set down below) and innumerable others, whom it is easy to know partly from their own works, partly from the cited Vindiciae of Delrius. For to so many Roman pontiffs, so many universal councils, so many patriarchs, so many bishops, so many doctors, whom our same Delrius praises, what have the adversaries to oppose? Perhaps they will seek solid reasons stronger than all human authority; and therefore we shall see and examine them below: and in such a way indeed that, when we have brought forward the strongest of them, concealing none of them that is of any weight, we shall also add some new ones of our own passed over by them, and yet more difficult to refute than those which they have adduced.

Fifth argument. It is not the custom of God, nor of that eternal providence, to adorn and honour vain works full of feigned lies with true miracles. Yet the Works of the Areopagite, when applied to various infirmities in honour of so great a man, were divinely honoured with many miracles, as I touched upon in chapter 30 of his Life. Wherefore it is a sufficiently evident and clear sign that those Works belong to him in whose honour those miracles were wrought.

Lastly, the sixth argument, and by far the most valid against the adversaries, is of this sort: If those Works do not belong to Dionysius the Areopagite who was the disciple of Paul, but to another Dionysius, whether of Corinth, or of Alexandria, or any other later one whomsoever; it is necessary to confess that the author of those Works, whoever he finally was, was full of lying, deceit, and sacrilegious simulation.

Yet this can by no means be said, by no means in the world. For those writings savour and breathe pure piety, modesty, gravity, holiness, nor do they smell at all of even the slightest smoke or mire of levity or vanity (which cannot be absent from deceivers). So indeed will anyone find who wishes to read them through with a composed and calm mind; or if this is too long, will at least not unwillingly run through the things that I inserted above into chapters 22 and 23 of his Life. Moreover, that he would otherwise be full of lying and deceit and simulation, if he were other than we say and than the writings represent, is clear from this: that he says he lived with the apostles, that he was a disciple of Paul the apostle, that he was present at the funeral of the Virgin Mother of God, that he heard hymns in her honour, that he writes he gave ear to Timothy recounting the same, and finally that he brings forward many other things in those books which would otherwise contain a prodigious audacity of lying and deceiving.

But indeed who would believe that a man so learned and pious and illuminated, as this author shows himself in writing, feigned such impious dreams, devised such extraordinary lies, and that in order to give fame to another's name and detract from his own? Such a man certainly neither St Dionysius bishop of the Corinthians, a writer of the second century, was (the mind shudders to think it), nor that most learned and most illustrious confessor of Christ Dionysius of Alexandria, famous in the third age (it is too rash even to suspect it), nor finally any other good man fearing God. It would be the mark of too perverse a mind to think this of such a man.

This same argument is treated more at length partly in Greek by St Maximus, the commentator of the Works of this blessed Dionysius, in his Prologue; partly by our preceptor Leonardus Lessius in his censorial epistle upon the same Works, which our Petrus Lansselius brought to light. Nor indeed is there any other argument stronger and more unassailable than this: so that I see nothing that can at least probably be brought forward for its refutation. For to the arguments of the adversaries I shall show, with God as guide, that altogether probable reasons, and such as often have place in judging writings, not a few are opposed, and that these can and ought to satisfy moderate minds.

Arguments of the opposing side together with their solutions.

In either reporting or refuting these arguments

I shall follow the order of times, and place the most ancient (which are also the chief ones) in the front line. Those are the ones which Theodore the presbyter, of whom mention was made before, proposed to himself, or dissolved when proposed by others. And because he dissolved them, and because those solutions are no longer extant, I shall therefore endeavour to set forth others (although in reality perhaps the same), yet diverse in speech and treatment.

The first argument therefore is: If those writings belong to the Areopagite, why did the Fathers posterior to him not make mention of them?

Second. Eusebius Pamphili, who reviewed the books written by the holy Fathers, makes no mention of that Work written by Dionysius the Areopagite.

Third. How is a particular and minute description of traditions which grew up in the Church by a certain progress and length of time contained in those Works? For the great Dionysius, as is clear from the Acts, was a contemporary of the apostles; whereas the things that this book comprises are a description of traditions which gradually prevailed in the Church after that time. It is incredible therefore, nay badly fabricated, to think that those traditions which grew up long after the death of the great Dionysius were written by Dionysius.

Fourth. How does this book make mention of the epistle of Saint Ignatius? For Dionysius flourished in the times of the apostles; whereas Ignatius fought the contest of martyrdom under Trajan. Who also a little before his death wrote that epistle of which this book makes mention. These are the four most ancient arguments against the books of Dionysius. To which I respond thus.

To the first I say that the Fathers posterior to Dionysius did not make mention of his writings by name, because either it did not please them, or it was not possible for them. For to those to whom they were unknown, it was not possible (for they could not come into the hands of all); to those to whom they were known, it did not please them. And what was the reason? First, because they did not wish those books (just as the author himself had wished and demanded) to be known to the common people, but only to be found in the keeping of the pontiffs. Secondly, because ancient writers scarcely cited any authors by name besides Sacred Scripture; or if they did so, they did it almost of necessity, and to refute heretics. And accordingly, since those subjects which Dionysius treated, such as on the celestial and on the ecclesiastical hierarchy, on the divine names, etc., had almost nothing or little bearing against the heresies then reigning, and almost all the contests turned upon the Sacred Scriptures, and these were hurled most thickly on both sides against the adversaries, no place was left for inferior authors. Nay, even St Athanasius, a writer in the fourth century, reproves the Arians because besides the authority of the Scriptures they turned also to other authors for the sake of support. Nor is he himself found to have used them, unless perhaps the adversaries themselves had usurped some men of great authority for themselves. For thus he snatched away Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria, claimed by them as of their own opinion, and taught that they favoured not the Arians, but the Catholics.

To the second (which is almost a corroboration of the former) it is answered that those books were unknown to Eusebius, or that he was unwilling to divulge them on account of the reason stated above. For as to what some say, that he did this by fraud, I consider it a reproach. For neither, even if they had had them, would the Catholics have wished to use them. For what is there so clear for the eternal divinity of Christ that is not contained much more clearly in the Sacred Scriptures? Certainly in so great an abundance of the divine Scriptures on both sides it seemed too absurd, even to Athanasius himself, as I have already said, to search out weaker weapons. For neither did they cite the blessed Irenaeus, who most clearly professed the eternal coexistence of the Son with the Father in book 2 Against Heresies, chapter 55, and elsewhere.

Now as to what some answer, that although Eusebius did not make mention of him, nevertheless Origen and Dionysius

of Alexandria made mention of him, that response cannot please me. For the fact that Homily 1 of Origen on John is cited is of no weight, since those homilies on John are not Origen's, but of an uncertain author, inasmuch as in them mention is made of the Manichaeans and Arians, who arose after Origen. Nay, even in that very same homily where Dionysius the Areopagite is cited, that is, on the first chapter of John, in one place the Arians are refuted, in another the Manichaeans. Whence it is clear, first, that that homily is not Origen's; secondly, that nothing solid is effected from the authority taken thence, since neither whose author's they are, nor of how great antiquity, can easily be known.

Moreover, as to what is also said, that St Dionysius of Alexandria, the disciple of Origen, wrote Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite, and is proved by the authority of St Maximus, the proof is vain. For Saint Maximus does not say that he wrote Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite, but on Dionysius of the same name as himself. Now there were many such. For there was both Dionysius bishop of the Corinthians, and Dionysius pope of Rome, both distinguished writers, and perhaps some others: so that Saint Maximus cannot be said with certainty to speak of the Areopagite; and I on the contrary can prove most plainly from the same St Maximus that he writes there of another than the Areopagite.

For the words of St Maximus in the Scholia on chapter 5 of On the Celestial Hierarchy, where he explains those words: Celestial substances, are these: The celestial substances. Why ever, when the Church says that all the holy angels are of one substance, does the divine Dionysius name many powers? The great Dionysius, then, the bishop of Alexandria, the former rhetorician, in the scholia which he made upon the blessed Dionysius his namesake, speaks thus, that profane wisdom is accustomed to call every invisible nature unbegotten; and similarly the hypostases, substances. And from this he says that according to profane writers such expressions have been spoken by Saint Dionysius catachrestically. Celestial substances. Why furthermore, when the Church says that all the holy angels are of the same essence, does the divine Dionysius name many virtues? The great Dionysius, therefore, bishop of Alexandria, that orator, in the Notes which he made upon blessed Dionysius his namesake, says thus, that profane wisdom was accustomed to call every invisible nature unbegotten, and similarly subsistentiae, essences. And from this he says that such expressions were used improperly by St Dionysius after the manner of profane writers.

Now why St Maximus in these words does not seem to understand by blessed Dionysius his namesake St Dionysius the Areopagite, these are the chief reasons.

First. If he had understood the Areopagite, he would rather, as the custom of writers bears, have spoken thus: In the Notes which he wrote upon this very Dionysius, for he was then treating of Dionysius the Areopagite.

Second. Because Saint Maximus in his Apology for the writings of the Areopagite, or in the Preface to his Scholia on Dionysius, when he responds to that objection of the adversaries: "That neither Eusebius Pamphili nor Origen made mention of the writings of Dionysius;" without doubt, if he had known that Dionysius of Alexandria, contemporary with Origen and prior to Eusebius, had written Scholia on the Areopagite, he would by no means have kept silent, but would have said: Although Origen and Eusebius did not make mention of the Areopagite, nevertheless Saint Dionysius of Alexandria, who surpasses Eusebius by nearly a century and lived in the age of Origen, not only made mention of him, but also wrote Scholia on him. By which response without doubt he would have shut the mouths of all opponents. Yet he said nothing of the sort. But he confessed that neither Origen, nor Eusebius, nor any of the more ancient Fathers made mention of the books of the Areopagite: and only brought forward by way of excuse that Origen scarcely made mention of four authors, while Eusebius passed over not only

the Areopagite who was bishop of Athens, but also Hymenaeus and Narcissus, writers of his own region, who were priests at Jerusalem. The words of St Maximus against those objecting that no mention of the books of the Areopagite was made either by Origen or by Eusebius are these: Against whom it must be said that Eusebius omitted very many things which had not come into his own hands. For indeed he does not say that he collected all things altogether, but rather confesses that the books which did not come to him are superior in number. And I could make mention of many not acquired by him, and those too of his own country, such as Hymenaeus and Narcissus who served as priests in Jerusalem. I at least came upon some of the works of Hymenaeus. And indeed he neither recorded the labours of Pantaenus, nor those of Clement of Rome, except two epistles alone, nor those of very many others. For Origen, I know not whether of all, scarcely made mention of four. Moreover a certain Roman deacon, Peter by name, related to me that all the works of the divine Dionysius are preserved dedicated in the library of sacred writings at Rome. Against whom it must be said that Eusebius indeed omitted very many things which did not come to his hands. For he says that he did not collect all things altogether: nay rather he professes that the books which did not come to him are superior in number. And indeed I could mention many which he by no means had, and these too of his own region, such as those of Hymenaeus and Narcissus, who were priests at Jerusalem. I myself indeed fell upon some books of Hymenaeus. But neither did he describe the works of Pantaenus, nor of Clement of Rome, save two epistles only, nor of very many others. For Origen, I know not whether of all, scarcely indeed makes mention of four. However, a certain Roman deacon named Peter related to me that all the Works of the divine Dionysius are preserved at Rome in the library of sacred writings.

From these things also it is clear that the authority which is brought forward as if from the writings of Origen (of which I spoke above) is useless; since Saint Maximus would not have passed it over when both there was occasion and necessity urged, and, as the saying goes, here is Rhodes, here is the leap.

Third. If Dionysius of Alexandria, a man of so great erudition and holiness, had made commentaries on the Areopagite, surely Saint Maximus would have cited them repeatedly; unless perhaps those commentaries be said to have come only to his ears, not into his hands.

But indeed, if he upon whom Dionysius of Alexandria wrote Scholia is not Dionysius the Areopagite, who then is that man, you will say, called by Maximus blessed and holy Dionysius? I answer that he seems to be St Dionysius bishop of the Corinthians, an illustrious writer of the second century, who, as Eusebius and Jerome testify, "was of so great eloquence and industry that he instructed by his epistles not only the peoples of his own city and province, but also those of other cities and provinces." For these are the very words of St Jerome in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, chapter 20, where he also reviews his writings.

Furthermore, this response is confirmed by the fact that the same Saint Maximus in the same apologetic preface writes that this Dionysius bishop of the Corinthians made mention of the Areopagite in his writings. The words of Maximus are these: And Dionysius the ancient bishop of the Corinthians also makes mention of the Areopagite, and Polycarp in his epistle to the Athenians. Now Dionysius the ancient bishop of the Corinthians makes mention of the Areopagite, and Polycarp in his epistle to the Athenians.

Note, however, that here neither Dionysius nor Polycarp is said to have made mention of the writings or books of the Areopagite, but only of the Areopagite: lest anyone be led into error by taking those things for the same, when they are most distant from one another. For it is one thing to make mention of the Areopagite, another to make mention of his writings.

What then is the mention of the Areopagite which Dionysius of Corinth made? Namely that which Eusebius relates in book 3 of his History, chapter 4, at the end, that Dionysius bishop of the Corinthians recorded that Dionysius the Areopagite was the first bishop of Athens.

Now why Dionysius of Alexandria should write Scholia on St Dionysius bishop of the Corinthians, his namesake, there was a very great reason. For heretics had corrupted his writings, and were abusing them for their own errors. Lest I seem to say this gratuitously, see the very words of the same Dionysius of Corinth complaining of this in Eusebius, book 4 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 22. Wherefore the Alexandrian, in order partly to explain him, partly to defend him (for his authority was held in very high esteem), found it necessary to write Scholia upon him. Therefore neither Origen nor Dionysius of Alexandria, so far at least as can be asserted with certainty, made mention of the books of the Areopagite, nor cited anything from them.

Nor did Saint Gregory Nazianzen either. For he is the third whom some bring forward: from whose oration On the Nativity, before the middle, they also produce this passage: Thus indeed the Holy of Holies, which are even covered by the Seraphim, and are glorified with three sanctifications coming together into one lordship and deity. Which has also been philosophized most beautifully and most sublimely by a certain other of those before us. Thus indeed the Holy of Holies (they indicate the mystery of the Trinity, namely), which are covered by the seraphim, and are glorified by three sanctifications coming together into one lordship and deity. Which also a certain other of those who were before us has philosophized most beautifully and most sublimely.

Where by those words, Which also a certain other, etc., they think Dionysius the Areopagite is indicated, who at the end of chapter 7 of On the Celestial Hierarchy writes thus of the seraphim: And they cry aloud that much-hymned and most venerable theology: Holy, holy, holy, Lord Sabaoth. All the earth is full of His glory. And these (the seraphim) cry aloud with a great voice that most celebrated and most august praise of God: Holy, holy, holy, Lord Sabaoth: all the earth is full of His glory.

In which words indeed Dionysius cannot be said to have philosophized most beautifully and most sublimely, since he merely relates bare-facedly from Isaiah 6 what the seraphim do in heaven, or how they praise God; but well as to what the same Dionysius immediately subjoins, that he had explained those cries and praises of the seraphim in the book On the Divine Hymns, and had spoken of them to the best of his ability so far as was sufficient. Whence it is exceedingly probable that Nazianzen fell upon that book On the Divine Hymns, and admired the most beautiful and most sublime philosophy of Dionysius concerning the seraphim and their cries.

Although however this is, as I have said, exceedingly probable, nevertheless it is by no means altogether certain; especially since Nazianzen in the words set down above may seem to have looked not to Dionysius the Areopagite, but to the great Athanasius, who was also before him: and all the more because his words are seen to be most similar to the words of Athanasius in the oration upon those words, All things have been delivered to me, of Matthew 11.

The words of Saint Athanasius: For the fact that these precious living creatures offer the doxology a third time, saying, Holy, holy, holy, shows the three hypostases to be perfect; just as also in the word Lord they declare the one substance. For the fact that these excellent living creatures utter the glorification a third time, saying: Holy, holy, holy, therein demonstrates three perfect persons: just as also in the word, Lord, they declare one essence.

Now what is it, someone will say, in which Athanasius is said to have philosophized most beautifully and most sublimely upon this matter? I answer, in this, that in the same place from this threefold sanctification, or word, Holy,

holy, holy, pronounced uniformly and in the same tone or with an equal exertion of strength by the seraphim, St Athanasius gathered the equality of the three persons. His words are: And nowhere did any of the divine prophets, especially of those deemed worthy of such a vision, report to us that in saying the word Holy once, it was with a loud voice, and in repeating it a second time, with a lesser, and in saying it a third time, in a lowered tone; and that accordingly the first sanctification speaks of the Lord in the proper sense, while the second subordinates, and the third places lower. Nor did anyone at all of the holy prophets, especially of those who were deemed worthy of such a sight, announce to us that the angels in saying Holy once, used a loud voice; in repeating it, however, a lesser; and finally in tripling it, a lowered one. Nor likewise did anyone say that the first sanctification celebrated the Lord, then subjected the second, and placed the third lower, namely the persons who are sanctified. That is: No one said that by the first word Holy the Lord is signified and praised, while by the second one subject to Him is celebrated, and by the third one placed lower. Which namely the Arians used to say, to wit, that the Father is Lord, the Son is unequal to the Father, and the Spirit is a creature, which is to be placed lower.

This therefore was the most beautiful and most sublime philosophy of Athanasius and his skill in arguing against the Arians, that from the passage of Isaiah chapter 6, and of John in the Apocalypse chapter 4, where the seraphim are said to have cried Holy, holy, holy, Lord of hosts, as in Isaiah; or, Lord God Almighty, as in John—that, I say, he saw first that that cry was nothing other than the praise and honour of God; next, that that cry thrice repeated designated the three persons of the Most Holy Trinity; thirdly, that the equality of that threefold cry (for the prophets made mention of no distinction, either in voice or in tone) signified equality of honour and praise; and lastly, that from this equality of honour and praise attributed to the three persons, the equality of the same persons among themselves was also designated; and accordingly neither was the Son to be called lesser than the Father (which the Arians wished) nor the Holy Spirit to be placed below, or relegated among creatures.

Furthermore, the acuteness of Athanasius was imitated and emulated by the subtle keenness of blessed Rupert, who in book 3 On the Trinity, chapter 15, reasons thus from the same passage of Isaiah whence Athanasius did: "How beautiful," says he, "how stable! No unequal tenor in the words! how sure! what degrees are here? There is no moment of increase or decrease in those words, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts, all the earth is full of His glory (Isa. 6:3). Whence then did the hostile heresy receive its degrees? For as if that chorus had sung: Holy, holier, holiest, and had added in the plural, lords and gods, not in the singular Lord and God; so did it make degrees for itself, chiefly through the mouth of Arius, so as to say that the Holy Spirit is great indeed, but the Son greater than the Holy Spirit, and lesser than God the Father. Whence, I say, did the impious and serpentine heresy receive those degrees, unless from the very serpent the father of lies, whom the hand of the Lord on account of his dissonance drew forth from that conception and cast out?" Thus Rupert, who drew for himself from the same fountain of the Holy Spirit from which Athanasius had drunk before, and handed it down to us.

On account of the praised teaching of Athanasius, therefore, Nazianzen could be said to have looked not to Dionysius, but rather to Athanasius. However, there are some who lay stress upon those words of Nazianzen: By a certain other of those before us it has been philosophized: By some other of the elders it has been wisely said. And they say that Athanasius cannot be called one of the elders with respect to Nazianzen, who was a bishop while Athanasius was still living.

To whom it can be answered that that phrase, those before us, although commonly and very often it is the same as the elders,

yet when taken strictly and rigidly signifies nothing other than those who were or wrote before us. Now Athanasius was many years before Nazianzen, and wrote and died many years before him.

Wherefore Jacques de Billy, the prince of translators, renders the words of Nazianzen into Latin thus: Just as also a certain other before us has philosophized. Nicetas also, the Greek commentator, understood those words of St Athanasius, not of St Dionysius the Areopagite.

Nevertheless I do not deny that repeatedly not only Nazianzen, but also Athanasius himself seems to have used and been helped by the writings of blessed Dionysius the Areopagite, and thus both drank from the same fountain with them. The just-praised Billy collects several passages of Nazianzen, as I indicated before, which he reported in chapter 23, book 1 of his Sacred Observations.

From Athanasius, however, I shall bring forward a single passage for the sake of example, both that I may not be too lengthy, and that I may leave material for the industry of others. Now it is from the book On the Common Essence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, at the end, where he represents the subordination of the angelic orders celebrated by the Areopagite in these words: And just as we have known a difference of order in the powers above, so also of station and of knowledge; the thrones indeed and the cherubim and the seraphim learn immediately from God, as higher than all, and drawing near to God; and these teach the lower orders, and thus in succession the higher teach the lower. And the lowest order are the angels, who are also teachers of men. And just as we have known a difference of order in the supernal virtues, so also of station and of knowledge; the thrones indeed and cherubim and seraphim learn without intermediary from God, as supreme of all, and near to God: while these teach the lower orders, and thus in succession the higher communicate teaching to the lower. And the lowest order are the angels, who are also the teachers of men.

These things I think were taken from the book of Dionysius On the Celestial Hierarchy, chapter 7, that is, from the same source whence Nazianzen also was said to have taken his own.

But why indeed did neither make even the slightest mention of the Areopagite?

I answer first, because they made no mention either of Saint Ignatius the martyr, or of Clement of Rome, or of Polycarp, or of Athenagoras, or of Irenaeus, or of Theophilus, or of Justin, or of Gregory Thaumaturgus, whose Works nevertheless were extant and are now extant: that is, because it was not their custom to cite other authors by name, nor in writing to suffer that delay which would necessarily have to be employed for citing the authorities of others; but if they had perhaps read anything from the ancient writers, having acquired it for themselves, they expressed it in their own words. Unless perhaps, as I said before, the adversaries themselves were to be refuted; for then they also had to be named, and sometimes the words both of themselves and of others whom they alleged for themselves had to be produced: as those of Origen, of Dionysius of Alexandria, and of Theognostus by Athanasius. For the Arians contended that Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria sided with them, and that none of the ancients had used those words which the Fathers of the Council of Nicaea used. Wherefore Athanasius produced Theognostus for himself; and drew Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria, whom the adversaries had produced, over to his own side.

I answer secondly, as I intimated before, that Athanasius disapproved in the Arians that besides the Sacred Scriptures and pious human reasons, they searched out other supports from ancient writings. For thus he writes in the epistle on the opinion of Dionysius against the Arians, near the beginning: "So therefore if they are confident," says he, "in the things they think and say, let them bring forward bare heresy, and if they can demonstrate anything for its defence either from the Scriptures, or from some human reason, which is at least pious, let them demonstrate it; but if they have nothing of the sort, let them keep silent." Thus he.

It is no wonder, therefore, if Saint Athanasius abstained from that which he reproved in others.

Therefore to the second argument set down above, it seems that one should respond thus: Although only in the sixth century were the writings of Dionysius most celebrated and cited by name, nevertheless it does not follow thence that they did not exist before, since it was shown a little earlier that the chief Fathers abstained from citing the more ancient Fathers by name. And indeed, had not Eusebius purposely compiled a catalogue of ecclesiastical writers, the memory of very many would have been altogether extinguished: and yet even when that was compiled, that of not a few perished; partly because they escaped his notice (for he could not obtain them all), partly because knowingly and willingly, as he himself confesses in book 4 of his History, chapter 24, he passed them over; partly, finally, because authors sometimes suppressed their names, concerning whom the same Eusebius writes thus in book 5 of his History, chapter 26: "And the books of very many others, whose names it is not even possible for us to recount, have come down to us, of orthodox and ecclesiastical men indeed, as each one's interpretation of Sacred Scripture declares, yet unknown to us, because the names of those who wrote them are not affixed." Thus he; for I have rendered the Greek word for word.

Moreover, two other reasons for the obscurity of the writings of Dionysius, beyond the writings of others, can be brought forward. One, that the author himself wished them to lie hidden, and to be handled only in the hands of bishops or priests: the other, that they contained subject matter more sublime and more obscure than could be grasped by most.

To the third argument, which was adduced concerning traditions that seem to have been gradually introduced into the Church after the times of St Dionysius, and not to have been customary in his age, it is answered that so indeed it seems to the opposing side, but not so to us. It remains therefore for the opposing side to prove by good reasons that it deservedly seems so, and moreover to show which of those traditions or ceremonies did not exist in the time of Saint Dionysius. For concerning all of them indeed no one, as I think, will be found so shameless as to dare to say it. Since, however, in the argument set down above in Photius no tradition or ceremony is specifically produced, we are free from a special response. For to the things that certain more recent writers have objected, we shall respond separately: now we respond jointly only to those things that were objected to Theodore the presbyter.

To the fourth, therefore, adduced above, concerning the passage of Saint Ignatius from his epistle to the Romans cited in the works of Dionysius, which was written under Trajan, whereas Dionysius flourished in the times of the apostles, it can be answered that Ignatius flourished no less in the times of the apostles than Dionysius, and indeed that Ignatius departed from life before Dionysius, since the former departed under Trajan, while the latter departed under Hadrian the successor of Trajan, or certainly both the one and the other under the same Trajan, but Ignatius in the eleventh year of the emperor Trajan, and Dionysius in the last, that is, the twentieth of his reign, and the first of Hadrian. However, I shall respond otherwise more closely and more clearly.

The fourth argument, then, asked: How did this book of Dionysius make mention of the epistle of Saint Ignatius? I answer that it did not make mention of it.

Yet, you will say, in the book On the Divine Names, chapter 4, these words are found: And the divine Ignatius also writes: My love has been crucified. And Saint Ignatius also writes: My love has been crucified. Now this sentence is found in his epistle to the Romans written a little before his death.

I answer that it is found indeed in the epistle of Ignatius, but is not found in Dionysius. For I say and contend, and not a few with me, that those words in that passage of Dionysius were by no means written by Dionysius himself, but were impudently and ineptly thrust into Dionysius himself by some ignorant person unacquainted with affairs. Which I indeed shall prove, as I think, so evidently that

no one hereafter (provided only he be a fair judge and appraiser of this discussion and of the things that I shall bring forward) can in any way dissent or remain in doubt. Others indeed have also laboured in untying this knot, but I shall endeavour at present, with God's help, to untie this knot somewhat more clearly and explicitly than anyone has hitherto done.

That those words of the most holy Ignatius, therefore, were thrust into that passage of blessed Dionysius, and not originally placed there by the author himself, is proved thus.

First, because without those words of Ignatius the discourse of Saint Dionysius coheres much better than with them. For since he intends to prove both from the Old Testament and from the New, and also from other authorities, that the noun eros, or love, has place and is used in divine matters; if you remove the citation of the words of Ignatius, you will then see running uniformly and conjointly first the testimonies of the Old Testament, next of the New, and lastly of others. For he proves it first from Proverbs and from the book of Wisdom; then from the passage of Paul to the Galatians, if not expressly and by name, at least virtually, by the representation of the reality itself which is wrought through love; lastly from the authority of his preceptor Hierotheus.

And indeed, that he intends first and chiefly to prove this by passages of Sacred Scripture is clear from the things that he set down before in the same place as a kind of premunition, as when he said: And let no one think that we venerate the appellation of love contrary to the Oracles. And let no one think that we allege the name of love contrary to the Sacred Scriptures. And again a little lower, while he girds himself for the allegations of the Scriptures, he has it thus: Yet that we may not seem to say these things as subverting the divine Oracles, let those who traduce the appellation of love hear them. However, that we may not seem to say these things as perverting the divine Scriptures, let those who cavil at the appellation of love hear them. Presently therefore and immediately he subjoins those Scriptures which used the name of love, in these words (for I shall set forth his words without the testimony of Ignatius, so that with the eyes themselves may be seen the better and wiser connexion of the discourse without it than with it); in these following words, I say, he thus subjoins the testimonies of the Scriptures: Love her, it says, and she will keep you. Fence her round with ramparts, and she will exalt you. Honour her, that she may embrace you. And whatever other things are hymned according to the erotic theologies. And in the introductory treatises of the Oracles you will find someone saying concerning the divine wisdom: "I became a lover of her beauty," so that we should not fear this very name of love. Nor let any argument terrifying you concerning this disturb you; for to me the theologians seem to regard the name of charity and that of love as common. "Love her," says Scripture, "and she will preserve you. Surround her with ramparts, and she will exalt you. Honour her, that she may embrace you" (Prov. 4:6, 8). And whatever other things of a lover are celebrated in the discourses of Scripture. And in the first instructions of Scripture you will find someone saying concerning divine wisdom: "I became a lover of her beauty," so that we do not dread this very name of love (Wisd. 8:2). Nor indeed let the doubling of the expression terrify anyone; for to me the theologians seem to consider the name of charity and of love common. Thus far the words of Dionysius.

Which things who does not see to cohere most excellently among themselves? and much better than if between the citations of two Scriptures, or two divine testimonies, there be interposed a single citation of a human testimony, plucked namely from Ignatius? For surely a prudent writer of any talent and judgement, wishing to prove something from the Scriptures and from the Fathers, will never dispose his arguments in such a way as to bring forward the first argument from Scripture, the second from one of the holy Fathers, the third again and fourth from Scripture, and then again from the Fathers: but all

the Scriptures he will gather together and first, and then introduce the authorities of the holy Fathers or other writers; especially if he aims at that mark, and professes in words (as Dionysius does in this passage) that he will show from the Scriptures that a certain word is rightly used in discourse concerning divine things. Now some unlearned person, when he read these words of Dionysius, and remembered that Ignatius also in the Epistle to the Romans had used the same word (though in another signification), himself noted at the margin of that passage the very words of Ignatius, which afterwards were thrust into the text between two testimonies of the Scriptures, and immediately before the passage from the book of Wisdom: And yet it seemed to some of our sacred writers that the name of eros is even more divine than that of agape. And the divine Ignatius also writes: My love has been crucified. And indeed it seemed to some of our sacred writers that the name of love is even more divine than that of charity. Furthermore Saint Ignatius also writes: My love has been crucified.

Note here furthermore that Saint Dionysius in the above citations of Scripture used the edition of the Seventy Translators, and accordingly we too have followed the old translation in the Latin, and not that of Jerome or the Vulgate, because it does not correspond in all respects to the Greek. For in the passage from Proverbs the Vulgate edition has verse 8 thus: Lay hold of her, and she shall exalt you: you shall be glorified by her, when you shall have embraced her (Prov. 4:8). And Wisdom 8:2 thus: I became a lover of her form.

Note secondly that by theologians Saint Dionysius understands the writers of the Sacred Letters, when he says above: For the theologians seem to me to consider the name of charity and of love common, that is, of agape and eros, because the authors of the Scriptures indiscriminately use now the one, now the other, and do not consider the one more divine than the other. And accordingly those words which I have already said were thrust in cannot be those of Dionysius, since in them it is said that the theologians or sacred writers thought the name of eros, love, more divine than that of agape, charity: for this is false. For if they had thought it more divine, they would have used it more often in the Sacred Letters, whether in the Old or in the New Testament. Yet they did the contrary, and used the word agape very often indeed, and more rarely the word eros. Whence in the New Testament the word eros is not found even once, whereas the word agape by count more than ninety times. In the Old also agape and agapao occur most frequently, and indeed in the Canticle of Canticles (where there is chief place for it) always, and not even once the word eros or erao.

And this, I think, is the reason why some objected to Dionysius that in divine matters he used a word not divine, but profane, while he defended himself very painstakingly, and collected testimonies from the Sacred Scriptures in which nevertheless he did not find the word eros itself, but only the appellative noun erastes, and the verb eraomai in the imperative, where indeed holy love is signified. For in the sense of profane and carnal love I find the noun eros used twice in the Old Testament, once in Proverbs 7:18: Come, and let us enjoy friendship until dawn: come hither, and let us roll ourselves in love. Come and let us enjoy friendship until daybreak: come, and let us be wrapped in love. The Vulgate edition has: Come, let us be inebriated with breasts, and let us enjoy the desired embraces, until the day dawns; and once in Proverbs 30:16: Hades, and the love of women, and earth not filled with water, and water and fire, will by no means say: It is enough. Hell, and the love of women, and earth not filled with water, and water and fire, will not say: It is enough. All these things are uttered concerning impure and insatiable love.

Secondly it is proved that the testimony of Ignatius was thrust into Dionysius, and not written by him. Because

if Dionysius had wished to use it, not only would he not have placed it in the middle of the testimonies from Scripture, but neither would he have placed it before the authority of Saint Hierotheus his preceptor, whom he esteemed more highly than all after the apostles, or at least he would have placed it after those words: And what at all do the theologians mean, when sometimes they call Him love and charity, and sometimes lovable and beloved? Now what, in a word, do the theologians mean, who call Him (namely God) now love and charity, now lovable and beloved? Where by theologians Dionysius understands the apostles and other sacred writers, and looks indeed to the first Epistle of Saint John, chapter 4:8: He who does not love has not known God, because God is charity. He who does not love does not know God, because God is charity; and again in verse 16: God is charity; and he who abides in charity abides in God, and God in him. God is charity: and he who abides in charity abides in God, and God in him.

Since therefore he who thrust those words of Ignatius, My love has been crucified, into Dionysius thought that Christ was understood there under the name of love, he ought rather to place them here than where he placed them before, namely among the passages of Sacred Scripture, and out of their proper place. That however he wrongly thought this will become fully clear from the next reason.

Third. Those words of blessed Ignatius are in no way suited to proving what Dionysius intended. For he intended to show that the noun eros is taken by the sacred writers in a good sense for charity or spiritual love; whereas in the epistle of Ignatius it is by no means taken thus, but for concupiscence and earthly love, which he says is crucified in him, that is, dead, and that he no longer loves anything other than God, all fire of concupiscence and desire of earthly things having been utterly extinguished. Which will be clear from the entire sentence of Ignatius, which runs thus: My love has been crucified, and there is not in me a matter-loving fire, but living water leaping in me says to me from within: Come hither to the Father. My love has been crucified, nor is there in me a fire loving any earthly thing, but living water leaping up within says to me: Hither to the Father; where the second member is an explanation of the former, so that the same thing is said twice in different words; once by affirmation. Of such sentences the book of Proverbs in Sacred Scripture is full, for example, chapter 4:13 and following: Hold fast instruction: let her not go. Keep her; because she is your life. Be not delighted in the paths of the wicked: nor let the way of evil men please you. Flee from it, pass not by it. Turn aside and forsake it. And in the same place, chapter 5:8: Remove your way far from her: and come not nigh the doors of her house.

Fourth. The sentence of Ignatius is similar to that sentence of Paul to the Galatians 6:14: To me the world has been crucified. To me the world has been crucified, that is, I have nothing to do with the world. To that sentence therefore Ignatius seems to have looked, and for kosmos to have put eros, in another word indeed, but in the same sense; for these are one and the same: I have nothing to do with the world, and: I have nothing to do with the love of the world.

Fifth. If Saint Dionysius had read the epistle of blessed Ignatius to the Romans, and had wished to cite his testimony, he would without doubt have done what he did in the case of Hierotheus, and would have cited the entire passage of Ignatius, and would not have omitted that part which told most in his favour, and where the verb ero is without controversy taken in a good sense and referred to God. For the whole passage runs thus: For living I write to you, longing to die for Christ. My love has been crucified, and there is not in me a matter-loving fire, etc., as I cited before. Which words Joannes Brunnerus in his pious and accurate paraphrase of the epistles of Ignatius rendered in this manner, and in the same sense as we, in these words: "For living and prudent I

write these things, that my loves, my delights, are to die for Christ. For whatever besides Him was anywhere lovable or pleasing has been crucified to me, and blotted out by the death of Christ: nor does any other fire remain in me that either loves or desires anything else. But the living water welling up in me thus admonishes and thus addresses me: Come, to the Father, come." Thus Brunnerus, a pious man wise in eternal things, who having turned from the camp of the heretics, where for many years he had served with distinction among the few, to the Christian standards, earned better pay under Christ, and professed Greek letters and the sacred tongue at Freiburg im Breisgau in the principal gymnasium. Therefore love in that sentence of Ignatius does not signify Christ, nor holy love, but the love of concupiscence and of earthly things, and not the desire of eternal things, which he indeed, already a candidate for martyrdom and wholly aspiring to heaven, proclaimed to be extinguished in himself. For he also uttered many things conformable to these in the same letter to the Romans out of the fervour of his spirit, such as those: "Now at last, bound for Him, I learn to desire nothing worldly, nothing vain." And a little lower: "Pardon me, I pray: what is expedient for me, I know. Now I begin to be a disciple of Christ, since of the things that are seen and that are not seen I covet nothing, that I may win Jesus Christ." And many other things in the same place of that sort.

Now enough, as I think, has been done for those four most ancient arguments of the theologian; now we must resist to the best of our ability some chief attacks of more recent Writers.

Abraham Scultetus attacks the writings of Saint Dionysius with twelve reasons, the vanity of which (lest he love himself too much, or think the applause of the Calvinists to be the truth) I have resolved openly to expose.

His first reason is: "The style of these books is not simple and sincere, but overly subtle and inflated, and affected, and little apostolic."

To this I responded above in the second argument for the other opinion, where I showed that the style corresponds to the subject matter, and is sublime in a sublime matter. Let him furthermore hear here our and his Augustine in a similar matter using a most similar style, and let him be silent. Accordingly in the book of Soliloquies, chapter 31, he writes thus among other things: "To Thee alone indeed, holy Trinity, Trinity superwonderful, and superunutterable, and superinscrutable, and superinaccessible, and superincomprehensible, superintelligible, superessential, superessentially surpassing all sense, all reason, all intellect, all understanding, all essence of supercelestial minds: Whom it is not possible either to utter, or to think, or to understand, or to know even for the eyes of angels." See more there, which you would say was drawn and written either from Dionysius, or certainly from the very same Spirit.

Second. "Eusebius and Jerome, most diligent investigators of books, make no mention of these books, nor does any other very ancient author."

To this also I responded above, when I refuted the arguments objected to Theodore the presbyter. See there under the first.

Third. "Lorenzo Valla indicates that there were most learned men of his age who judged those books to be by Apollinaris."

I answer that Scultetus took these words from Erasmus on chapter 17 of the Acts of the Apostles, and kept silent about the subsequent words of the same Erasmus, where he disapproves that opinion. For Erasmus subjoins: "Although Jerome commemorates two of that name, the one bishop of Hierapolis, who flourished under Marcus Antoninus II, the other bishop of Laodicea in Syria; yet to neither does he attribute anything of such Works. For neither, I think, are these to be attributed to Apollinaris the heretic." Thus he. Now if they are not to be attributed to the heretic, much less to the other

Apollinaris, a Catholic and holy man: for it would not be the part of such a man to feign himself a disciple of Paul, to devise things as having been done which were never done, namely that he was present among the company of the apostles at the funeral of the Mother of God, and other similar things.

And that we may turn the very weapons of the adversaries against themselves, their second reason militates against the third in this way: Eusebius and Jerome, most diligent investigators of books, make no mention of these books as written by Apollinaris, nor does any very ancient author, therefore they are not his. Do you see, Scultetus, that you are entangled in your own nets? Next, Erasmus himself on the Catalogue of St Jerome on Ecclesiastical Writers adjudges them away from Apollinaris, and since there were many Dionysii among ecclesiastical writers, he thinks it more probable that they were written by one of them. What now is the worth of your reason, Scultetus, deceitfully drawn from Erasmus? I could say more; but in vain is greater light brought to so great a blindness of the man.

Fourth. "William Grocyn, within the memory of Erasmus explaining this author at London, frankly professed before his hearers that this work did not seem to him to be that of Dionysius the Areopagite."

What a paltry reason! and an authority leaning on how reed-like a staff! Whether that saffron fellow who croaked those things was white or black, who knows? I would waste time if I responded more.

Fifth. "The subject matter of the writing," says he, "demonstrates the same. For in the Celestial Hierarchy he enumerated the furniture of heaven and the benches of the angels not only vainly, but also falsely, and almost made an inventory of them."

What should we wonder at more here, the stupid ignorance of the man, or the shameless impudence of a harlot? inasmuch as he neither understands the words which he uses, and decides like a censor or judge concerning matters which he does not grasp. Who ever numbered the king's sons among the furniture of the royal court? who ever made an inventory of them? who included them under the name of an inventory? Yet Dionysius only described the angels, and their orders and offices, nothing of which is either contained in furniture or written in an inventory. And how lowly are those expressions concerning the most sublime things! how vile concerning the noblest! I know not whether that man, while he was writing those things, was thinking perhaps of moving his household furniture, or of writing an inventory of his possessions (in which he had included both his wife and his children of both sexes). The Silesian minister must manifestly be taught what comes under the name of furniture and what under the name of an inventory. "Under the name of furniture (as Julius Paulus says) are contained tables, table-supports, three-legged tables, benches, stools, silver-plated couches, mattresses, valances, fringed napkins, water-vessels, basins, ewers, candelabra, lamps, ladles, bronze vessels, common ones, that is, those not assigned to a special place: moreover chests, cupboards, glassware, dishes, platters (sic)." Thus Perotti of Siponto from Digest 33, On Household Goods Bequeathed. There is no mention there of persons, none of children. Concerning an inventory likewise the old Glossary says thus: "An inventory is the name given to a certain list in which all the goods that are found in someone's possession are registered." Ulpian in somewhat better Latin calls it a repertorium, where concerning the administration and liability of guardians, in the law Tutor, he writes thus: "A guardian who has not made a repertorium, which is commonly called an inventory, is deemed to have acted with fraud, unless perhaps some necessary and most just cause can be alleged why this was not done." Scultetus ought therefore to have brought forward some things enumerated by Dionysius which presented at least some similarity with these things that have been mentioned. And not content indeed with that ignorance and stupidity, he adds a much greater impudence when he says: "And he enumerated the benches of the angels not only vainly, but also falsely." Is it so indeed?

Hark you, show one or the other: either that he did so vainly, or that he did so falsely. Enumerate, if you can, something either more solid or more true.

He proves it therefore in this manner: "The Apostle in 2 Corinthians 12:4 says that those things and the rest of that sort are altogether unutterable. Irenaeus in book 2, chapter 55, writes that those writers of hierarchies are raving. Augustine in the Enchiridion to Laurentius, chapter 58, affirms that he does not know the orders of the angels and their differences. Nor do Gregory the Great, Bernard, and others follow Dionysius in the distinction of the angels. Francesco Patrizi also, who in book 1 of his Panarchia begs much from the writings of the ancients to establish the Dionysian hierarchies, pronounces hesitantly willy-nilly concerning the author of the hierarchies." Thus he.

Let us now see member by member his vanity and impudence. He cited Paul, Irenaeus, Augustine, Francesco Patrizi. We shall go through them one by one. The passage of Paul in 2 Corinthians 12:4 is: "How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard secret words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." What is there, I pray, against Dionysius? Yet those are the things, you will say, and the rest of that sort, which Dionysius wrote. How do you prove it? who told you that they are those things? He proves nothing, and wishes himself to be believed, a most vain man namely, and made up of most impudent lies (as I show him passim in my Notes). What is vainer than this? Add that Paul speaks of words which he heard, and which it is not lawful to utter; whereas Dionysius does not speak of words, but writes of realities, and enumerates the names of the orders of angels, all of which are contained in the Sacred Scriptures. Or was it indeed so great a mystery to know their order and signification that it was inspired neither to Dionysius, nor to Paul, nor to John, nor to any of the apostles or disciples? Yet the Lord God gave to the apostles the understanding of the Scriptures.

What great matter is it, then, if Dionysius asked of his master Paul what those names of the angels meant, of which both he himself in his epistles and other sacred writers in the divine Letters made mention? if he asked and learned both what order there was among them, and what were the offices of each? And indeed, if that reason of Scultetus were worth even a whit, it would tell more against the Apocalypse of St John than against the writings of Dionysius. For many other things are recounted there, both greater and more difficult to grasp than in Dionysius: which if Dionysius had said, Scultetus would perhaps have had greater occasion to remember his furniture: namely when he heard: And being turned I saw seven candlesticks, and in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, etc. When, I say, he heard of seven candlesticks (Rev. 1:12), and the key of David, chapter 3 (Rev. 3:7), and a throne set in heaven, and round about the throne four and twenty seats, and golden crowns, chapter 4 (Rev. 4:2, 4), and a book and harps, and golden vials, chapter 5 (Rev. 5:1, 8), and a bow, and a sword, and a crown, and white robes, chapter 6 (Rev. 6:2, 4, 11), and a palm, and a throne, and a temple, chapter 7 (Rev. 7:9, 15), and trumpets, and censers, and much incense, chapter 8 (Rev. 8:2, 3), and other things in other places. When he heard these things, I say, or things like them in Dionysius, then with greater right would he blabber those remarks of his about the furniture of heaven and the inventory. Now, however, since those things are read in the writings of the Apostle, what will he say? Was it lawful for blessed John to relate so many and such recondite things concerning heaven and heavenly things, and to lay them open to the world: and was it not lawful for Saint Paul to recount a few things, and those pertaining to the understanding of the Scriptures, to Dionysius the Areopagite converted by him, and his own disciple? Why so? Because he heard secret words, says Scultetus, which it is not lawful for a man to utter (2 Cor. 12:4). Excellently indeed. Apply it, Scultetus. You neither do so, nor can you. For who could refrain from laughter if you should say that they are the very things which Dionysius recounted? For how would you prove it? But if you say they are other things, you accomplish nothing. Moreover, that Dionysius could gather the nine orders of angels from the Scriptures is clear even from

Gregory the Great himself, who did that very thing in Homily 34 on the Gospels. "Now we have said that there are nine orders of angels," says he, "because namely we know on the testimony of Sacred Scripture that there are angels, archangels, virtues, powers, principalities, dominations, thrones, cherubim, and seraphim. For that there are angels and archangels, almost all the pages of Sacred Scripture testify. And of cherubim and seraphim, as is well known, the books of the prophets often speak. Paul the apostle also enumerates the names of four orders to the Ephesians, saying: Above all principality, and power, and virtue, and domination (Eph. 1:21). Who again writing to the Colossians says: Whether thrones, or powers, or powers, or dominations (Col. 1:16)." Then he gathers the number in this way: "Dominations," says he, "and principalities, and powers, he had already described when speaking to the Ephesians: but being about to say those things also to the Colossians, he premised thrones, of which he had not yet spoken anything to the Ephesians. When therefore to those four which he spoke of to the Ephesians, that is, principalities, powers, virtues, and dominations, thrones are joined, there are five orders which are specially expressed. To which when angels and archangels, cherubim and seraphim are added, without doubt there are found to be nine orders of angels."

From all these things adduced from Gregory the Great it is clear that he wished nothing other than to prove that there are nine orders, not however to describe and distinguish the hierarchies among them, and accordingly it is no wonder if either he himself, or St Bernard following him, and perhaps some others who did not distinguish the angels by hierarchies, embraced another order, the matter having been less accurately examined. For it is acknowledged by all that matters are treated far more exaktly by those who treat, define, and divide some subject methodically and by rules (which Dionysius the Areopagite did) than by those who popularly and in an oratorical manner exhort others to virtue: as it is established that Gregory did in Homily 34 on the Gospels, and St Bernard in Sermon 19 on the Canticle of Canticles. For it is one thing to write sermons and homilies, another to write didactic books.

Wherefore those who wrote the latter, like those princes of the scholastics, John of Damascus among the Greeks, Thomas Aquinas among the Latins, established no other order than that which they found in our Dionysius: Damascene indeed in the book On the Orthodox Faith, chapter 8, and Thomas in Part I, question 108, articles 5 and 6, and after others all the scholastic doctors to a man. Now Scultetus kept silent about these things either out of ignorance or out of malice: and without doubt also out of impudence. Moreover, that the order of St Dionysius the Areopagite is better than every other, and therefore deservedly used both by Damascene, and by Aquinas, and by all the scholastics, I shall prove from the same teacher from whom Dionysius first received it, namely from the teacher of the Gentiles, Paul, the master of Dionysius formerly a Gentile. And I prove it thus: Concerning the first four orders, that is, the seraphim, the cherubim, the thrones, and the dominations, it is altogether clear among all. For with Dionysius the Areopagite Gregory also, and Bernard, and others agree, namely that those are the first of all; concerning the two last orders also, that is, the archangels and the angels, it is equally established. There remains therefore a controversy concerning three orders only, that is, the virtues, powers, and principalities, whether they are in heaven in this order as Dionysius established, that is, whether next above the archangels are the principalities, and above these are the powers, and above the powers stand out the virtues, and then the dominations, as in the Celestial Hierarchy. Behold therefore the passage of Paul to the Ephesians, chapter 1:19 and following, where he uses such a gradation concerning Christ raised to the highest glory in heaven: Who believe according

to the working of the mighty power which He wrought in Christ, raising Him from the dead, and setting Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, above all principality, and power, and virtue, and domination, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come (Eph. 1:19–21). In which passage, since Paul treats of the ascent of Christ into heaven, no one, unless extremely stolid, can doubt that he begins from the lower and ascends step by step to the higher orders. And yet Scultetus dares (such is his impudence) to blurt out with a shameless mouth that Dionysius enumerated the benches of the angels (thus he calls the orders of the angels) not only vainly, but also falsely?

Let us see another impudence of his (for of that one enough). It grins forth in those words: "Irenaeus," says he, "in book 2, chapter 55, writes that those writers of hierarchies are raving." What can be added to this impudence? For Scultetus lies, and raves insanely. For not even by a single word, neither there nor elsewhere, does Irenaeus treat of the hierarchies of the angels as disapproving them: nay, he directly attacks those who, leaving aside the angels, archangels, and other orders of angels, placed thirty Aeons in heaven, and as it were new gods. Nay, he even expressly admits and mentions there several orders of angels, namely principalities, dominations, virtues, angels, archangels. I shall bring forward the very words of Irenaeus, that the canine impudence of Scultetus may blush, if it can. Irenaeus, then, treating against Marcion and Valentinus in that very chapter already cited, and asserting that there is one true God, not two, not more, speaks thus among other things: "He Himself is the Lord of all, and there is neither beside Him, nor above Him, either the mother whom they falsely invent; or another God whom Marcion devised; or the Pleroma of thirty Aeons, which has been shown to be vain; or Bythus, or Proarche, or heavens, or virginal light, or an unnameable Aeon, or in short anything of the things that are raved of by these and by all heretics; but one only God the Creator, Who is above all principality, and domination, and virtue."

Behold therefore those whom Irenaeus accuses of vanity and says are raving, namely Marcion feigning two gods, Valentinus establishing thirty Aeons, and all the rest of the heretics, without even the slightest mention being made of Dionysius or of his hierarchies, except that he named some orders, in which by principalitas he understands principalities, not however as disapproving, but as most highly approving; just as in the same place a little lower, when he says: "This Father of our Lord Jesus Christ through His Word (Who is His Son) is revealed and manifested to all to whom He is revealed: for those know Him to whom the Son has revealed Him. And the Son, ever coexisting with the Father, of old and from the beginning ever reveals the Father both to angels, and to archangels, and to powers, and to virtues, and to all to whom God wills to reveal Him." Thus there. Moreover the same Irenaeus in an earlier chapter of the same book, namely chapter 54, refuting the same Valentinians, intimates various orders of angels, and distinctions among the several orders, in these words: "Moreover, if through them the things that are above the heavens were made, let them tell us what is the nature of the invisible things, let them recount the number of the angels, and the order of the archangels, let them demonstrate the mysteries of the thrones, and teach the diversities of the dominations, principalities, powers, and virtues. But they cannot tell. Therefore they were not made through them." Enough of this.

Another argument of Scultetus is this: "Augustine in the Enchiridion to Laurentius, chapter 58, affirms that he does not know the orders of the angels and their differences." What then? did Augustine know all things? or what he did not know, did no one know? He was a man of great genius, I confess, and of rare judgement, nay, and of such holiness

also, that I could believe many of the things which he did not know were revealed to him. But does God give all things to one man? Is there not given to one indeed by the Spirit the word of wisdom, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith in the same Spirit? etc. Does not one and the same Spirit divide to each one according as He wills? (1 Cor. 12:8–11). What wonder, then, if He gave to Dionysius, the disciple of Paul and so near to the fountain of living waters, what He did not give to Augustine, who arose many centuries later? Nay, even in this very passage which has been cited, Augustine shows that he does not know whether the sun and moon and all the stars do not have a life capable of beatitude and of the fellowship of the saints, and that he is ignorant moreover whether there are more orders of angels in heaven than four, whereas nine have been shown above from the Sacred Scriptures. And because perhaps those hearing these things may desire the very words of Augustine to be set forth (for they are strange indeed, and concerning the stars we now have another certain faith), I shall set them down. Thus therefore he has it in the Enchiridion to Laurentius, chapter 58: "How those four words differ among themselves, in which the Apostle seems to have embraced the whole of that celestial society itself, saying: Whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers, let those say who can, if only they can prove what they say; I confess that I am ignorant of those things. But not even this do I hold for certain, whether the sun and moon and all the stars belong to the same society, although to some they seem to be luminous bodies, not endowed with sense or intelligence." Thus Augustine.

Just as, therefore, no one can be reproved, because Augustine says he does not hold for certain whether the stars live and understand and are capable of beatitude, if he teaches that they neither live, nor understand, nor are capable of beatitude: so neither because he doubts concerning the number of the angelic orders are those to be said to act imprudently who teach their number and distinction; and much less those who taught so long before Augustine, and received it either from divine revelation or from the report of the apostles. And if it were rash to write a single book concerning the celestial hierarchy and the orders of the angels, as concerning recondite matters; how much more rash would it be to compose even twelve books concerning the very mystery of the most holy and most abstruse Trinity, which St Hilary did; or even fifteen, which St Augustine did? Scultetus adds that Francesco Patrizi in book 1 of his Panarchia pronounced hesitantly willy-nilly concerning the author of the hierarchies: what however he pronounced, he does not explain; but it is sufficiently understood that he pronounced in our favour. Whence how great is the stupidity of the man, to bring forward things that tell against himself! For although hesitantly, nevertheless he pronounced against Scultetus.

The sixth reason of Scultetus is this: "In the book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy he writes many things concerning temples, concerning altars, concerning sacred places, concerning the choir, concerning the consecration of monks, concerning tonsure and the shaving of heads; whereas in reality none of these things existed in the times of Dionysius the Areopagite: which the reader will find historically demonstrated in Rudolf Hospinian of Zurich." Thus he after his custom, proving nothing in particular, and knavishly referring to others.

Against a similar kind of argument, such will be the properly and most fittingly suited response, as I at least judge: All those things which Scultetus brought forward from Dionysius really existed in the times of Dionysius the Areopagite: which the reader will find truthfully demonstrated in Cardinals Caesar Baronius of Sora and Robert Bellarmine.

Of this solution, I know well enough, he will not complain: since for one I set down two, and indeed such men against such a man, and use the same kind of argument as he himself uses. Concerning temples, however, and altars, and sacred places (not that there is need for the refutation of Scultetus, but because

for the instruction and confirmation of the unlearned and weak it has no small strength and weight), it pleases me to represent here in his very own words a most excellent passage of St Peter of Cluny forcefully hurled against the Petrobrusian heretics, who formerly raved in the same way as Scultetus now does (now he lived five hundred years before Scultetus). "For what?" says that holy man, "was Peter the apostle during the twenty-five years in which he sat at Rome without a temple or church, that is, a house of prayer, or at least a small oratory? Did not, as the series of truthful acts relates (if at least you give assent to any acts beside the divine canon), the prince of the apostles Peter himself first build a temple to Christ among the innumerable temples of the Gentiles in the city that is the head of the world, and, according to what the blessed and great Pope Leo pronounces in a noble sermon, bring the trophy of the cross of Christ into the Roman citadels? Have not we ourselves also, when stationed at Rome, frequently seen in the most ancient crypts oratories and altars, such as could be made at that time, which built and sanctified by the same apostle (as consenting and most celebrated fame protests by succession) are shown to the faithful as a monument of holiness, and are most sweetly and most devoutly kissed by the same faithful? Did Trophimus the disciple of Paul the apostle (from whose fountain, as Pope Zosimus writes, all the Gauls received the streams of faith) at Arles (which by the grace of God your filthy error has not yet infected) always preach, baptize, and pray in the field or in the marketplace? Did he never either have a house of prayer himself, or institute that others should have one? And whence did so many holy successors of his dare to presume this, which he did not teach from whom they received the streams of faith? But that I may say something more fully concerning the first apostles of our Gaul, whom your impious folly and foolish impiety has hitherto not deserved to know (as antiquity itself testifies, and the histories left to us by holy men hand down), not only we, but also all Christian peoples, small and great, old and young, laughing at your madness, hold most certainly that Irenaeus at Lyons, Crescens at Vienne, Ursinus at Bourges, Paul at Narbonne, Saturninus at Toulouse, Austremonius at Clermont, Martial at Limoges, Bordeaux, and Poitiers; Fronto at Périgueux, Eutropius at Saintes, Gatianus at Tours, Julian at Le Mans, Dionysius at Paris, Potentianus and Savinianus at Sens, Lucianus at Beauvais, Andochius at Autun, Benignus at Langres (and who would suffice to enumerate all the most glorious fathers and apostles of our faith?), these certainly, these, wherever they announced the name of the Lord, immediately overthrowing the shrines of idols, so far as was lawful, either founded new churches, or converted the temples themselves into churches: so that even today in very many places (as we ourselves have inspected with our own eyes) churches or basilicas built by them, and altars founded and consecrated by their hands, preserved by the faithful peoples in memory of their antiquity and holiness, are pointed out; and speak as if with a living voice how worthy of being laughed at and detested by all men you are. And that I may make a transition to the East and the other parts of the world, who bound Illyricum, Greece, Scythia with the churches of the new grace, destroying the temples of ancient superstition, if not Paul and Andrew? Who the greatest parts of Asia, if not John and Philip? Who the Persian kingdoms with the neighbouring nations, if not Simon and Jude? Who the Indian parts and the lands contiguous to the rising of the sun, if not Thomas and Bartholomew? Who the whole of Ethiopia, if not Matthew, the first and last apostles of Christ? Thus all the authors of the Old and New Law oppose you with unanimous zeal; so that it is necessary for you either to acquiesce in such great witnesses, or deceitfully to remain Christians without Christ, the prophets, and the apostles." Thus far the holy man, and

whose shoes Scultetus is not worthy to loose.

Seventh reason: "He calls Timothy son, who nevertheless was if not greater than he, certainly equal in piety, authority, and learning."

An addition should have been made: and in age, so that the argument might become effective. For it is clearer than light that old men were accustomed to call those younger in age by the name of sons. So we see in the Sacred Letters, so in profane authors, so in common usage. Furthermore, that Timothy was far younger than Dionysius is clear from the fact that Paul, writing to him when already a bishop in the times of Nero, intimates that he was even then a young man when he says: Let no man despise your youth (1 Tim. 4:12). Yet Dionysius was already well advanced in age, and (what contributes not a little to the matter) of very great authority also, whether because he had been one of the Areopagites and had forsaken them for the sake of Christ, or because he had been converted, baptized, and ordained by Paul himself. Therefore Dionysius called Timothy son, as having preceded him in years, and excelling in philosophy, as having gone before him in years and excelling in philosophy, as St Maximus says in the scholia on chapter 2 of On the Celestial Hierarchy, upon those words: And you, O child. And you, son; and George Pachymeres holds the same on the same passage. Next, pais not only signifies son, but also boy, and indeed in its first and principal signification, just as huios principally signifies son. Hence Christ the Lord called His apostles and disciples, whom He wished to be like boys in character, boys in John 21:5: Boys, have you any fish? Whence also it came to pass in the primitive Church that all Christians were called boys, on account namely of the Christian simplicity and sweetness of their morals; while bishops and others destined for sacred offices were called sacred boys, sacred boys. Thus blessed Clement of Alexandria in book 1 of the Paedagogus, chapter 2, addresses all Christians by the name of boys in these words: Now our Paedagogus, O you boys, resembles His Father God. Our Paedagogus, O you boys, is like His Father God. And yet those to whom he writes were boys neither in age nor in judgement (to whom such lofty instructions would not have been suited), but in probity and innocence of morals. This signification and response to the said passage of Dionysius Saint Maximus also admits and approves in these words: Or because they called those who practised guilelessness according to God boys, as Papias also shows in the book of the Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord, and Clement of Alexandria in the Paedagogus. Or because they called those boys who pursued pious simplicity and innocence, just as both Papias indicates in the first book of the Explanations of the Lord's Sayings, and Clement of Alexandria in the Paedagogus: that is, simple, sincere, by no means evil, such as the ancients, as Pachymeres says, handed down that Timothy was. For thus he writes in his Dionysian Paraphrase: Or they called those who practised guilelessness boys, just as some of the ancients relate concerning this man, that he was revered for his guilelessness. Or they called those exercising simplicity boys, as some of the ancients related of this man (Timothy) that he was adorned with simplicity. I for my part have read quite often and attentively both Epistles of Saint Paul to Timothy, to see if perhaps by searching I could find any traces whereby I might arrive at a knowledge of his character and disposition, and by the same way at the solution of that knot which the adversaries have tied; I found at length that Timothy was indeed versed in the Sacred Letters from boyhood, but in disposition and spirit quite small-minded and exceedingly timid, and one who, if it had been permitted by Paul, would very gladly have laid down the pontifical burden. Wherefore he had both to be repeatedly encouraged and stirred up by Paul, and after the manner of a boy to be thoroughly taught how he ought to converse with each class of men. And because he was unacquainted with profane philosophy and secular literature,

and therefore suffered much trouble and annoyance from the learned men of the world (which Maximus and Pachymeres testify), on that account he stood in need of the help both of Paul, while he lived, and after his death, of Dionysius. Since therefore Paul died under Nero, it is credible that Dionysius penned his books to Timothy under the succeeding emperors, and especially under Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian, of whom the first reigned ten years, the second two, the third fifteen. For Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, who preceded these, did not each complete whole years.

Concerning the fear and pusillanimity of Timothy, I have noted some things in the Annotations to the Life of Saint Polycarp, chapter 7, at the end.

From these things finally it can easily be gathered how probable it is that Timothy after the death of Paul turned for help and solace to Dionysius the Areopagite, whom he knew to be both greatest in genius and extraordinary in both kinds of knowledge, sacred as well as profane, and out of his innate simplicity and modesty of mind (which we still do when we write to older and more learned men, or ask for anything) repeatedly called himself his son or boy; which word accordingly Dionysius also used in writing back to him; although to that word he sometimes added the title of holy or most holy, as one who knew that he was writing to a bishop and to a holy man, albeit younger and simpler. Hence also he begins the book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy to him thus: That our hierarchy indeed, O most sacred of sacred boys, etc. That our hierarchy indeed, O most holy of holy boys, etc. Because however (as it is in Job 12:4) the simplicity of the just man is laughed to scorn, a lamp despised in the thoughts of the rich, or because it is a prone thing that the just and simple are easily derided and despised by vain men, Paul sedulously took care lest those things should befall Timothy, partly by praising him, partly by writing letters in his own and his name, partly by expressly forbidding contempt of him. Therefore the inscription of the Epistle of Paul to Philemon has the name of Timothy conjoined, in this way: Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, to Philemon our beloved (Philem. 1), etc. And in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 16:10, he at the same time praises and commends him and renders him safe from contempt. Now if Timothy come, says he, see that he be with you without fear: for he works the work of the Lord, as I also do. Let no man therefore despise him: but conduct ye him on his way in peace, that he may come to me: for I look for him with the brethren (1 Cor. 16:10–11).

In which passages I cannot but admire, and love, and embrace that kindness of the apostle, and his paternal care and solicitude for procuring authority and confidence for his disciple: which Saint John Chrysostom also formerly admired in his Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul. Moreover, that it may be known how highly Saint Dionysius esteemed Timothy (although he called him son on account of his age) on account of his reputation for erudition, let the things be read, I pray, which I wrote above in the Life of Dionysius, chapter 23, where the modesty of the same Saint Dionysius is set forth. For there he says those things of Timothy which are truly worthy of him who was the companion and disciple of Paul. For he makes him to be one who deserves to be taught by God through angels things even truer and clearer than he himself had taught.

The eighth reason of Scultetus is: "Here and there he names many greater preceptors, whereas in the time of the true Dionysius, besides the apostles there was scarcely one or two ecclesiastical writers."

Very slender is this reason, and like a cobweb that could scarcely hold flies. Many, says he. I ask, whom? or how does he name them? For unless I (to use the words of Ennius) help him or relieve his care, he will be at a standstill. Two preceptors of his, then, Dionysius praises by name, Paul and Hierotheus, while others generally,

by using similar expressions, our theologians, our fathers, etc. Now he understands by theologians (as may be seen in his writings) all who wrote concerning God and divine things, that is, the prophets, the apostles, and the other authors of Sacred Scripture; for those are truly theologians, truly our masters and preceptors: in which way Saint Justin the philosopher also calls them in the Apology to Antoninus Pius after the middle, in these words: And that you may learn that Plato also took from our teachers (we mean the word through the prophets), etc. And that you may understand that Plato also received from our masters (we speak of the teaching of the prophets), etc. Justin proves there that Moses is more ancient than Plato, and that the latter took some things from his books, and says that by our masters he understands the prophets. The same Justin in the Apology to the Senate near the middle calls Jesus our master: And Jesus our teacher taught, etc. And Jesus our master taught, etc. Thus Dionysius in the book On the Celestial Hierarchy, chapter 2, calls Malachi, John the Evangelist, Moses, Solomon, Isaiah, Hosea, and David theologians. For teaching how the theologians express the divinity, he subjoins examples from all of those, and none from other inferior Writers. And in chapter 3, after he says: Now these divine visions our renowned fathers were initiated into through the mediation of the heavenly powers. Now these divine visions those illustrious fathers of ours were taught by the celestial virtues. Lest Scultetus say that there were no illustrious Fathers, who those are whom he understands he shows from the subjoined examples, namely when he produces Moses, Luke, Matthew, and Isaiah for the sake of proof. See Dionysius in the same place, chapter 5 at the beginning, and chapter 7 after the middle, where in the number of the theologians he recounts David, Isaiah, and Ezekiel, and likewise in chapter 8. And because Scultetus is so shameless that he could deny those things unless the author expressly said, Ezekiel the theologian, Zechariah the theologian, and so of others; come, let us convict him thus also. Accordingly in chapter 8 of the Celestial Hierarchy Dionysius writes thus: One of the theologians, Zechariah, sees one of the first, as I think, of the Angels around God. Zechariah, one of the theologians, saw one of the first, as I think, of the angels standing around God. And a little later: And another of the theologians, Ezekiel, And Ezekiel, another of the theologians, etc. See more there and in the following chapters. Thus theology is used passim by the same Dionysius for Sacred Scripture, as in chapter 2 of On the Divine Names, at the beginning: For what else is there to learn from sacred theology, when it says that the Godhead itself leading the way said: Why do you ask me concerning the good? None is good, save God alone. For what else may one learn from sacred theology, when it says that the Divinity itself teaching said: "Why do you ask me concerning the good? None is good, save God alone" (Luke 18:19). Although therefore Dionysius had had no other preceptors save Hierotheus and Paul the apostle, nevertheless concerning the other sacred writers whether of the Old or of the New Testament he could with the best right say: Our preceptors, our fathers, our elders, our theologians, etc. From which the eighth objection of Scultetus is shown to be most vain. Let us proceed to the others.

The ninth is such: "He cites the sentence of Ignatius about to die under Trajan, My love has been crucified. Yet Methodius writes that Dionysius was slain in the reign of Domitian."

Thus he, to whom this response could suffice: "Yet Ado archbishop of Vienne writes that Dionysius suffered martyrdom in the times of Hadrian." For just as he proves by one witness, so I disprove by one witness. Now therefore we are even. However, we have already responded most fully to this objection concerning the sentence of Ignatius in this very question above.

The tenth reason, or tenth-wave impudence of Scultetus, is of this sort. "He errs (says he of Saint Diony-

sius) manifestly, because he teaches that the dead are to be poured over and anointed with oil; that the monastic state is more excellent than every order of those to be initiated and even than the ministry; that ointment is of the same rank as baptism, an invention of man namely, as the sacrament of Christ." Thus he, speaking in the Pythagorean manner, and not proving. To whom if I respond in the same manner, and reject those three things which he brought in by bare negation alone, what shall I have done unworthy of such an arguer? But for the sake of others we shall say more, and go through the single points.

First, therefore, in place of what he says concerning a most holy and most learned man, and one indeed writing most certain things, he errs manifestly, I think should be set down: Scultetus errs and raves most manifestly. For let it be permitted to a lover of the saints to speak thus against revilers of the saints. For Saint Dionysius wrote what in his time he saw done regarding the dead both by himself and by others: and indeed why this was done, he brought forward this best reason and most acceptable to all good men, namely that it is signified that he who is anointed has lawfully striven and departed in striving. What however does Scultetus bring forward for his bold and impudent contradiction? not even that which boys cry out that they have found in a bean. Now I would wish Christians to read the ceremonies concerning the funerals of the dead produced by Dionysius in the book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 7, and they will admire their antiquity and holiness alike most full of wisdom.

The second point of Scultetus's reproof is that Dionysius teaches that the monastic state is more excellent than every order of those to be initiated and even than the ministry. Against which teaching he again brings forward nothing else than those two words, "He errs manifestly," while he himself in the meantime lies much more manifestly. For in the first place Dionysius does not teach that the monastic state is more excellent than any ministry, nor is there in him a single word that sounds this: nay, he places the monastic state outside the order of all ministers and of all sacred orders. For he sets down three sacred orders, of pontiffs, of priests, of deacons, who are also called initiators or handlers of sacred things, among whom there is no mention of monks: inasmuch as they have no office in sacred things, and accordingly are inferior to all their ministers or administrators. Next, those who are initiated only, and do not initiate, that is, all laymen belonging to the Church, he divides into three classes: into those who are excluded from the sacrifices, into those who are partakers of them and lead the common life, and into those who profess a greater perfection, that is, monks. Which division will be found in the book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 6, where Dionysius also teaches that the first class (which is of the ruder and more imperfect) belongs to the care of the deacons or ministers, who are called leitourgoi, whose part it is to instruct and purify them; while the second, which is of those in the middle, and the third, which is of the monks or therapeutae, belong to the office of the priest: for it is his part both to teach and illuminate the common people or the faithful already baptized and now running the way of marriage, and to consecrate to God the monks professing a singular life and exact chastity. What then did Scultetus mean when he lied that Dionysius taught that the monastic state is more excellent than the ministry? Did perhaps the minister of Calvin look to his own ministry, and to stir up envy against Dionysius feign that he preferred monks to ministers? Yet such ministers the Areopagite was utterly unacquainted with; and even if perhaps he had foreseen that such would come fourteen hundred years after him, he would nevertheless have committed no great sin if he had placed them after monks, I do not say those who now are, but even those who then were and held no sacred order. However, Dionysius spoke nothing of the sort concerning ministers: in whom those are called ministers who are now commonly called deacons, but

after them he places the monks: whom, as I noted before, he teaches to excel as the chief class among laymen alone. And these things, I think, suffice to uncover the harlot-like impudence of the shameless man. For concerning monks I shall treat more at length below, and show how great a difference there is between those of whom Dionysius treated and those who were in later centuries and now are; and at the same time from that difference I shall take a most strong argument for the books of Dionysius: for now it is resolved to press on in confounding Scultetus.

The third member, therefore, of the tenth reason adduced by him was "that Dionysius manifestly errs because he teaches that ointment is of the same rank as baptism, an invention of man namely as the sacrament of Christ." What should I answer here? He himself does not say where Dionysius teaches this, he does not bring forward the words, he does not press them, he does not endeavour to deduce a certain or at least in some way probable consequence from them; so that he shamelessly abuses both the simplicity of his own followers, whom he wishes to believe him as Pythagoras, and the excessive patience of learned men who do not have leisure to search out the passages. I myself searched thoroughly if perhaps I might find Dionysius anywhere saying that the ointment is of the same rank as baptism, that ointment is of the same or similar order or dignity with baptism, and nowhere did I find it, nor was that word homotages ever used by Dionysius in a comparison of ointment with baptism; but indeed when he treated of the Eucharist, and passes from it to the consecration of the ointment (which he does at the beginning of the fourth chapter of On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy), he writes thus: But there is another consecration of the same rank with this: our preceptors call it the rite of the ointment. But bordering on that (the most holy synaxis) and of the same order is another sacred operation: our leaders call it the sacrament of ointment.

Now he says that it is of the same order, not because it is the same sacrament (for he openly distinguishes them, and says that he passes from the one to the other), but because this consecration of the ointment also belongs to the pontiff or bishop, and because none are present at its consecration save those who are also permitted to be present at the consecration of the synaxis; and therefore catechumens, energumens, and penitents are excluded. Which two things he expressly teaches in the very same chapter 4, partly in the description itself of the rite of the ointment, partly in the subjoined contemplation. The words of Dionysius are these: In the same manner as in the synaxis, the orders of the uninitiated are dismissed. In the same manner as in the synaxis, the orders of the imperfect are dismissed (in the consecration of the ointment, namely). Then a little lower concerning the office of the pontiff he subjoins thus: Then the Hierarch taking the ointment places it upon the divine altar, etc. Then the pontiff taking the oil places it upon the holy altar. He has similar things again in the progress of the contemplation, where he also again uses the word homotages, writing thus of the same consecration of the ointment: Wherefore our divine preceptors also arranged this, as being of the same rank and of the same operation with the sacred rite of the synaxis, for the most part with the same images and mystical arrangements and sacred prayers. And our divine leaders ordained, that is, appointed it to be performed, as of the same order and efficacy with the holy sacrament of the synaxis, for the most part with the same images and mystical descriptions and sacred expressions. Which words Scultetus, if he had not been so sluggish and witless, would have seen to tell far more against us than the things which he adduced. For just as among us the Eucharist is of greater account than baptism, so it was of greater account to compare the ointment with the Eucharist (which Dionysius does) than with baptism. However, the man of perverse faith, and most alien from the truth, neither saw that truth, and without labour found the lie familiar to himself. Otherwise he could have cried out and vociferated: Behold to what those who say that Jesus Christ is most present in the Eucharist have come! Ointment, the work of man, they make of the same rank with Christ. Behold,

this author of theirs makes the ointment not only of the same rank, but also of the same operation with the sacred synaxis. Now if it is tautourgon, that is, of the same efficacy, or effecting the same thing, therefore the ointment just like the synaxis effects Christ. That man could, I say, and according to his sect ought to have alleged, urged, and inculcated that word tautourgon against the Catholics for his Calvinists rather than his homotages, which perhaps he neglected to translate for this reason, that men might think more mystery lay hidden in it than there really is. For if he meant only this, that in the sacrament of baptism among other ceremonies ointment also is employed, what great matter is this? For neither Dionysius nor the Catholics on that account do an injury to baptism, but rather bring honour and veneration to it. For ceremonies added to things look to this, that the things themselves may be esteemed more highly and honoured more. For we neither say that without them baptism is ineffectual, nor that they have the same virtue as baptism (far be this thought from us! for the invention of man is not equal to the institution of God); but we say that on account of mystical significations both ointment and certain other ceremonies are rightly and deservedly employed in certain sacraments. Which significations indeed I do not think anyone of a well-ordered mind and firm and constant judgement (if he should read them in Dionysius himself) can in any way disapprove: nay, I am altogether persuaded that he will rather admire them and esteem them very highly. But lest that word tautourgon left unexplained be an occasion of error to anyone, it does not have the force of saying that all that is effected by the sacrament of ointment which is effected by the Eucharist (for thus it would not be a different, but the same sacrament), but that it confers similar graces, that it illuminates the mind, strengthens it for the contemplation of heavenly things, and awakens love and desire.

The eleventh reason of Scultetus: "In the book of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 1, he commanded Timothy not to reveal his writings to all. Therefore they are not apostolic." Thus he.

Yet this is not now the question, whether those writings are apostolic or not, but whether those writings (whatever they may be) are Dionysius's or anyone else's: for you too, O man full of deceit and guile, after reviewing the books of Dionysius proposed this question thus: Whether the books reviewed are those of Dionysius the Areopagite; and not that one: Whether his writings are apostolic. Why then do you infer something other than what you ask; and next, why do you not conclude something that is clear and free of ambiguity? For the word apostolic there is ambiguous: and indeed if you take it in its first and proper signification, namely that those writings be called apostolic which were written by one of the apostles, you trifle while refuting what no one says; for hitherto there has been no one who attributed those writings to any of the apostles. But if you call those writings apostolic which were written in the age of the apostles, you do an injury to the apostles, since in their age also some things were written by heretics (against whom John wrote his Gospel) which could and ought thus to be called apostolic. What then do you finally call apostolic? Writings in an apostolic style? You will not dare to say this, lest you seem to serve up the same cabbage twice. For if you are treating of style here, you are altogether doing what has already been done, and setting down in the eleventh reason what you proposed in the first. For your first reason was concerning the style as little apostolic, which we also refuted. But if perhaps you wish to say this (for you need to be helped), that they were not written in an apostolic spirit, that is, one desirous of the faith and salvation of souls and the perfection of the Church (for this is the very thing, I think, that you intend, if you intend anything new), yet not even so do you blurt out anything else than a gross and impudent lie. For certainly those writings breathe the pure ambrosia of the faith and salvation of souls and the perfection of the Church. Which men most learned and most holy alike, and who had an uncorrupted

taste for virtue, have most amply testified.

Nevertheless, how do you prove that there is not an apostolic spirit in those writings? "Because," says he, "he commanded Timothy not to reveal his writings to all." Nay rather, the apostolic spirit shines forth there, when he thus admonishes Timothy not to communicate the highest mysteries of our faith to the Gentiles and others initiated as yet into no sacrament, but to Christians alone, and indeed to the illuminated, that is, the baptized; because namely, as Saint Maximus rightly says: One must not disclose holy things to the profane, nor cast pearls to swine, one must not show holy things to the profane, nor cast pearls to swine. What? is this not conformable to the Gospel and to the apostolic spirit? Yet Christ the Lord Himself says in Matthew 7:6: Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine: lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, tear you. And indeed Dionysius believed that it would so come to pass that if Gentiles or those little grounded in the faith read the hidden mysteries of our Church, they themselves would trample them under foot as vile and despicable, that is, would despise and deride them, and rise up against the writers themselves and the teachers of such things, and if they could, even tear them to pieces. Wherefore, not content with this single premunition which he had employed at the beginning of the book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, in chapter 2 also, when about to enter upon the ceremonies of sacred baptism, bringing forward arguments and examples, he wards off the profane from the sight of them. For thus he writes: Next let us behold the divine symbols of the divine birth. And let no one uninitiated come to the spectacle. For neither is it without danger to look directly with weak pupils at the sun-wrought rays; nor is it harmless to put one's hand to the things that are above us. Next let us inspect the divine symbols of generation from God. And let no one uninitiated approach to behold them. For as to gaze directly with weak eyes upon the rays of the sun is not without danger, so to attempt things higher than ourselves is not free from harm. Which he also proves by examples brought forward from Sacred Scripture, which may be seen there.

Furthermore, the same caution as Dionysius used was employed by blessed Clement of Alexandria in book 1 of the Stromata, who in this also imitated Dionysius, that he purposely and intentionally wrote his books somewhat obscurely, and wished to conceal the seeds of knowledge, as he himself says, and sometimes used new words: to the end namely that the truth found more laboriously (as in hunting) might be sweeter and more pleasing; and more remote and secure from the mockery and cavils of petulant men who do not grasp holy things. Nor will it be irksome to cite a few words of Clement from the same place, and as it were to point the finger, as the saying goes, to the fountain. They run thus: For I pass over in silence that the Stromata, embodied with much learning, wish skilfully to hide the seeds of knowledge. For I pass over in silence that these books of Stromata, compacted into one body out of manifold learning, wish skilfully to conceal the seeds of knowledge. And a little lower: Why ever then did it seem good that the commentaries should be arranged thus? Because great is the danger of divulging the truly secret word of true philosophy to those who unsparingly wish to contradict all things, and that unjustly, and cast forth all names and words in no way decently, both deceiving themselves and bewitching those who cleave to them, etc. For what reason then did it seem good to compose these commentaries thus? Because there is great danger in enunciating this exceedingly secret discourse of true philosophy to those who unsparingly indeed wish to contradict all things, and that undeservedly; and by no means decently cast forth all names and words, both deceiving themselves and deluding their followers. See more there.

He calls there true philosophy (just as do the other holy Greek Fathers) the Christian teaching: and the secret

discourse of true philosophy he calls the mysteries of our faith: which Dionysius called the Holy of Holies, the Holy of Holies, at the beginning of the book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 1, where he writes thus to St Timothy: But see that you do not divulge the Holy of Holies, etc. But see that you do not enunciate the Holy of Holies. Where it is to be noted that both used the same word exorcheisthai, that is, to enunciate things that should be kept silent, Dionysius and Clement, as may be seen here.

Furthermore, the very same thing which Scultetus reproves in Dionysius was approved twelve hundred years before he himself was born by St Cyril of Jerusalem, St Basil, St Ambrose, and others. For the first of them before his Catecheses not only premised the same caution concerning his books, but also seriously admonished that if perhaps any should copy them out, they should also copy out the caution itself. These are his words: Offering these Catecheses of those who are being illuminated for reading to those who are approaching baptism and to the faithful who have already received the washing, do not give them at all either to catechumens or to any others who are not Christians. Else you will render an account to the Lord. And if you make a copy, write these words in front as before the Lord. Exhibiting these Catecheses of those who are being illuminated to be read by those indeed who are approaching baptism and by the faithful who are already baptized, in no way communicate them to catechumens, nor to any others not yet Christians. For otherwise you will render an account to the Lord. And indeed if you transcribe them, you shall prefix these very words, as in the autograph.

Moreover, the passage of Basil in the book On the Holy Spirit, chapter 27, is by far the most beautiful: which, because it also touches upon some other things concerning the ceremonies of baptism, I shall set down entire, but for the sake of brevity in Latin only, although I also have the Greek at hand, which I have translated thus: "Now we bless both the water of baptism, and the oil of anointing, and him moreover who is baptized. From what writings? Is it not from a silent and secret tradition? Furthermore, what written word taught the anointing with oil itself? And that a man is immersed thrice, whence was it taken? All the other things likewise that are done around baptism, such as to renounce Satan and his angels, from what scripture are they? Are they not from that by no means divulged and secret teaching, which those Fathers of ours, taught to preserve the venerable mysteries, guarded in quiet and by no means curious silence? Or what did that great Moses mean when he stationed the profane outside the sacred barriers, and permitting the first courts to the purer, judged the Levites alone worthy worshippers of God; furthermore assigned the slaughterings and whole burnt offerings and the rest of the ministry to the priests; admitted one chosen out of all into the innermost sanctuary, and not even that always, but on one single day only each year, and prescribed also a fixed hour of that day at which it was lawful for him to enter? Namely that touched with awe on account of the novelty and unusualness he might behold the Holy of Holies. For he knew well, according to the wisdom in which he excelled, that what is trite and easy to grasp is likewise ready to be despised: whereas what is withdrawn and rare is naturally in a way esteemed highly and studiously sought out. In the same way therefore the apostles and Fathers who from the beginning prescribed certain rites of the Churches preserved their dignity for the mysteries by concealment and silence. For that is not at all a mystery which is brought to the ears of the people and the multitude. And this is the reason for the tradition of those things that have not been handed down in writing, namely lest the practised knowledge of dogmas should on account of familiarity become despicable to the multitude. For dogma is one thing, preaching another. For dogmas are kept in silence, preachings are published abroad. Moreover, the very obscurity of Scripture is also a certain kind of silence, rendering the meaning of the dogmas difficult to understand, and that for the profit of the readers."

Thus far that great Basil, reasoning far otherwise indeed

than the vile Scultetus; being wise far better indeed than the Calvinist minister. For he approves two things which Dionysius observed in his books: one, not to divulge the mysteries; the other, to fortify them with obscurity of style. There is indeed no need of more testimonies in a matter so clear, so attested: nevertheless, lest perhaps some testimony from the Latins be desired, I subjoin one here: namely that of Saint Ambrose, from the book On the Mysteries, chapter 1: "Now concerning the mysteries," says he, "the time admonishes us to speak, and to set forth the purport of the sacraments themselves: which if we had thought should be intimated before baptism to those not yet initiated, we should be esteemed to have betrayed rather than set forth."

To this also pertains (what I had almost passed over) the obscurity affected, as Jerome testifies, by the Seventy Translators in translating the prophets from the Hebrew. For in Epistle 117 he says: "Whence I conjecture that the Seventy Translators at that time were unwilling to disclose clearly to the heathens the mysteries of their faith, lest they should give that which is holy to dogs, and pearls to swine. Which things, when you read this edition, you will perceive to have been hidden by them." Thus Jerome.

And before all these Origen excellently says in Homily 1 on Ezekiel: "I gladly confess," says he, "a saying uttered by a wise and faithful man, which I often look up to: Even to speak true things concerning God is dangerous. For not only are those things dangerous which are spoken falsely concerning Him, but even those things which are true, if they are brought forth unseasonably, create danger for the speaker. The pearl is true," etc. And because natural reason itself teaches that just as not all men are capable of all things, so neither are all kinds of writings to be entrusted or permitted to all minds (as they would otherwise be a detriment, not a benefit, to not a few), hence profane philosophers also, and among them Plato and Porphyry and others, by no means imprudently forbade the more abstruse dogmas of truth, or the more recondite mysteries, to be published abroad to the multitude. Wherefore Scultetus, in reproving Dionysius, is manifestly convicted of acting both against reason, and against all philosophy, and against Sacred Scripture. And if indeed his argument were valid, it would follow that some sayings of Saint Paul also, namely those which he delivered to the same Timothy to be communicated to the learned alone, are not, or certainly are little, apostolic. The things which you have heard from me through many witnesses, says he, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also (2 Tim. 2:2).

The twelfth and last reason of Scultetus is this: "Lastly," says he, "he betrays himself manifestly enough at the end of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, where he says: Our holy preceptors, instructed from ancient tradition, have derived it to us."

And this reason also has been produced by him verynegligently. For Scultetus ought both to have disclosed what the discourse was about there, and to have shown how the words of Dionysius could not be explained otherwise; and finally to have demonstrated how certainly that which he wished was concluded: none of which the sluggish man did. Dionysius, then, is treating there of the baptism of infants, and teaches that by the tradition of the apostles it is lawful to baptize infants. For there is no doubt that, when circumcision had now been taken away and abolished, inquiry was made of the apostles what needed to be done for the salvation of children and infants (as many are wont to die off in that tender and rude age), whether baptism should be administered to them, and how: and that the apostles answered and handed down (as Dionysius teaches) that they should be baptized, especially in danger of death. Now that tradition was called by our author archaia paradosis, that is, the first or primitive tradition. For since archaios has several meanings, its meanings are to be taken according to the subject matter. Now among other things (which can be learned even from the Lexicons), just as arche means beginning, so

archaion signifies first, not only old or ancient. For something can be first, and yet not old or ancient; and likewise ancient, and not be first. The words of Dionysius, therefore, speaking of the baptism of infants, are these: Concerning this we say these things, which our godlike initiators, instructed from the primitive tradition, have brought down to us. Concerning that we say these things, which our divine initiators, instructed from the first tradition, have conveyed to us.

Furthermore, those words, theoeideis hierotelestai, godlike or divine initiators, and those a little lower, theioi kathegemones, divine leaders, suit none better than the apostles, and therefore Saint Maximus in the Scholia on this passage interpreted them of them. Nevertheless they could also be understood of Saint Hierotheus (who was also the preceptor of Dionysius) and of others contemporary with Hierotheus, or even of the evangelists Luke and Mark, or of some from the number of the seventy-two disciples, from whom Dionysius cites Saint Justus in chapter 11 of On the Divine Names. Whence Saint Maximus also gathers the antiquity of blessed Dionysius.

If therefore by those divine leaders and initiators are understood Hierotheus, Justus, Antipas, and the like, they will most rightly be said to have been instructed from the first tradition, that is, from the tradition of the apostles: nor will there be need to run back all the way to Christ. But if the apostles themselves are understood, then they will be said to have been instructed from the first tradition, that is, from Christ, Who after His resurrection fully instructed them, as concerning many other things, so also concerning baptism. For tradition is spoken of not only concerning ancient things, but also concerning new ones: so that the new precepts and instructions of Christ delivered to the apostles, even at that very time when they were being delivered, were rightly called traditions. Whence Paul also in 2 Thessalonians 2:14 says: Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. Which traditions indeed could not have been as ancient as those of which Dionysius was speaking.

Thus far concerning the objections of Scultetus. Now let us give some attention to certain other things that are opposed or can be opposed by others.

Some say, then, that it seems little probable that in the time of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, who lived with the apostles, there was so great a multitude of ceremonies in the Church as is adduced by the author of these books.

To whom I respond that neither the number of those ceremonies nor their quality seems to have been sufficiently examined and weighed by them; nay, nor the duty and care of the apostles' office regarding them. For to them it certainly belonged, when the old sacrifices and rites and ceremonies had been abolished, either to see to it that other sacrifices, rites, and ceremonies instituted by Christ were performed, or to institute those left to their own disposition, especially as far as rites and ceremonies are concerned. For they had learned well, both from the Old Testament itself and from the anointing of the Holy Spirit (Who taught them all things), that sacred things neither stand so well nor are esteemed so highly without ceremonies as with them. And concerning their multitude, why are we reproved in vain and undeservedly? when almost innumerably more in number were established in the Old Law through one Moses than in the New through twelve or fourteen apostles. Nor yet could I believe that he conversed so familiarly with the angel as they with Christ: nor likewise that he was suffused with so great a grace of the Holy Spirit as those same men.

Add furthermore that those ceremonies which have been described by Dionysius are very few in number, and of some sacraments only, not of all, and those indeed, as in those beginnings, very brief and very easy: such as of the venerable Eucharist, and of sacred orders; to which

not a few were afterwards added by various pontiffs or bishops of diverse places, as may be seen in several liturgies and ritual books of the holy prelates.

Finally, all the rites recounted by Dionysius (for the contemplations, or their explanations, must be separated from them) you could easily comprise even on a single small leaf. For the rites of baptism indeed fill only two small pages; those of the Eucharist, a single one; those of ointment, scarcely and not even scarcely half a page; furthermore those of the three orders, of bishop, priest, and deacon, half a page only; of the consecration of a monk, nothing more; the rites of funerals, just as much; so that in five small pages you could without difficulty enclose all the ceremonies brought forward by Dionysius, concerning the multitude of which in the meantime so many reproaches are bandied about everywhere. For that book of Dionysius contains no other ceremonies or rites besides those that I have mentioned. And that we may come to the quality of the ceremonies themselves, and begin from baptism, of those indeed which might seem more recent than the others the most ancient Fathers have made mention, namely of renunciation, exorcism, exsufflation, anointing, and also sponsorship for infants; for these are almost the things that the heretics despise, deride, and cavil at; and when these have been proved, willy-nilly, they lose their case.

Let Tertullian therefore be heard, as to what he relates concerning renunciation and certain other ceremonies of baptism. In the book On the Soldier's Crown, chapter 3: "To begin with baptism," says he, "when we are about to enter the water, there, and also somewhat earlier in the Church under the hand of the prelate, we solemnly profess that we renounce the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Then we are immersed thrice, answering somewhat more than the Lord determined in the Gospel: then having been received up, we foretaste a mixture of milk and honey," etc. Let Origen also be heard in Homily 12 on Numbers: "Let each one of the faithful remember," says he, "when he first came to the waters of baptism, when he received the first seals of the faith and approached the fountain of salvation, what words he then used there, and what he renounced to the devil, that he would use neither his pomps nor his works," etc.

If it pleases you to hear more, let these be consulted: Cyril of Jerusalem in the first Mystagogical Catechesis; Basil the Great in the book On the Holy Spirit, chapter 27; Ambrose in book 1 On the Sacraments, chapter 2, and book 2, chapter 7; Chrysostom in Homily 21 to the People of Antioch; Jerome on chapter 6 of Amos; Augustine in book 1 On the Creed to Catechumens, chapter 1, and others.

Because, however, the words of blessed Cyril are very conformable to the teaching and words of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, it will not be irksome to relate them here. They run thus, then: First you entered into the outer hall of the baptistery, and standing towards the west you heard and were commanded to stretch forth your hand, and as though he were present to renounce Satan. First you entered into the porch of the house of the baptistery, and standing towards the west you heard and were bidden to stretch forth your hand, and as though he were present to renounce Satan. See more there concerning the words of renunciation, and concerning the turning to the east, and the pronouncing of the creed, and other things, all of which confirm the true and apostolic teaching of Saint Dionysius.

Concerning exorcism and exsufflation, which proceed equally and jointly, the reason is the same, the sentiment of the holy Fathers the same, the judgement the same. See the same Cyril in the Procatechesis, or preface before the Catecheses, and prior to him St Cyprian in Epistle 76 to Magnus, on baptizing the Novatians, towards the end, and Nazianzen in the Oration on the Holy Washing, and in place of many see Saint Augustine in book 6 Against Julian, chapter 5: "The Church," says he, "would neither exorcize nor exsufflate the children of the faithful, if she did not rescue them from the power of darkness and from the prince of death. Which was set down by me in my book to which you make a show of replying; but you were afraid to mention it, as

though you yourself would deserve to be hissed off by the whole world, if you had wished to contradict this exsufflation whereby the prince of the world is cast out even from infants." By which sentence Scultetus also is surely judged worthy of being hissed off.

See the same Augustine in book 2 to Valerius, chapter 17, but especially chapter 29, where he teaches that the ceremonies of exorcizing and exsufflating are most ancient in the Church. "For it was not," says he, "from the time when the pestilential doctrine of Manichaeus began to exist, that infants to be baptized began in the Church of God to be exorcized and exsufflated." As if to say, but many centuries back, since their first origin cannot be shown save from apostolic tradition. And a little lower in the same place, after citing Cyprian and Ambrose, he speaks thus: "Let that man dare to call these Manichaeans, and spatter with that nefarious charge the most ancient tradition of the Church, whereby infants are exorcized and, as I said, exsufflated, so that rescued from the power of darkness, that is, of the devil and his angels, they may be transferred into the kingdom of Christ."

Now concerning anointing in baptism many also of the ancient Fathers have made mention: of the Greeks indeed St Cyril of Jerusalem in Mystagogical Catecheses 2 and 3; Chrysostom in Homily 6 on the Epistle to the Colossians, and others; and of the Latins Tertullian in the book On Baptism, chapter 7; Ambrose in book 1 On the Sacraments, chapter 2; Augustine in Sermon 206 On the Season, and others.

The words of Cyril: Then having been stripped, you were anointed with exorcized oil from the topmost hairs of the head down to the lowest parts. Then having been stripped, you were anointed with exorcized oil from the topmost hairs of the head down to the lowest parts.

The words of Chrysostom: He is anointed, just like athletes about to enter the stadium. He is anointed, like athletes about to enter the stadium. And a little later he adds that the one to be baptized is anointed otherwise than the priests of old, because the one to be baptized is anointed over his whole body, whereas they were anointed only on the head, and the right ear, and the hand.

The words of Tertullian: "Thereupon coming forth from the font we are thoroughly anointed with a blessed unction from the ancient discipline, whereby they were accustomed to be anointed with oil from a horn unto the priesthood." Other testimonies I omit, as being ready at hand to all.

Concerning sponsors, moreover, the same Tertullian in chapter 18 of the book already cited says: "Therefore," says he, "according to each person's condition and disposition, and also age, the delay of baptism is more profitable, yet especially regarding infants. For what need is there, if it be not so necessary, that sponsors also should be thrust into danger? who both themselves through mortality may fail of their promises, and may be deceived by the growth of an evil disposition;" that is, when there is not so great a necessity of hastening the baptism of infants, and it can be deferred, no danger of death namely urging, what need is there for their sponsors or godparents to be exposed to danger, lest when they have stood surety for them, they should not keep faith, nor instruct them as they promised, and take care of their salvation?

After setting forth and mystically declaring the rites of baptism, Dionysius proceeds in chapter 3 to the rites of the Eucharist or sacrifice. Now they are neither many, nor alien from that age: since mention is made of them by other most ancient Fathers also, as being already customary before, and not as having been very recently adopted. St Justin the philosopher and martyr lived in the second century of Christ, and made mention of those rites in his Apology to the Emperor Antoninus Pius and his sons. I have published them in Greek and Latin at his Life; wherefore I omit them here.

But Scultetus, wickedly abusing the words of Dionysius against Dionysius himself and Mother Church, I cannot pass over without piercing him through with his very own weapons. For he strives to deduce from the same chapter 3 of the book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy that Christ is not truly present in the venerable Eucharist, but only figuratively and symbolically, and uses these words: "Whoever however that Dionysius was, he must needs have been ancient: which the very form of ecclesiastical ordinance teaches, in which that is worthy of observation

worthy, that the opinion concerning the Eucharist which the orthodox Churches (thus does the Calvinist minister honour his synagogue of Calvin) defend today, even in the age of this Dionysius, was judged without controversy to be apostolic."

Scultetus says, therefore, that Dionysius is an ancient author: and not only this, but also that what he teaches concerning the Eucharist is beyond controversy an apostolic tradition. I grant him both, and very gladly. But that he wishes his own doctrine and that of Dionysius to be the same, that is not granted without a fight: nay, it stands resolved to fall rather than to yield. Although, however, there is no danger here of even the slightest wound, much less of a heavy blow or death, from darts and arrows so light and feathery (for I will not say leaden, even though they be without a point), as if shot by a boyish hand: nevertheless, lest he seem to himself to have accomplished something, I will expose their vanity.

Therefore his first dart, or argument, is this: He (Dionysius) calls the whole action of the sacred supper a symbolic sacred rite, a sacred symbolic action; therefore Christ is not present there.

I reply that Dionysius at the very beginning of the third chapter On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy treats of the naming of this sacrament and of the whole action, and says that he calls it both communion and synaxis, communion and synaxis, and indeed gives the reason for that naming, and uses no words more frequently than those in this matter; once only, and that at the very end of that chapter, does he call it a symbolic sacred rite, a sacred symbolic action; in which manner every action is called which is not clear and evident, but covered with certain signs, so that it cannot be seen and understood without faith or an explanation of the signs. Of which actions some are purely symbolic, others mixed. Purely symbolic are those which do not contain in themselves that which they signify. Mixed, however, are those which contain that which they signify. And so the confection of this sacrament is mixed symbolic, containing, namely, that which it signifies, or consisting of symbols and signs, yet joined to the truth; to the truth, I say, that is, to Christ. Hence even the signs themselves, which together with Christ lying hidden beneath make up the whole sacrament, Dionysius calls, as Scultetus himself confesses, the garments symbolically placed around Christ, garments symbolically placed around Christ. Tell me therefore now, Scultetus: Are those garments present in that sacred action, or not? Present, you say. And also cast around Christ, or not? I have already confessed it, you say. It is well. Therefore Christ also is present. For neither, if present garments cast around someone are beheld before one's eyes or placed around, can they be cast around anyone other than one who is present. One must confess it, you say. Why therefore do you contradict this doctrine in your writings? Why, leaving behind your little supper of bread and wine alone, do you not come when invited to the great supper? For a certain man made a great supper, and invited many. That is true indeed, you say, but I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come. How can you not come? Can you come to dry bread, and cannot come to the Lamb? Do you not know that a surfeit of bread is worst, whereas that of the Lamb is best, even of that Lamb Who takes away the sins of the world? and of that Lamb Who says: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you. He who eats My flesh, and drinks My blood, has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

But let us return to Dionysius, who not only through the words set down above indicates that Christ is present in that sacrament, but also through the invocation of Him, as being present there, makes this certain and assured. For his words are these: But, O Thou most divine and sacrosanct sacrament,

uncovering the veils of riddles that symbolically surround Thee, show Thyself clearly to us, and fill the eyes of our mind with a singular and unveiled light. Which invocation, if bread alone were there, without life, without sense, without intelligence (as Scultetus and the Calvinists wish), would surely be exceedingly foreign and unsuitable: whereas according to us, who acknowledge and teach the presence of Christ in that mystery, it is most apt and most suitable. Which presence of Christ is also confirmed towards the end of the same third chapter, where Dionysius, after he has treated of the division and distribution of the sacrament which is performed by the bishop, then adds thus: For he portrays in these things, perceptibly bringing before the sight Jesus Christ, our intellectual life, as in images. For he describes in these things, in a certain sensible manner bringing under view Jesus Christ, our spiritual life as it were in images, etc. Thus higher up, in the description of the consecration itself, he had said: And the hierarch, having hymned the sacred divine works, performs as a sacred rite the most divine things, and brings before the sight the things that have been hymned through the sacredly set forth symbols. And after the bishop has praised the sacred actions of God, he confects the most divine things, and brings under view the things now praised, through the holily set forth symbols, that is, after he has commemorated what the Lord did in the last supper, or after he has pronounced these or similar words recounting the action of Christ: Who the day before He suffered, took bread into His holy and venerable hands, and with eyes lifted up to heaven to Thee, God, His almighty Father, giving thanks to Thee, blessed, broke, and gave to His disciples, saying: "Take, and eat ye all of this," then he confects the most divine things, that is, he consecrates, or pronounces those words of consecration: "For this is My body." And he brings under view the things now praised, that is, he shows the consecrated host to the people, or Christ, or the body of Christ, through the holily set forth symbols, that is, through the apparent and external species of the sacrament (for neither is Christ beheld save by means of the whiteness of the consecrated host) he exhibits Him to the people to be beheld. And that this is the sense is clear from the fact that those somewhat obscurely spoken words, he brings before the sight the things that have been hymned through the sacredly set forth symbols, he afterwards in the contemplation or exposition itself explains more clearly and more briefly in those words already set down above: Perceptibly bringing before the sight Jesus Christ. Sensibly placing Jesus Christ under view. Sensibly, that is, through signs presented to the senses; under which signs, as veils or garments, Christ subsists.

Finally Scultetus urges that the bread and wine are called by Dionysius symbols, images, and other things of the same sort, and thus he does nothing else than beat the air. When, however, he wishes it to be understood that there is nothing else in the sacrament than bread and wine, and for his perverse opinion cites Maximus and Pachymeres, he acts wickedly indeed and treacherously, as I come to show clearly. He says therefore: "And in this place the most faithful interpreters of Dionysius agree (would, however, that he followed the faith of those whom he calls most faithful!), Pachymeres the Paraphrast and Maximus the Scholiast, both Greek. For thus Maximus, chapter 3 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy: These things are symbols, and not the truth." Thus he.

I reply that it is true that St. Maximus has those words, but in a far different sense than Scultetus wishes. For he says that those signs, which appear only outwardly, are signs and not the truth: which we also say. For those things which appear outwardly are signs only and not the truth: whereas what is under the signs is the truth, and not a sign: it is the flesh of Christ, and not bread; it is the blood of Christ, and not wine.

And because Scultetus with dog-like shamelessness has dared to make mention of Pachymeres, I will bring forward the very words of a truly Catholic man, which he has on the mystery of the synaxis immediately before the theoria or Contemplation. They are therefore these: And many indeed into only

the divine symbols peer, inasmuch as they are not able to conceive anything higher; whereas the hierarch himself is led up towards those prototypes, the very precious body and blood of the Lord itself, believing that the things set forth have also been changed into those, by the Holy and all-working Spirit. And many indeed look to the divine signs alone, as being able to understand nothing more sublime; whereas the Pontiff is raised up to the prototypes themselves, the very precious body and blood of the Lord, believing that those things which are set forth have been transmuted into them, by the power of the Holy and all-creating Spirit. Behold therefore Pachymeres, by Scultetus's own testimony a most diligent interpreter of Dionysius, clearly and openly says that the things set forth, that is, the bread and wine, have been transmuted into the precious body and blood of the Lord. Wherefore one or the other of these must necessarily have been in Scultetus: either an astonishing blindness of mind, if he did not see those things; or an intolerable impudence, if he did see them. Inasmuch as he has cited for himself an author so manifestly making against himself.

How much credit, moreover, is to be given to that man, let his disciples learn even from this.

Out of the same blindness and madness against the Roman Church, after those words of St. Maximus: Note that not only was the bread set forth covered, but also the divine cup, which now is not done. Note that not only was the holy bread set forth covered, but also the divine cup, which is no longer done: Scultetus subjoined these words: "Why, indeed," he says, "was the same not done in the time of Maximus? Doubtless because the abomination of Antichrist had already occupied the Roman See." Thus he. As if indeed Catholic matters consisted in this, that the chalice should be set forth on the altar either in this or in that manner, covered or uncovered. What does this do to the substance of the sacrament? For ceremonies, which are beside the substance and necessity, who does not know (unless he be very stupid and mindless) can without any detriment to salvation and faith not only be changed and varied, but even be omitted according to the disposition and prudence of pontiffs and bishops? But doubtless Scultetus, being too ill-disposed, had to discharge his bile. Would that the whole of it were discharged, and that he might live!

Now by way of a corollary for the sake of theologians I will set forth in public in how many varied ways this sacrament of the venerable sacrosanct Eucharist is expressed by St. Dionysius the Areopagite, in chapter 3 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.

Names of the venerable Eucharist in Dionysius the Areopagite.

Rite of rites, sacrament of sacraments; most holy rite, most holy sacrament; most divine and sacred rite, most divine and holy sacrament; divine rite of the synaxis, divine sacrament of the synaxis; synaxis, synaxis; communion, communion: communion of the sacred things, communion of the sacred things; thearchic communion, most divine communion; thearchic mysteries, most divine mysteries; most divine eucharist, most divine eucharist; the most divine things, the most divine things, absolutely.

Moreover, the sacred action itself or consecration is called in the same place the supermundane sacred rite of the divine things, the supermundane operation of the divine things or heavenly sacrifice of the divine reality; and the all-most-sacred rite, by far the most holy sacrifice: and the symbolic sacred rite, the sacred symbolic action, as I have explained above. And let these things concerning this sacrament and its rites suffice.

Next to it in Dionysius is joined the mystery of the rite of the ointment, which is contained in half a page, and savours of pure antiquity. See it among our documents, and deign to be content with it. For I see nothing particular objected against it, except what was objected in the tenth reason by Abraham Scultetus, and turned back directly upon his own head, as can be seen above. I pass on therefore to chapter 5 of Dionysius On the Sacred Orders. The rites, then, which concerning them

are handed down by Dionysius are so brief, so simple, and so neat that they openly proclaim, and even prove convincingly, that they are from the times of the apostles. Mention is made there only of bishops and priests and deacons, and a succinct form of ordination of each of these orders is handed down, which even today is observed by Catholic Greeks, and in the city of Rome itself and in the sight of the first see is even now (as eyewitnesses have recounted to me) practised. Hence nothing is murmured against the rites brought forward there either by Catholics or by heretics. Therefore there is no delay here. We proceed further.

Only two chapters now remain, of which the former is on monks, the other on funeral rites. Both against the latter and against the former do the heretics arm themselves. For both, therefore, we must fight one by one.

On the monks in the time of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, who or of what sort they were.

From the very point whence some have thought that they could weaken the writings of St. Dionysius, thence do I hope as much as possible to confirm them, and to establish them as proper to their author. For those men have clearly been carried away by error, thinking that such monks are mentioned there as are wont to be seen either formerly in woods and mountains, or now in cenobia and monasteries. The matter is not so. Great is the difference between the two. And Joseph Scaliger wandered very far from the truth when he supposed that Dionysius was speaking of hermits or cenobites such as existed in the age of Paul or Antony. Whence he also beats the air when he writes these things in his Elenchus: "Before Paul there was no hermit, no cenobitic monks in Christianity. Assuredly all the ecclesiastical men who wrote from Justin Martyr down to Cyprian would not have passed them over in silence. Nor could there have been so many swarms of monks without their having (as Tertullian speaks) some bond of hospitality with the Churches and bishops. Finally, many testimonies concerning them would be extant in ecclesiastical writers. Yet none are extant. And the most ancient writer Tertullian sufficiently discloses that in his age there were no dwellers in the desert. We are not, he says, dwellers in the woods and exiles from life. Monasticism was therefore a way of life unknown to ancient Christianity." Thus he. From which words it is sufficiently understood that he confuses Antonian or similar hermits and cenobites with the monks and therapeutae of St. Dionysius, and accordingly read Dionysius very negligently, and weighed no distinction at all. For Dionysius says not even a syllable about hermits and cenobites. Likewise concerning swarms of monks having no bond of hospitality with bishops, not a word. Nay, rather, he teaches that the monks were a part of the urban people; he teaches that they were wont to be instructed and consecrated by priests; he teaches that by their piety and holiness they were emulators of the more perfect life of bishops; he teaches that they were called monks, not because they dwelt alone, but because they led a single life free from earthly cares (so far indeed as could be done) and intent upon God alone; he teaches that they were also called therapeutae from the pure service and worship of God, called Therapeutae from the pure service and worship of God. And yet such monks, who were a part of the people, and were reckoned and lived among the laity, who were subject not only to bishops, but also to priests, who either privately in their own houses, or in common in colleges led a pure and chaste life, to whom finally in the church the first place among the laity and next to the ecclesiastical order was assigned (as is clear from the letter to Demophilus)—such monks, I say, are read to have existed neither in the time of Antony, nor afterwards; therefore earlier. And from this I draw the strongest argument for the books of Dionysius: namely, that he makes mention of those monks, concerning whom in the third century, and after it, no mention was subsequently made: doubtless because that institute flourished only in the first and second. Whence, moreover, was it taken? Assuredly from the Gospel and from the apostolic

Epistles: where the perfection of the Christian life is contained and commended, whether when Christ answered the young man asking about eternal life: If you will be perfect, go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven: and come, follow Me (Matt. 19:21). And when He said to the disciples: There are eunuchs, who have castrated themselves for the kingdom of heaven. He who can take it, let him take it (Matt. 19:12). Or when Paul exhorting to chastity says: But I would have you be without solicitude. He who is with a wife is solicitous for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided (1 Cor. 7:32–33). For from that time, as if the trumpet-call of the perfection of life had been heard and the apostolic trumpet of chastity were sounding in the ears of all, very many aspired to chastity and purity of life withdrawn from the tumult of worldly affairs. Which those who made sure by outward habit and profession were called monks or worshippers; others, however, only celibates. And of these celibates indeed in either sex the writers of the second century make mention of not a few, as they note on the Life of St. Justin the Philosopher. Of the former, however, or monks (because, namely, it was of no concern to the Gentiles, against whom they were writing, to know them or to know such rites) they did not make mention. For they held it enough to show that Christians were not impure and incestuous, just as those men accused them. Moreover, the rite of consecrating a monk, as at that time, is this: The priest before the altar pours forth to God certain prayers for the one to be consecrated, who stands upright behind him; which being finished, turning to him who is to be consecrated, he asks whether he bids farewell to worldly things and cares; for that he ought to institute a life more perfect than the rest of the people: having professed which, he signs him with the form of the cross, and shears him after invoking the most holy Trinity, and having stripped him of his old garment, clothes him with a new one, greets him, and with him the other sacred men, and finally bestows on him sacred communion.

Behold the whole rite, on account of which, as though more recent than that century, such great disturbances, forsooth, are to be stirred up against the writings of Dionysius. Yet what single thing in these that have been said can be assigned which either was not from the beginning, or ought not to have been? Ought not those who had a zeal for excelling in virtue among lay people of their own kind, so that they might both shine before others and kindle torches, as it were, to the imitation of themselves, to be distinguished outwardly by some habit and demonstration of their institute? For on that account also, in the succession of various times down to this very age, so many and such varied orders of religious men, distinct in habit, in customs, and in rules, have been raised up not only for the splendour and ornament of the Church, but also for her very great utility. Now if it was good that some should shine among the people like luminaries, and be distinguished from others, could that distinction have been formed better and more readily than both in the shearing of the hair (in which especially among the Athenians, among whom vain signs of the first and most ancient nobility arrogated to themselves stood out through golden cicadas woven into the hair) and in the laying aside of pomp and luxury of garments, wherein for the most part the vain insolence of men pursuing earthly and fleeting things boasts itself? Moreover, the rites and ceremonies which Dionysius, born at Athens and given to Athens as bishop, recounts, seem in my judgement at least to have been either born or strengthened chiefly there. For I would believe that he received them from Paul and Hierotheus, who preached there, and whom he calls guides, that is, his leaders and preceptors. Add that the ceremony of shearing or shaving seems, like some others, to have been derived from the Old Testament; yet the cause and signification is that which Dionysius here recounts in the Contemplation in these words: And the shearing of the hair manifests the pure and unfeigned life, not adorning by addition the ugliness of the mind with artificial figures; but leading it up of itself, not by hu-

man beauties, but by unitary and single ones, to that which is most godlike. Moreover, the shearing of the hair declares a pure and unpainted life, not adorning the deformity of the mind by the addition of artificial figures, but leading it in itself, not by human, but by a singular and unique beauty, to that which is most divine.

Note likewise that Dionysius here speaks of a simple shearing, not of the tonsure, as they now speak, clerical or monastic in the manner of a crown, although that also is ancient (whence also the antiquity of these writings is understood), and through those words, with artificial figures, artificial figures, and by addition, adjectivally, seems altogether to look to the hair of the Athenians, which they adorned, as I said, with added golden cicadas. Concerning which cicadas I treat at greater length in the notes to the Life of St. Hierotheus. Moreover, as regards the change of garment, it descends from the imitation of the ceremonies of baptism, as St. Dionysius intimates in the same place, when he writes thus: And the putting off of the former garment, and the taking of the other, manifests the transfer from a middle sacred life to the more perfect one. Just as in the sacred divine birth the exchange of garment showed the elevation from a life being purified to a contemplative and illuminative habit. Moreover, the casting off of the former garment and the taking up of another signifies the transfer from the middle sacred life to perfection. Just as in the sacred regeneration the change of garment demonstrated the elevation of the life which was being expiated to the state of contemplation and illumination. Finally, concerning the shearing of monks, or of those who professed a more perfect and holier kind of life, which I said was derived from the Old Testament, I have as my supporter Isidore, bishop of Seville, in his book On the Divine Offices, where he writes these things: "The use of the ecclesiastical tonsure arose, unless I am mistaken, from the Nazirites, who first having kept their hair, afterwards after great continence of life, when their devotion was completed, shaved their head, and were commanded to put the hair into the fire of the sacrifice, namely that they might consecrate the perfection of their devotion to the Lord. The use of this example, therefore, was introduced by the apostles: that those who, given over to divine worship, are consecrated to the Lord, like Nazirites, that is, holy ones of God, may be renewed with their hair cut off." See more there. Nor was that custom of cutting back the hair usual for men only, but also for women, those, namely, who bidding farewell to the things of the world devoted themselves to God, and that in the first centuries, and before the times of Blessed Jerome. Of which custom practised in Syria and in Egypt the same Jerome makes mention in Letter 48 to Sabinianus: "It is the custom," he says, "in the monasteries of Egypt and Syria, that both a virgin and a widow, who have vowed themselves to God, and renouncing the world have trampled under foot all the delights of the world, offer their hair to the mothers of the monasteries to be cut off."

And that we may show that the teachings of the master and of the disciple, that is, of Paul and of Dionysius, agree both with one another and with the doctrine of Christ Himself, as the supreme Master of all, it is to be observed that from their sayings a twofold life of the righteous, even of the laity, is gathered: one undivided and cleaving to God alone, the other divided and distracted into various things; and a certain image, as it were, of both is represented in those words of Christ: Martha, Martha, you are solicitous, and are troubled about many things. But one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the best part, which shall not be taken away from her (Luke 10:41); so that in Martha is designated the divided and solicitous life distracted by external cares, which is also wont to be called active; in Mary, on the other hand, the simple and undivided life, intent upon that one thing which is necessary; and this is that which is free from solicitude, and is called contemplative. To this latter Paul exhorts when he says: But I would have you be without solicitude. He who is without a wife is solicitous for the things that are the Lord's, how he may please God (1 Cor. 7:32–33). In which words he declares that life

which Dionysius his disciple calls an undivided and unitary life, an undivided and singular life, because, namely, it leads to divine unity and perfection pleasing to God (as he declares in the same place) and makes one as it were one with God. When, however, the same Paul adds: But he who is with a wife is solicitous for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife, and is divided (1 Cor. 7:33), he signifies a divided and more imperfect life, as being distracted into many things. After, therefore, many men and women followed the counsel of Paul, then their order began to be distinguished, as more perfect, from the rest of the laity, and colleges of both, as well of monks as of virgins, began gradually to be instituted. Whence even at the beginning of the second century (at which time Dionysius was still surviving) the blessed martyr Ignatius salutes the college of virgins (which was at Philippi in Macedonia). For in the letter sent to them he writes thus: I salute the college of the virgins. I salute the college of virgins. And in the letter to Hero the deacon, when he bids Mary, a most chaste woman, to be saluted, and the Church which is in her house, it is probable that he means the company of virgins, of which she was the directress. Concerning that Mary I treat at greater length in the notes to the letter which was sent to her by Ignatius. As, therefore, there were companies or colleges of virgins, so also that there were companies or colleges of monks is by no means foreign to the truth, but in cities at first and such as depended upon bishops and presbyters, as is clear from Dionysius.

Wherefore what Scaliger brought forward to the contrary from Tertullian, when he says: "We are not dwellers in the woods and exiles from life," makes nothing against us, nothing against Dionysius: since he treats of monks dwelling within cities. And yet, even though Dionysius had treated of monks living in the desert, the passage of Tertullian would on that account make nothing against us. For he is treating of the whole Christian nation, which he says does not shun cities, nor the forum, nor public life, nor commerce, etc., which even now is true, although not a few live in the desert and in solitude. Thus St. Basil the Great, although in his own age he knew that there were very many monks, and that he himself indeed had once been of their number, nevertheless denies that man is a monastic animal, that is, solitary by his race and nature, but civil and social; just as Tertullian had said before concerning Christians. The words of Basil in the Rules More At Large, in the answer to the third question, are these: Who then does not know that man is a tame and social animal, and not a monastic nor a wild one? Who therefore does not know that man is a gentle and social animal, and by no means solitary-wandering, and by no means wild? From which passage if anyone wished to contend that there were no monks in the times of St. Basil, would he not deservedly be accounted ridiculous? So also he who argues from the passage of Tertullian. For his aim there was no other than to prove that Christian men were not useless to the commonwealth. That this may be clear, I will set down his words, even because they are elegant. Thus therefore in the Apologeticus, chapter 42: "But under another head of injuries also we are impeached, and are said to be unfruitful in affairs. In what way, being men living with you, of the same food, dress, furniture, of the same necessity for life? For we are neither Brahmans nor gymnosophists of the Indians, dwellers in the woods, and exiles from life. We remember that we owe gratitude to the Lord God the Creator. We repudiate no fruit of His works; we plainly practise temperance, lest we use them beyond measure or amiss. And so not without your forum, not without your meat-market, not without your baths, shops, workshops, inns, fairs, and other commerce, do we dwell together with you in this world. We also sail with you, and serve as soldiers, and till the ground, and engage in trade: accordingly we mingle our arts, we make our works public for your use. How we can seem unfruitful

to your affairs, with which and by which we live, I do not know." Thus he.

All which things not only were true then, when hermit monks were far fewer than afterwards, but even now, when there are very many swarms of monks in woods and mountains, can be accounted most true. For how small is that portion which is in the woods, compared to the rest of Christians? Of such monks, however, as I have said, Dionysius does not speak, but of urban ones and those frequenting the same Church or assembly with the rest of the Christian people. But of these things abundantly; now to the funeral rites of the dead, which are brought forward in the last place among the ceremonies by Dionysius.

On the ceremonies concerning the dead.

Moreover, I do not see in all the rites which are performed concerning the dead what can either be censured or be proved not to have existed in the times of Dionysius the Areopagite. For since there are chiefly two things in those rites which perhaps little please the heretics, namely, the anointing which the bishop is said to apply to the bodies of the dead, and the supplication to God for their souls: it is easy to show that both truly and deservedly derive their antiquity from the times of the apostles. For how customary and full of piety anointing indeed was among Jews and Christians in the Old and New Testament, the diligence of St. Mary Magdalene in preparing and bringing early in the morning ointments to anoint the body of Christ, which she did not know had risen, declares. In order, therefore, that this office of piety might be holier, and more significative of a mystery (for it denotes, as the same Dionysius testifies, that he who is anointed has striven lawfully, and in striving has departed), it was transferred to bishops or priests. Furthermore, the testimonies of the ancient Fathers, both Latin and Greek, proclaim and affirm the most ancient tradition of prayers for the dead: of Tertullian in his book On the Soldier's Crown, chapter 3, where among the customs derived from tradition he sets down this also: "We make oblations for the dead, for their birthdays on the annual day." Of Cyprian in Letter 66, where he says that the bishops his predecessors had decreed "that no brother departing should name a cleric for a guardianship or curatorship; and if anyone had done this, no offering should be made for him, nor should the sacrifice be celebrated for his falling asleep." Whence he also adds that no offering was to be made for Victor, who had done this. Of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in the fifth Mystagogical Catechesis, before the middle, where he recounts of whom commemoration is made in the holy sacrifice, and for whom it is offered, whose words among others are these: Then also on behalf of the holy Fathers and bishops who have fallen asleep before us, and simply of all who have fallen asleep before us among us (we offer the sacrifice, namely), believing that there will be the greatest benefit to the souls on whose behalf the supplication of the holy and most awesome sacrifice set forth is offered up. Then for the deceased holy fathers and bishops and for all simply who have fallen asleep before among us (we offer the victim), believing that the greatest help comes to those souls for whom this supplication of the holy and most dread sacrifice set forth is offered.

Whence, moreover, it flowed forth, and how ancient is this custom of praying for the dead in the oblation of the sacrifice, I judge indeed that credence is not to be given to the heretics of this age or of the last century, whether Scultetus, or Chemnitz, or anyone you please of that stamp; but rather to him who lived twelve hundred years and more before them, to St. John Chrysostom, I say, a man of such great holiness and erudition that those men are scarcely worthy to lick his footprints. To him, I say, writing thus on Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, credence is to be given: Not in vain were these things enjoined by the apostles, that at the awesome mysteries commemoration should be made of the departed. They know that great gain accrues to them,

great benefit, Not rashly were these things constituted by the apostles, that in the dread mysteries commemoration should be made of those who have departed from life. Inasmuch as they knew that great gain accrues to them, great benefit. And he brings forward the reason in the same place, which see there.

Thus far concerning the ceremonies brought forward by St. Dionysius the Areopagite (for neither has he more) enough seems to have been said: and it has clearly indeed been shown that there is none which cannot be referred either to the first century in which Dionysius flourished, or to the second in which he ended his life under Hadrian, nor any that can be refuted. Moreover, I have not seen, nor do I expect that I shall see anyone who can so clearly, so distinctly resolve the arguments of our side, which we have brought forward for the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, as we have resolved those which they have cast against them. For certainly the sixth argument of our side, drawn from the writings of the author himself of whom we are treating, is altogether insoluble. Now St. Maximus the Martyr brought it forward (nearly a thousand years ago now) in his Prologue to the Works of Dionysius, nor has anyone of the opposing faction yet been found who (so far at least as I have been able to know) has answered it. For our adversaries, like unwarlike soldiers despairing of their own strength, leaving behind this chief citadel, and one which they deservedly judged impregnable, have turned themselves to certain other less strong fortifications, which nevertheless they themselves have not been able even to shake, much less to overthrow.

Here I would have ended, nor would I have added a word more concerning the genuine writings of St. Dionysius, had not, when I was recently at Lille in Flanders, the most distinguished man Master Desprets shown to me, as I was inspecting his library, one book among others published by the Wittenberg theologians in the year of the Lord 1584, of which this was the title: "Acts and Writings of the Wittenberg Theologians, and of the Patriarch of Constantinople Lord Jeremias, which both sent to one another from the year 1576 until the year 1581 concerning the Augsburg Confession, published in Greek and Latin by the same theologians." In which book, when he had pointed out that some things had been debated between the parties concerning the writings of St. Dionysius, a desire seized me of running through that book, which was not very thick, and of inquiring whether it made anything for us or against us. Accordingly I discovered that those Wittenberg masters, after the custom of other heretics, disparaged the authority of the writings of St. Dionysius, but with common and often refuted arguments; whereas the Patriarch of Constantinople esteemed the same books very highly, and manfully defended his doctrine concerning the sacraments therefrom. For thus

he himself writes in his first reply to the Augsburg Confession, chapter 7: Now the mystery of the divine ointment is not indeed contained in the divine Scripture, yet it has been handed down by the disciples of the Word; just as the most sacred Dionysius, having been taught by the divine Paul, has handed it down in his sacred writings; which very man, after the apostles, the Church of God honours. As regards the mystery of the sacred ointment, he says, in the divine Scriptures indeed it is not extant, yet it has been handed down by the disciples of the Word: just as the most holy Dionysius, who was instructed by the divine Paul, handed it down in his sacred writings: which man indeed the Church of God venerates in the next place after the apostles. Thus there.

Moreover, the same patriarch in several other places made honourable mention of the same St. Dionysius and of his right doctrine: but perceiving at length that he was singing to the deaf, and wishing himself also, while he sees no hope of progress, to sound the retreat, he addresses those Wittenberg theologians, or heretics from the school of Calvin, thus: "Whence therefore," he says, "have you been wiser and better-judging than old and new Rome, that leaving behind the writings of the ancient theologians, you should account those things of yours better and preferable?" By new Rome he understands Constantinople, of which he himself was patriarch. For so it was called from the times of the Emperor Constantine the Great.

Finally he asks them to cease hereafter from giving him trouble over the same controversies concerning religion: in other matters, however, if they wish, so far as concerns himself they are permitted to cultivate friendship. Thus therefore those who hoped that the Greeks of this age would side with them and their sect, and would favour them against the writings of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, fell so far short of their hope that they themselves were either forced to depart from their own opinion, or bidden thenceforth to keep silence. Lastly, so untoward and ill-omened for them was this disputation of several years, and also the publication of the disputation itself, that they themselves afterwards endeavoured to hide it in darkness, and so far as in them lay, to suppress all copies. But just as usually happens in such matters, no diligence so great could be applied but that something leaked out into the hands of Catholics. For that friend and intimate of ours drew out one of them for himself by the greatness of the price, and very gladly lent it to us. But concerning the writings of St. Dionysius (which we hold as approved by both ancient and modern Greeks and adjudged to him) enough for the present: now let us proceed to the third question.

THIRD QUESTION.

On Timothy, to whom St. Dionysius wrote.

The third question which pertains to this Life of St. Dionysius is: Whether Timothy, to whom these books of which we treated in the preceding question are inscribed, is that most celebrated Timothy, the companion and disciple of Paul, or rather someone else proposed by Baronius or by anyone else at all.

Now that this man is the disciple of Blessed Paul himself, all the Greeks have held, and likewise the Latins almost in common, down to Baronius. Which Baronius indeed, by the force of a single argument, the solution of which he did not easily find, thought that he must turn aside to seek another Timothy whom Dionysius addressed in these books, and to whom he dedicated them. "Besides, who compels us," he says, "to affirm that the author wrote those things to Timothy the disciple of Paul, bishop of the Ephesians? For genuine and set forth by the author before the work On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy is that inscription: To fellow-presbyter Timothy, Dionysius the presbyter," etc. Thus he.

Now the reason which gave him trouble is this: "In those books which are read as dedicated to Timothy,

there is found one sentence from the epistle of St. Ignatius to the Romans written a little before his martyrdom. And yet when that epistle was being written (namely in the tenth or eleventh year of the Emperor Trajan) Timothy bishop of the Ephesians was already dead, as is clear from the epistle of the same Ignatius to the Philadelphians penned about the same time, where he makes mention of him as having departed from life. Therefore these things cannot stand together, that these books were written by Dionysius the Areopagite after the death of Ignatius the Martyr (as his cited sentence as he was going to death indicates) and were dedicated to Timothy who had already departed before Ignatius." Rightly therefore did Baronius see that one or the other of these must be the case, namely, either that another Timothy must be sought who lived after Ignatius, or certainly that that sentence of Ignatius was not in the Works of Dionysius when they were dedicated to Timothy, but was added afterwards. Yet in saying that it was added by the author himself, in this indeed he is certainly mistaken: for that it was imprudently and unskilfully thrown in or intruded by someone else, clearly and at length

has been shown above, in Question II in the reply to the argument from Photius.

Moreover, another argument of Baronius for another Timothy is that the author himself at the beginning of the commentary On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy says: The function indeed of our priesthood, O most holy son Timothy, etc., and accordingly seems to designate some other younger Timothy. Because, namely, Dionysius would not call that great Timothy, the ancient companion and disciple of Paul, his son.

But the solution of this argument, so that it need not be repeated here, can be seen above in Question II in the reply to the seventh reason of Scultetus.

Finally, it must altogether be held that this Timothy to whom Dionysius inscribed his books and that disciple of Paul are the same, and not two different men. Which can be proved thus.

First. If any name suitable to several persons be set down absolutely, it is to be taken for the principal person signified. Thus among profane authors Caesar stands for Julius Caesar, Cicero for M. Tullius the orator, Virgil for the prince of Latin poets. Thus among sacred authors, St. Peter stands for the coryphaeus of the apostles, St. Paul for the teacher of the Gentiles, St. Ignatius for Ignatius Theophorus, bishop and martyr, and similarly with others. Wherefore also Timothy stands for the chief Timothy, namely the disciple of Paul. Nor does it matter that he is called presbyter, and not bishop: for at that time presbyter and bishop were taken for the same. Thus Dionysius himself also, then bishop of Athens, calls himself in that very inscription wherewith he dedicated the book to him: To fellow-presbyter Timothy, Dionysius the presbyter. To fellow-presbyter Timothy, Dionysius the presbyter. And John the Evangelist himself, writing to Electa, passing over in silence the name of bishop and apostle, calls himself presbyter (2 John 1).

Secondly. That Timothy to whom Dionysius writes was present together with the apostles and St. Hierotheus and Dionysius himself at the funeral rites of the most holy Virgin Mother of God, as the author himself writes in the book On the Divine Names, chapter 3. Now what Timothy was worthier of those funeral rites than the disciple and companion of the apostle, that great Timothy?

Thirdly. Dionysius esteems this Timothy to whom he writes so highly that he commits to him the judgement concerning his writings, and asks that if any better things should occur to him they be communicated to him by him, nay, even if in anything at all he has wandered from the truth, he requests to be corrected by the same Timothy. See above, chapter 23 of the Life, where the modesty or humility of mind in Dionysius is openly set forth. Wherefore it is not credible that Dionysius attributed so much honour and praise to any other than to this St. Timothy.

Fourthly. Since all Christians in the first age were called children, and those who handled sacred things were called not only children, but sacred children, holy children, Dionysius addressing Timothy in chapter 1 On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy says: O most sacred of sacred children, that is, O most holy of holy children. Which befits a bishop.

Fifthly. Dionysius indicates in several places that he is addressing not some inferior priest or presbyter, but a bishop or pontiff: as in the book On the Celestial Hierarchy, chapter 9, when he addresses him thus: And of this also we will remind your hierarchical understanding, that even to Pharaoh, etc. And this also, he says, I will recall to your pontifical wisdom, that even to Pharaoh, etc. And in the book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 7, towards the end of the Contemplation: And your hierarchical understanding ought not to be angry with those who have gone astray. Moreover, it befits your pontifical wisdom not to be angry with those who have been led away into error. In which places hierarchical understanding, pontifical wisdom, means nothing else than hierarch, pontiff or prince of sacred things. For it is a mode of speaking invented out of respect and veneration for great men. Which the holy Fathers, both Latin and

Greek, are seen to employ by no means infrequently.

Sixthly. Likewise Dionysius sent a certain letter of his (it is the ninth in number) to Titus the pontiff, at the beginning of which he makes mention of Timothy, and indicates that he wrote the book On the Divine Names to him: now since no one doubts that that pontiff or bishop Titus is the very same who was the companion, partner, and helper of Paul: who could even dare to doubt that that Timothy, of whom he makes mention in that letter, and to whom he signifies that he explained the divine names and the symbolic theology, is that other comrade and disciple of Paul? And indeed, if those two comrades and disciples of Paul are joined together in one letter, to whom can a doubt be left that the writer of the letter himself, Dionysius, is also that Dionysius, the third disciple of Paul the Apostle, who was converted in the Areopagus, who was created bishop of Athens, who afterwards both was and has always been accounted the apostle of the Franks? Moreover, the beginning of that letter is of this sort: Sacred Timothy indeed, O noble Titus, I know not whether he departed without having heard any of the theological symbols known to me; but in the Symbolic Theology we have thoroughly explained to him all the expressions of the Oracles concerning God which seem to the many to be tales of marvels. Holy Timothy indeed, O good Titus, I know not whether he departed ignorant of any of the theological symbols expounded by me: for in the Symbolic Theology we have explained to him all the expressions of the sacred Scriptures concerning God which seem to most people to be prodigious, etc. Both the style and the matter of which letter proclaim that the author of the preceding books and of these letters is the same.

Finally, let it remain and be certain that the Timothy of whom these books treat is no other than the disciple of Paul. Nor can that saying of Ignatius, "My Love has been crucified," which seems to have been taken from his Epistle to the Romans, stand in the way at all, since it has clearly been shown above that it was never written by St. Dionysius in his books (inasmuch as it by no means fits there), but was imprudently written by someone at the margin of the book, and more imprudently let into the text itself by I know not whom.

But a greater difficulty arises from another source, namely from passages of the Gospel of St. John which are found here and there in the writings of St. Dionysius: which Gospel he is said to have written when already returned from exile under Nerva or Trajan, whereas at that time Timothy had died, namely under Domitian or Nerva. In what way therefore does Dionysius, writing to him, employ the words of that Gospel which had not yet been written? For passages from the Gospel of John are partly in the book On the Celestial Hierarchy, chapter 15, where these words are read: For you know not, he says, whence it comes, and whither it goes, which words are found in John 3:8; partly in the book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 2, where these words are held: For if anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and will make Our abode with him; which are found in John 14:23. And again in the same chapter 2 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, a little lower down, these words are extant: For as many as received Him, He gave them power to become sons of God, to those who believe in His name, who are born not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God, which in John 1:12-13 are seen in almost as many words, except that there is also read there: nor of the will of man, which was omitted by Dionysius.

Besides, in chapter 3 of the same book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, after the middle, a passage is cited from John 13:10: He who is washed needs not save to wash his feet. And in the book On the Divine Names there are many things from the Gospel of St. John. Finally, the same Dionysius in the same third chapter, in the enumeration of the books of sacred Scripture, makes mention both of the Gospel and of the Apocalypse of St. John in these words: Or he expounded the hidden and mystical vision of the beloved and divine among the disciples, or the supermundane theology of Jesus to those who for deification

he expounded to those who were fit. Either he expounded the hidden and mystical vision of the beloved and divine disciple (that is, the Apocalypse) or the supramundane theology of Jesus to those fit for attaining divinity, that is, the Gospel, which explains the heavenly divinity of Christ Jesus, and begins from it, saying: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (John 1:1).

I reply that it is true indeed that St. Dionysius put the final hand to his books On the Celestial Hierarchy and also On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy after the Gospel was written by John, as the passages just now brought forward prove; yet that it is not equally established (which nevertheless is necessary for the victory of the argument) that before that work was first written St. Timothy had died, since there are various opinions concerning his death, and none of them all is certain. For some report that he died under Domitian, others under Nerva, some under Trajan. Wherefore that which is far more certain ought not to be refuted from what is uncertain. Now it is far more certain that the books of Dionysius were written while Timothy was still living, since in them he addresses Timothy himself in the book On the Divine Names, chapter 3, and recalls to memory the things that were done at the funeral rites of the most holy Mother of God, and that Timothy himself, being present at them, retained some parts of the hymns chanted in praise of the same Virgin.

Since, however, it is held by us as most probable that St. Timothy was slain under Nerva (which has been proved more at large in the Life of St. Polycarp, chapter 7 of the Notes), while Dionysius survived long after even until the times of Hadrian, it must be said that he published his books, which had been written more roughly and imperfectly from the beginning while Timothy was still living, perfected and corrected afterwards when he had died, with some things added and changed. Which ought so little to seem either wonderful or new, that we observe it both to have been done often of old by other ancient Fathers, and not rarely to be done today by modern writers. For St. Justin the Philosopher, when at the beginning of his conversion he had published a brief treatise to the Greeks (which he had called Elenchus); afterwards revising the same matter, sent forth a complete work under the name Exhortation to the Greeks, Exhortation to the Gentiles, as we have noted in his Life. Tertullian likewise as a young man had poured forth some brief little work against Marcion; afterwards, however, he elaborated another more copiously; which very work, when someone had stolen it and sent it forth into the light most faultily, the same Tertullian, having recovered it, emended and enlarged: for thus he writes concerning that work of his in book I Against Marcion at the beginning: "If anything," he says, "was done by us in the past against Marcion, let it pass from now on. We embark upon a new work out of the old. My first little work, as having been hurried, I had afterwards repealed by a fuller composition; this also, not yet supplied with copies, I lost by the theft of one who was then a brother, afterwards an apostate; who had casually transcribed certain things most faultily, and showed them to the public; a necessity of emendation arose: the occasion of its renewal persuaded me to add something." Origen also, when older in years, treated the things which as a younger man he had written on the Song of Songs so copiously and accurately that nothing in that kind has been written by anyone which can come into comparison with them. Apollinaris of Laodicea likewise, when more advanced in age, exchanged the brief little Commentary of his youth on the prophet Hosea for a fuller and richer commentary. Jerome testifies in his preface on that very prophet that he did the same, namely, that the slight and meagre things which he had written as a young man, these he published thirty years later in a more mature and more exact form. What shall I say of St. Augustine? who took back into his hands after a long time several of his rougher and unfinished books, enlarged them, and polished them. Which, that it may not be necessary for me to recount them all, you will find comprised in that book of Retractations which he composed in his late age.

Thus therefore we persuade ourselves not without cause that St. Dionysius also in his last years revised his works, and added some things from elsewhere, and especially from the Apocalypse and Gospel of Blessed John: inasmuch as he esteemed that apostle and disciple beloved by Christ among the few most highly, and awaited his divine writings (which he had learned by God's foretelling would come forth into the light) most eagerly. Of the other things, however, which I would believe him to have added to the first composition partly at the request of friends, partly through the objection of adversaries, there are two chiefly. One indeed is in chapter 3 On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy in the contemplation or exposition of the sacrament of the synaxis, namely that enumeration of the books of sacred Scripture, both of the Old and of the New Testament, explained at length by circumlocution, which begins with those words: For every sacred and hagiographic tablet, Every book indeed of sacred Scripture. Which enumeration he introduced on the occasion of the chanting of the Psalms which is employed in the holy sacrifice, but chiefly at the request of those who desired to distinguish the books of sacred Scripture from others. For on account of that same cause also St. Melito, a writer of the second century, wove a catalogue of the same books, as we have shown in his Life. The other thing, which we opine him to have inserted later into his writings on account of the objections of certain persons, is that reply concerning the baptism of children and infants against the mockeries of the Gentiles; which is found at the end of the book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, plainly out of its own place, that is, in the seventh and last chapter, where the mystery of funeral rites is treated of, whereas its proper place would be in the second chapter, where, namely, the sacrament of illumination, or baptism, is professedly treated of. But because that whole book had already been written out before either that baptism of children was in frequent use, or before that objection occurred to his mind, on that account the treatment of that question was subjoined at the end of that book. Nay, from the words of the same passage, if anyone is willing to attend to them, he will clearly recognize that Dionysius did not write those things before Timothy, upon receiving the same book, raised that question.

When these things on this third question had already been treated of, there came into my hands the Chronicle of Flavius Lucius Dexter, and together with it the Commentary on him of the most learned man Francisco Bivar. These men bring in an altogether new opinion concerning Timothy, to whom St. Dionysius dedicated his books. For they hold that that Timothy is not the one to whom St. Paul wrote two epistles, but is Eugenius Marcellus, the disciple of St. Dionysius the Areopagite (or that man of whom we wrote in the Life of St. Dionysius, chapter 21), who was surnamed Timothy. Before I refute which opinion, it seems that something should be premised very briefly concerning its authors.

Accordingly that Flavius Lucius Dexter is an author truly ancient, and contemporary with St. Jerome, who also once exhorted him to arrange the ecclesiastical writers in order, which Jerome also did, and dedicated the book On Illustrious Men to Dexter himself, as the preface You exhort me, Dexter, etc., testifies. Dexter himself likewise wrote a Chronicle of all manner of history, which a few years ago Francisco Bivar published, or rather some part of it, that, namely, which touches upon the Churches of Spain; for almost all things are referred thither.

Now since both were Spaniards, as well Dexter as Bivar, they themselves investigated and illustrated the ecclesiastical affairs of Spain with the greatest diligence. Which would that many others had done in their notes, and had published the affairs of their own nations for the public utility! Then both the fair brightness of truth, and the distinguished holiness of the Churches, and the true riches of souls, would become much more clearly known to the world. I will confess indeed that some things in that Chronicle out of love of country, as happens, either by the author himself or afterwards by others, have been attributed to the land of Spain which seem able to be attributed either equally or more equitably to other nations

and ought to be; nevertheless, that the work itself is Dexter's (granted that some things have been added from elsewhere, or slightly varied), I do not see how it can prudently be denied by anyone. Wherefore this will have to be done by us in the case of Dexter which has been granted to be done in the case of Jerome, Augustine, and other Fathers, namely, that if anything is improbable, it be refuted; if anything is intruded, it be marked out; otherwise let their own works remain to their authors, nor on account of a few foreign opinions let all things be adjudged spurious. There makes against us, therefore, in Dexter in his Chronicle that passage at the hundredth year of Christ, and the eight hundred and fifty-first of Rome, where it is read: "Dionysius the Areopagite dedicates to Eugenius Marcellus, called on account of the excellence of his intellect Timothy, the books On the Divine Names." Which words, as they lie, I with difficulty admit to be Dexter's, on account of the absurdities which are contained in them; and I rather think that they were written by Dexter thus: "Dionysius the Areopagite dedicates to Timothy the books On the Divine Names." For certainly those intermediate words, "to Eugenius Marcellus, called on account of the excellence of his intellect Timothy," seem to have been affectedly thrown in to claim for Eugenius bishop of Toledo the glory of the inscription of those books. And even though we should grant that those words are Dexter's, nevertheless we would by no means concede that they were therefore dexterously said. For what can be said less dexterously than that: Called on account of the excellence of his intellect Timothy? For neither does Timothy mean excellence of intellect, but honour of God: for time is honour, not intellect. Next, why different surnames one after another for M. Marcellus? If first Eugenius, why is he afterwards called Timothy? For that the surname of Timothy does not fit I have already said, and it will be shown more fully afterwards. Moreover, where or by whom was he called Eugenius? If at Rome and by his father, as being prefect of Rome, certainly he would rather have been called Nobilis by a Roman name than Eugenius by a Greek one. Nor does it seem possible to say that that was a family name of the family of the Marcelli, no traces of that fact appearing, namely, wherever at length you may seek, and (what is more) Roman custom standing against it. And accordingly it will be more credible that that author confused three heralds of the Gospel in Spain into one: Marcellus, Eugenius, Timothy. For that all of them were in Spain we have partly in Dexter himself, partly in other writers. In Dexter indeed at the year of Christ 64, in these words: "St. Paul coming to the Spains brings with him Philemon, Timothy, and other disciples:" where who could doubt that he understands Timothy bishop of the Ephesians, as also that Philemon to whom one Epistle of Paul is extant? Concerning Marcellus likewise it is established, not only from Dexter, who at the year of Christ 50 writes that Peter the Vicar of Christ went to the Spains, many accompanying him, M. Marcellus, Eugenius, Apollinaris of Ravenna, etc., but also from Methodius in the Martyrdom of St. Dionysius the Areopagite. Then, he says, St. Dionysius sent Marcellus into Spain. Finally, concerning Eugenius also it is clear both from the ancient monuments of the Dionysian monastery at Paris, and from the Acts of the same martyr revised many centuries ago by Stephen bishop of Liège, as is written in the Life. See chapter 21 there. But that this Eugenius is the same as Marcus Marcellus, neither in those Acts, nor in the Dionysian monuments, nor on the tomb of Eugenius itself (although on tombs proper names are almost never omitted), nor anywhere else at all than in Dexter does any trace appear. For Juan de Mariana, a most diligent investigator of Spanish affairs, in book IV On the Affairs of Spain, chapter 4, when he comes to the times of Eugenius of Toledo, confesses that the Spaniards rely on no other argument why they think Eugenius to be the same as Marcellus, or as Philip the companion of Marcellus, than that in ancient writers no mention of Eugenius is found, and concerning Philip and Marcellus it is unknown what they did. "There are some who think," he says, "that a certain Philip sent away as bishop into Spain by Clement,

or certainly Marcellus, whom Dionysius joined from Gaul as partner to Philip (as Michael Syncellus is the authority), was Eugenius himself, and that this name indeed flowed from his inborn nobility, while he received the other from his parents. When they affirm this, they rely on no better conjecture than that no mention of Eugenius is extant in the writings of the ancients, and what deeds Philip and Marcellus performed in Spain lies wholly hidden." Thus he. It is credible therefore that Dexter, when he had found enumerated many of the saints who in the times of the apostles had travelled through Spain, and among others M. Marcellus, and Eugenius, and Timothy; it is credible, I say, that by reason of an omitted distinction he supposed him to be a single man who were three. For otherwise, if he was called Eugenius by the faithful (as Bivar wishes on page 30), and that on account of the splendour of his birth, because he was of the family and house of Nero; how did Christians writing to him not call him by that name which they themselves had given? For Sts. Nereus and Achilleus writing to him, with no mention of Eugenius, inscribed their letter only thus: "Nereus and Achilleus, servants of Christ Jesus, to their brother and fellow-disciple Marcellus, eternal greeting."

Answering whom, he employed this inscription: "Marcellus, servant of Christ, to the holy confessors Nereus and Achilleus."

If anyone seeks their letters themselves, he will find them in volume III of Surius, in the Acts of the same martyrs.

Others also wrote to the same Marcellus, but in this manner: "Eutyches, Victorinus, and Maro, servants of our Lord Jesus Christ, to Marcellus."

Thus, namely, in the Acts of Nereus and Achilleus and of others, he is perpetually called Marcellus, never Eugenius, never Nobilis, neither in the Greek nor in the Latin copies.

Besides, the very ancient Author who described the martyrdom and burial of St. Peter the Apostle (whose words are reported in Vincent of Beauvais in the Speculum Historiale, book IX, chapter 25) calls him no otherwise than Marcellus. "Now the brother Marcellus," he says, "straightway took down the holy body from the cross with his own hands, and having washed it with milk and the best wine, and embalmed it with spices, buried it most diligently. In that very night, however, while he was keeping watch at his sepulchre, and weeping with ardent longing for him (for he had resolved in his life not to be separated from the sepulchre of his teacher), Blessed Peter stood before him, and said: Brother Marcellus, have you not heard the voice of the Lord saying: Leave the dead to bury their dead (Matt. 8:22)? Lest therefore you seem to bury and weep for one as dead, rather than as a living man to rejoice together with one living and rejoicing, leave the dead to bury their dead, but go you, as you have learned through me, and announce the kingdom of God (Luke 9:60)." Thus there. Which things there is no doubt were said of St. Marcellus the disciple of Peter: especially since Dexter himself at the year of Christ 100 notes that he was the inseparable companion of the journeys of St. Peter, and was of the family and house of Nero; so that it was easy for him to care for such a burial for his master.

Next, that the name Eugenius is a proper name, just as Timothy also is, is clear from the fact that by all, with the single exception of Dexter, they are always set down singly, St. Eugenius, St. Timothy; which would not be done if they were appellatives. Just as St. Ignatius the Martyr was indeed surnamed Theophorus, yet that he is called Theophorus absolutely is scarcely found. And nevertheless we do not read that the name of Theophorus clave to anyone else, either as a name or as a surname, just as Eugenius and Timothy were the proper names of many.

But granted that St. Marcellus was surnamed Eugenius (concerning which I now dispute only for the sake of elucidating the truth), that very fact makes for us who say that he was not surnamed Timothy. For it would be easier to believe that M. Marcellus was surnamed Timothy if he had not previously been surnamed Eugenius. For what need was there, after the surname of Eugenius

had been given to him, to give him afterwards the surname of Timothy as well? especially since several others about those times were called, or had been called, by that name of Timothy. Next, if St. Dionysius in the inscription of his book had wished to designate another Timothy than that most well-known companion and disciple of Paul, he would surely have added either his own proper name itself, or something else which would remove the ambiguity of the naming; whereas by calling him Timothy absolutely, he surely wished to designate no other than him who among those called Timothy was the chief, and on the lips of all.

There is also another passage in the same Flavius Dexter at the year of Christ 200, and of Rome 971, in these words: "There is extant a certain epistle which is circulated to Marcus Marcellus prelate of Toledo, whom he calls his son and Timothy, that is, honoured by God. For the other Timothy, when this epistle was written, had already ceased to be among the living."

Which words I cannot persuade myself are Dexter's, but rather those of an impostor and ignorant man, who wishing in every way to persuade people that M. Marcellus and that Timothy to whom Dionysius writes are the same, most affectedly patched these things together. Observe, however, that another interpretation of the name Timothy is given here than before. For before he said that he was called Timothy on account of the excellence of his intellect, whereas he ought to have said on account of the excellence of his piety: now he interprets Timothy as honoured by God, whereas he ought to interpret it as honouring God. For Timotheos and Theotimos differ, since the former is taken actively, the latter passively. For theotimos is honoured by God, greatly to be honoured, like peritimos, megalotimos, isotimos, and other words of the same sort, or whenever the part timos is the end of the compound; for then such words are of passive signification. Otherwise, however, and on the contrary does the matter stand when it is the beginning of the compound: for then, as I said, they have an active signification. Whence timopolis in Euripides is he who honours the city, or who is an ornament to the city, and not he who is honoured by it. Thus sosipolis in Aristophanes, saviour of the city. Thus philopolis, lover of the city. And so of others. Therefore one or the other must be said: either that these things were added to Dexter, or that Dexter did not know letters: the latter I would not dare to say, therefore the former. Other absurdities which are in the aforesaid words I pass over. This, however, is established everywhere throughout the whole book, that that author of the Chronicle, or compiler from the ecclesiastical books of Spain, being far too much devoted to his own nation, dragged many foreign things into his own right (if right it can be called) and into the proposed praises of celebrating his own country. Thus far concerning Dexter: now let us gird ourselves to resolve the arguments of Francisco his commentator (whom I acknowledge to be a learned man, and one who candidly and skilfully presses his purpose of defending Dexter).

The first was concerning St. Timothy, whom he says died under the Emperor Domitian. I deny that this is true. For I have proved in the Notes to the Life of St. Polycarp, chapter 7, that he died under the Emperor Nerva, Blessed Polycrates, namely, attesting this, a writer of the second century, and bishop of the same Ephesian Church of which Timothy himself was bishop; who undoubtedly transcribed the things which he wrote concerning the departure of Timothy from the very records of that Church. For it was then the custom for the Churches (which custom perseveres even today) to note both the successions of their bishops and the entrances and deaths of each one, and to commit to the sacred records not only the years, but sometimes even the very days. I wonder accordingly that Bivar draws Polycrates over to his side; nay, at this also I wonder still more, that he calls Polycrates a disciple of St. John the Apostle, when nearly a whole century intervened between them.

Nor likewise can I assent to Bivar in this, that he thinks the Life of Timothy which is extant in Metaphrastes to be that which was written by Polycrates, since they differ greatly from one another: and the former indeed contains some things which happened many centuries after Polycrates,

and besides does not altogether agree concerning the time and manner of his death. Therefore I deny that St. Timothy was dead at the time when Blessed Dionysius first composed his books; but only at the time when, after the return of St. John from exile, and after the Gospel and Apocalypse had been written by the same (which he himself ardently desired, as his letter sent to him declares), he reread them more accurately, and with passages of that apostle and new evangelist partly adorned them as with certain gems, partly corroborated them as with the strongest arguments. For we know that this also happens most frequently, that if after the publication of some work anything new is either established by the supreme pontiff, or published by some other man of chief authority, whereby our own views can be strengthened, we seize upon those things very eagerly and let them into a second edition.

Nor is it greatly a matter of concern to us whether he to whom the book was first dedicated still survives, or has already died. If anyone therefore should wish to argue from the fact, for example, that in it there is cited some pontifical statute published only three or four years ago, that that book could not have been dedicated either to Baronius or to Toletus, for instance, who died some time before, certainly the argument would be weak and vain: for the first dedication of the book, which was long before that statute, was not changed at all when that arrived. So it happened in the works of Dionysius: for to them some things were afterwards added, and perhaps also varied, yet the dedication of the book remained the same, and unvaried. Who, moreover, if he had lived in the age of Dionysius, and had published books before the Gospel of John was made public, would do otherwise than Dionysius did? Who, I say, after the Gospel had already been made public, could prevail upon himself not to revise his work, and not to make it better by calling in aids from the new Gospel of so great an apostle? Otherwise he would surely be and be accounted foolish if he neglected this. Such therefore would St. Dionysius have been, and ought to have been accounted, if he had done otherwise than he did. Now that the revision of books was also customary of old, let that testimony of M. Tullius in his Letters to Atticus also be proof. For when he had once understood that a certain book of his pleased the same Atticus, he afterwards sent it to him more revised, and said: "As to your saying that you are awaiting Eros not without a little gift, I am glad that that matter has not disappointed your expectation. Nevertheless I have sent to you the same treatise more revised, and indeed the archetype itself, crammed and remade in frequent places." Thus he in book XVI To Atticus, letter 3. Altogether thus did our Dionysius also do. He sent forth his little works crammed and remade in frequent places with passages of the Gospel and Apocalypse of John. For before the invention of printing that revision of books, as it was far easier, so was it much more frequent.

Nay, I myself, had I not resolved to commit my works to the printing press, or rather had there been no printing press, would many years ago have allowed this Life of St. Dionysius and certain others to go forth into the light, which now I publish far more revised. Finally, Flavius Lucius Dexter himself first sent forth his Universal History (as he himself is the authority) and dedicated it to St. Jerome not very rich, whereas afterwards he published it again "enlarged and enriched in many places, as he himself writes," and in it described the time of the death of Jerome himself, and certain other things which happened after his death. And thus enriched he dedicated it to another, namely to Paulus Orosius, presbyter of Tarragona. Let us suppose therefore (what could have been done, and perhaps ought to have been done) that Dexter had not changed the dedicatory epistle; would it follow well from the fact that in that work mention was made of the death of St. Jerome, and of others who were after him, that that Jerome to whom that book was read to be dedicated was not St. Jerome the presbyter, but that someone else of that name must be sought? By no means in the world. Why therefore the same in the case of

Dionysius do we not say, which can be said in the case of Dexter? For who is there, or has there been, or will there be (setting aside the authority of Dexter) who upon hearing the inscription, To Timothy, does not straightway understand that Timothy who was called Timothy absolutely and no otherwise? especially if all the arguments which can be objected to the contrary are conveniently dissolved? And yet both by others before us, at least in part, and by us also several times and indeed more fully, this has been done. And, I pray, let the sincere reader judge which is more probable: whether Dionysius the Areopagite wrote his book On the Divine Names in the hundred and first or second year of his life, or rather composed it some time before, or with the first hand, as they say, penned the body itself of the book (namely about the seventieth year of his age, when his strength was more intact, and when Timothy himself was living and flourishing), but at length in more or less the hundredth year of his age completed only that which was easier, that is, having now received in completed form the history of both the Apocalypse and the Gospel of St. John, enlarged and enriched it with passages taken thence: especially since we ourselves for the most part love our books no less than parents do their children; and since we care for their advancement and perfection from time to time even more than they, by study both by day and by night. Nor indeed is every age suitable for producing books, any more than for begetting children. Hence rightly did M. Varro, when he was thinking of rest from writing, say: "My eightieth year warns me to pack my baggage. For if man is a bubble, how much more an old man?" Now as to what I said, that Francisco Bivar is of such an opinion as to hold that Dionysius wrote his books in the hundred and first year of his age, that is proved from those words of his in the Commentary on Dexter, at the hundredth year of Christ, page 202: "At the end," he says, "it is necessary to warn the reader that Dexter did not treat of the books of Dionysius at this hundredth year because they were written in that year; for it is established that they were written after the hundred and tenth year, celebrated for the martyrdom of St. Ignatius; but because he had once entered upon a discourse concerning Dionysius and Marcellus Eugenius, it pleased him to insert this concerning them, especially because he did not say that this happened in this year, but about this time, namely at the beginning of the second century of the years of Christ the Lord." From which words it is necessarily gathered that Dionysius wrote those books in the hundred and first or second year of his age. For Dionysius was twenty-five years old at the time of the passion of Christ (as Dionysius himself writes of himself in the letter to Apollophanes), so that Christ preceded Dionysius in age at most by nine years; for nearly so many, and no more, intervene between the twenty-fifth of Dionysius and the thirty-third or thirty-fourth of Christ.

If therefore Dionysius wrote the books On the Divine Names after the hundred and tenth year of Christ, as Bivar wishes, he certainly wrote them in the hundred and second year of his age: for the hundred and eleventh year of Christ is the hundred and second of Dionysius. Now to whom can it seem probable that Dionysius wrote those books in the hundred and second year of his age? That age, forsooth, is fruitful of books for him! And if he wrote the book On the Divine Names in the hundred and second year of his age, in what year did he write the book On Mystical Theology? For that he wrote this one after that one is altogether clear, since in the third chapter of the book On Mystical Theology he writes thus: Moreover, in the book On the Divine Names, how He (namely God) is called good, how being, how life, wisdom, power, and the other things which pertain to the understanding of the divine names, we have said. Into these rough places, namely, do they put themselves who take a single sentence of the blessed martyr Ignatius in another sense than they ought, and who do not understand that it was badly intruded into Dionysius, and not written by Dionysius. And this is what the same Bivar brings up for his second argument against us, like an impregnable engine; concerning which I shall speak presently.

For first I wish something to be conceded to me by him which he cannot justly refuse. For since Dexter at the hundredth year of Christ notes that Dionysius about this time dedicated the book On the Divine Names to Timothy: Bivar himself wishes that phrase about this time not to signify strictly in that year, but to be able to be drawn out to eleven years into subsequent time, so that it is the same as if he said, in the hundredth year of Christ. Therefore I ask of him in turn that just as he himself draws it out to eleven years into subsequent time, so it may be permitted to me to draw it back to eleven years into prior time: namely, that about this time may signify eleven years before the hundredth of Christ, which will be the eighty-ninth of Christ, and the sixth of Domitian, and thus nothing at all will stand in the way of that book On the Divine Names also having been able to be dedicated to Timothy the disciple of Paul, in its first composition and dedication, namely; since it is sufficiently established that Timothy died long after (even by the confession of Bivar himself). For that the passages of the Gospel of John and of the Apocalypse were added after the revision of the book, I have already shown: and that the passage of Ignatius does not stand in the way, I will now show, or at least point my finger, as the saying goes, to the fountain.

The second argument of Francisco Bivar, therefore, is that St. Dionysius in chapter 4 On the Divine Names cites Ignatius from the Epistle to the Romans written in the eleventh year of Trajan, and the hundred and tenth or hundred and eleventh of Christ. To which argument I will not reply here, because it has been answered before. See above, Question II in the reply to the fourth, and in our Commentary on the Epistle of Ignatius, and also in the Notes to the Life: for in those places we have clearly shown that from that passage of Ignatius no argument can be taken against the books of Dionysius: seeing that it has been demonstrated that that sentence, "My Love has been crucified," was not written by Dionysius (for whom it could have done nothing) but was intruded into Dionysius by a man ignorant of its sense.

Moreover, as to what is brought forward by Bivar concerning the danger which would threaten the books of the saints if it were permitted by one's own authority to scrape away something from them without the testimony of some ancient codex; we reply that we do not scrape it away by our own authority, but prove convincingly by reason that it must altogether be scraped away. Which reason, if he himself deigns to bestow some spare time on reading our writings, just as we have gladly given to reading his, he will find in the places already cited.

Again he brings forward into public two other arguments sought from the books of Dionysius themselves. The first is that although Dionysius six hundred times, as he says, in addressing Timothy, reports sentences from either Epistle of Paul to him, he never says, as Paul rightly wrote to you, or anything similar. I reply that the method of books which look to many is one thing, and that of letters which touch single persons is another. In books which are directed to all, it is not customary frequently to address him to whom we dedicate the book; nay, by almost all, even though a good occasion offers itself, this is done only in the preface or dedicatory epistle: whereas in letters, which are penned to one person, this is done more freely. The things, therefore, which Dionysius wrote to Timothy are books, not letters. I reply secondly, with all due respect to Francisco Bivar, that rarely or never does Dionysius cite sentences of Paul from the Epistles to Timothy, then, namely, when he addresses Timothy, far from doing so six hundred times. And as to what he says, that the passage from 1 Timothy 1:17 is cited: Now to the King of ages, immortal, invisible, etc., he says this very boldly, since he cannot show it in Dionysius. But since King of ages is one of the divine names, St. Dionysius explains that also, in chapter 5, yet neither citing Paul nor bringing forward his words. For he only speaks thus: Wherefore He is also called King of the ages, since in Him and around Him all being both is and subsists, and He neither was, nor will be, nor came to be, nor comes to be, nor will come to be. Hence He is also called King of ages, he says, because

while all things exist and subsist in Him and around Him, He Himself neither was, nor will be, nor came to be, nor comes to be, nor will come to be; but whence is it held, you will say, that He is called King of ages, save from Paul? I reply that it is held from the book of Tobit, chapter 13:6, where the elder Tobit speaks thus: Look therefore upon what He has done with us, with fear and trembling confess ye to Him: and exalt the King of ages in your works. And from the Apocalypse of John, chapter 15:3: Just and true are Thy ways, O King of ages. Nor likewise is Paul to Timothy any more cited in the book On the Celestial Hierarchy, chapter 2, which nevertheless Bivar said. Finally, if anyone attentively reads Dionysius (whom for writing his Life, and drawing documents thence, I have turned over and over not only three and four times, as they say, but even more often than that), he will never find in those places which Bivar brings forward that Dionysius ought to have said to Timothy, as Paul rightly wrote to you; for neither would it be at all suitable there, seeing that in those places he is wholly engaged either in doctrine or in disputation, and no mention is made there of Timothy. How therefore should he introduce, as he rightly wrote to you? For such addresses would then have place if Dionysius, having brought forward a passage of Paul to Timothy, were admonishing or exhorting him to perform something, as is wont to be done in letters or exhortations; just as the blessed martyr Ignatius also is found to have done in his Epistle to the Ephesians, when he cited the words of Paul to the same: And be ye, he said, just as Paul wrote to you (Eph. 4:4), one body and one spirit; even as you have been called in one hope of faith. If, however, Dionysius in his letter to Demophilus or to others cites the words of Paul to Timothy, surely this is nothing to the purpose. For he cannot say when writing to Demophilus, as Paul rightly wrote to you, Timothy; for it would be an absurd apostrophe. Whereas if he wrote, as Paul rightly wrote to Timothy, then that would make for us, not for Dexter, nor for Bivar.

The second argument is that Dionysius always calls Timothy his son, in the book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 1: "Most holy son Timothy," and at the end of the same book: "These things, my son, so many," and in the book On the Celestial Hierarchy, chapter 2: "But you, O son," etc., and in book II On the Divine Names, chapter 2, part 1: "Now no one of sound mind," says Bivar, "will persuade himself that Dionysius ever called by the name of son that Timothy who was an older disciple than Dionysius himself, and bishop of Ephesus; whom Paul, namely, had so honoured that he inscribed six epistles under his own name and his together, etc." Thus Bivar. Whom indeed in this place I wonder to have exceeded the bounds of modesty (which elsewhere he seems sufficiently to love). Is it so indeed? So many men and of such great learning, who surely, not to say more, yield nothing or not much to Bivar in letters whether sacred or profane—so many, I say, and so great men, who have persuaded themselves and proved that Timothy is called son in those places, were not of sound mind? Nay, rather, it is greatly to be feared lest that saying (although spoken by a learned and upright man), nevertheless because we are not wise at all hours, as is commonly said, may seem not to have been spoken by a sound mind. How, moreover, did a prudent man not see that this argument has been answered by many wise and holy men? How also did he not have before his eyes that most customary practice, which perseveres even today, that very old men (for such in the judgement of Bivar was Dionysius when he was writing On the Divine Names, that is, a hundred and two years old) call those younger in age sons, and these similarly call them fathers? Now Timothy in comparison with Dionysius was very young, inasmuch as in the time of Nero he is called a youth, and Paul writing to him says: Let no man despise your youth (1 Tim. 4:12)

: whereas at that time Dionysius had completed about double his age.

Secondly, under the appellation of sons are reckoned disciples, and under the name of fathers, masters. Thus St. Dionysius of Alexandria, when he dedicated the books entitled On Nature to a certain Timothy, addressed him by the name of son, as may be seen in Eusebius of Caesarea in book VI of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 26, of the Greek edition. Timothy therefore in philosophy and worldly learning, in which he was less versed, and also in the subtler theology (for there was need of these against the philosophers attacking our faith) had Dionysius for a master, and when absent consulted him by letters. For no small danger threatened the Church from the philosophers and sophists of the world. Hence Paul also, wishing the Colossians to be on their guard, said (Col. 2:8): See that no man deceive you by philosophy and vain deceit according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ. Thirdly, since Timothy was by nature somewhat timid and faint-hearted (which in the notes to chapter 7 of the Life of St. Polycarp we have proved from Paul himself), he stood in need not only of a teacher of knowledge, but also of a master of courage and constancy. Now I wonder that Bivar did not learn from the Epistles of Paul, and from the Apocalypse of St. John, what sort of man St. Timothy was: as from childhood indeed according to the measure of his capacity versed in sacred letters (as being born of a Christian mother) and also endowed with distinguished piety and holiness; so for great affairs of a mind sometimes too faint-hearted, and needing a leader and encourager. For that Paul wrote so many Epistles in the name of both, and that he commended him so often and earnestly, this was not because Timothy prevailed by great authority above others, but in order that he might prevail. For St. Chrysostom also, in the Epistles of Paul by far the most sharp-sighted of all, writes that he therefore joined Timothy to himself in the inscriptions in order that he might win authority for him, as is to be seen in the commentaries on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians.

The third argument of Bivar against us (which nevertheless, strongly driven back against our adversaries, will procure for us a complete victory) is this, namely, that Timothy was always of greater authority among the disciples than Titus, inasmuch as Paul honoured him more. And yet Dionysius writing to Titus does not call him son; much less therefore ought he so to have called Timothy.

I reply that authority is chiefly and most usually acquired by three things: first, from age; and in this way old men are of greater authority than young men: secondly, by the excellence of things situated in ourselves, such as knowledge and virtue and distinguished deeds: thirdly, from honour and dignity coming from without. Now this honour is weighed either by the commission of great affairs, such as the governance of cities, the administration of provinces, and other things of that sort: or by intimacy with someone and favour among the great. Now I judge and assert that in these first three ways Titus was of greater authority than Timothy, and that the former had more weight for authority, especially inwardly, than the latter. First, therefore, Titus had more authority from age; which can be sufficiently gathered from the Epistles of Paul and from the things to be said below.

Secondly, from knowledge, prudence, and other virtues looking to the governance of the Church: so that he did not greatly need the commendation of his master, whereas Paul frequently needed his help. Now when I had come to Troas, says Paul (2 Cor. 2:12), for the Gospel of Christ, and a door was opened unto me in the Lord, I had no rest in my spirit, because I found not Titus my brother, but bidding them farewell, I went into Macedonia. Behold therefore how great a hindrance the absence of Titus

was to Paul from announcing the Gospel at Troas, because, namely, Titus was Paul's interpreter, so that what Paul spoke in one tongue, he spoke in another: and if Paul had uttered any more obscure and more divine things, he, as one understanding such mysteries, set them forth clearly and evidently. And just as the absence of Titus was a great grief to the Apostle, so his presence was a great consolation. For even when we had come into Macedonia, he says (2 Cor. 7:5), our flesh had no rest, but we suffered all tribulation: without were fights, within were fears. But God, Who comforts the humble, comforted us by the coming of Titus. And a little lower down (2 Cor. 7:13): But in our consolation we rejoiced the more abundantly over the joy of Titus, because his spirit was refreshed by all of you. And in chapter 8:6: Insomuch that we asked Titus, that as he had begun, so also he would complete among you this grace also. And indeed that the Apostle esteemed Titus more highly than Luke the Evangelist himself is proved from this also, that in that very same chapter he says that he is sending Luke with him. Therefore he asks Titus, whereas he sends Luke. But thanks be to God, he says in verse 16, Who has given the same solicitude for you in the heart of Titus: for indeed he accepted the exhortation; but being more solicitous, of his own will he went unto you. We have sent also with him the brother, whose praise in the Gospel is through all the Churches: and not only so, but he was also ordained by the Churches companion of our journey, etc. And again in chapter 12:17: Did I circumvent you by any of those whom I sent to you? I asked Titus, and with him I sent a brother. Did Titus circumvent you? Did we not walk in the same spirit? did we not in the same footsteps? Is it not clear from these things also how highly Paul esteemed Titus? For he shrank from saying that he had sent him, but only that he had asked him, or, as he intimated above, exhorted him to go, to Corinth, namely: whereas Luke he does not say that he asked to go, but simply that he sent him. Next, if we esteem those more highly, and trust them more, to whom we commit more and greater things: Ephesus was committed to Timothy, but Crete to Titus: namely, to the former a single city, whereas to the latter a whole island full of many cities. And the former indeed at Ephesus was to be under the shadow of John the Evangelist: whereas the latter was like a canopy of shade to the other bishops of the island.

Add that the Cretans were much harder for receiving the faith than the Ephesians. Hence Paul, the master of both, knowing the diverse customs of those peoples, writing to the latter says only: Reprove in all patience and doctrine (2 Tim. 4:2); whereas to Titus (Tit. 1:13): Reprove them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith. In all these things, therefore, Titus was superior. I confess accordingly that Paul laboured more to win authority for Timothy, whether by writing letters in his own name and his, or elsewhere by commending him earnestly (for he stood in greater need of it); yet it is more to have authority of oneself than to receive it from another. Nor because he wrote two letters to Timothy, and a single one to Titus, did he therefore esteem the former more highly than the latter. For since those letters were written for instruction, they rather indicate (and in truth it was so) that Timothy needed greater instruction than Titus; for otherwise Silvanus, who outside the letters of Paul is almost unknown, and to whom nothing was written by Paul, is nevertheless always read to have been preferred to Timothy by Paul himself: as in 2 Cor. 1:19: For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, Who was preached among you by us, by me and Silvanus and Timothy, was not Yes and No, but in Him was Yes. And in 1 Thess. 1 the inscription of Paul runs thus: Paul and Silvanus and Timothy to the Church of the Thessalonians, etc. And so Bivar's foundation concerning the greater authority of Timothy than of Titus falls to the ground.

And from the things that have been said it can also be gathered why Dionysius called Timothy his son rather than Titus: for neither was Titus so young and so much in need

of counsel and instruction as Timothy. Finally, Dionysius wrote a single letter or little book to Titus: whereas if he had written a single book to Timothy as well, namely that On Mystical Theology, we would no more find Timothy called son there than in the book to Titus. Wherefore just as in the said book On Mystical Theology he did not call Timothy son, so neither did he call Titus son in the other. Whereas if he had written as many books to Titus as to Timothy, perhaps he would have called him also son equally with Timothy.

Now other words of Bivar must be heard and strongly refuted, lest perchance he deter men from our opinion by his terrifying sayings, when he repeats again: "Now no one of sound mind will believe that that Timothy, the peer of the apostles, who was nourished at the breasts of Paul, and continually instructed with the milk of doctrine while he lived, after he was taken from their midst, was given over to the instruction of Dionysius, and became his disciple, and also while the apostle was living sedulously heard Hierotheus teaching first at Athens, afterwards in Spain." Thus he. Come then; let us grant this for nothing, let no one of sound mind believe that Timothy, the partner and disciple of Paul, after his death was given over to the instruction of St. Dionysius the Areopagite: tell me now of what mind, or madness rather, that man will be who should believe that Titus, the interpreter of St. Paul, and constituted bishop of a Greek island by the same Apostle, after his death gave himself into the following, I do not say of Dionysius (which we do not even say of Timothy, but only that he was taught some things by Dionysius), but of him who was the disciple of Dionysius, namely Eugenius! Did Titus, then, after Paul's death (according to the opinion of Dexter and Bivar), follow Eugenius the disciple of Dionysius, and could not Timothy follow the master Dionysius himself? Suppose indeed that Titus and Timothy were equals (yet he was not, as we have shown), but suppose that they were: which now is less credible? That Timothy followed Dionysius? or that Titus followed the disciple of Dionysius? Yet this latter Dexter dares to write, and Bivar does not shrink from defending.

Although they do these things, yet far be it from me to say that they were not of sound mind; this only I will say, that they were of a mind not sufficiently prudent and considerate! The words of Dexter at the year of Christ 220 are these: "Titus surnamed Justus, having been made bishop, after following first St. Paul, soon afterwards Eugenius, preaches in Carpetania, where his memory and the greatness of his miracles are celebrated." And yet that Eugenius is the disciple of Dionysius, created bishop by Dionysius, and sent by him into Spain. Him therefore, forsooth, Titus followed. But when? Perhaps Bivar will suggest something to us from Equilinus whence it can be gathered. Thus therefore Bivar at the said year of Christ 220 in Commentary 3: "Peter, bishop of Equilium," he says, "in whose work, as in a storehouse of all antiquity, I always find an immense treasure for myself, in the seventh book of his Catalogue, chapter 118, when he writes the Life of St. Titus, disciple of Paul the Apostle, relates this among other things, that Paul ordained Titus bishop of Crete, and leaving him in Crete departed: after two years, however, Titus came to Paul at Rome, with whom also he remained until his slaying by Nero, and buried his body together with Luke the Evangelist." When therefore, I ask, did Titus follow Eugenius: was it straightway after the body of Paul was buried? This cannot be said: because a bishop would have followed a simple priest, and one not yet a bishop. For Eugenius was finally made bishop under Clement by St. Dionysius in the city of Arles, whereas Titus many years before had been created by Paul himself, as has been said, bishop of the island of Crete. Did Titus then at that time, already an old man in the episcopate, and governor of the whole of Crete, follow a new bishop? No one will believe it (I dare

to say here) who is of sound mind. When therefore at length? In one word, never. For thus plainly must we think, that neither did Timothy ever follow Dionysius, nor likewise Titus Eugenius; for both are unbecoming, yet this latter is more unbecoming. What therefore do we say of St. Timothy? Nothing else, namely, than that in more difficult and more arduous matters he consulted Dionysius, a man endowed with the greatest intellect, prudence, and knowledge, and especially philosophical and theological, and also on account of his age and the name of the Areopagus endowed with chief authority; and that the latter for his sake and that of others penned those books which we have in our hands. For it is one thing to learn something from another through letters or written books, and another thing to follow him as a disciple. The former we say of Timothy and of Titus (for Dionysius wrote to both); the latter we utterly deny of both. Concerning Titus, however, having followed Eugenius as a disciple, the words of Dexter seem necessarily to have to be taken; seeing that they sound and proceed in the same way concerning the following of both, as well of Paul as of Eugenius; for he says: "Having followed first Paul, soon afterwards Eugenius." And yet he followed Paul as a disciple and inferior; so therefore Eugenius also.

Now if perchance anyone should wish Eugenius to have been so great a man that Titus could follow him, in that way also will follow that absurdity which Bivar does not believe can fall upon a man of sound mind. For if Eugenius was greater than Titus, he was also without doubt at least equal to Timothy. And if Eugenius was equal to Timothy, Dionysius surely will not be able to call Eugenius, who was equal to Timothy, his son any more than Timothy himself. I will add this argument also, which occurs to me at present for our opinion, that Timothy and Titus were disciples of St. Paul, whose disciple Dionysius also was; whereas Eugenius was the disciple and follower not of St. Paul, but of Peter, and of Dionysius himself for a short time only: wherefore since it is certain, as Bivar himself confesses, that Dionysius wrote to Titus the disciple of Paul, it is also most natural to believe that the same Dionysius wrote those books which are extant to the other disciple of the same Paul, Timothy, especially since in the Epistle to Titus he makes mention of Timothy. Likewise Dionysius wrote in Greek, not in Latin: whence it becomes far more probable that he wrote to Greeks than to Eugenius, a Roman man, of whom it is uncertain whether he even knew Greek. For he spent his whole life either in Italy (as being a Roman, which Dexter and Bivar teach) or in Gaul, or in Spain: for concerning these it is clear; whereas whether he ever saw Greece is not clear.

For although I would not deny that he could have known Greek, nevertheless whether he knew it, and so knew it that books written in Greek could be dedicated to him, I indeed do not know. Now if perchance any scruple remains to anyone in a matter so well proved, and standing on the side of Bivar, he still reckons Timothy greater than Titus, and that therefore the former ought no more to have been called son than Titus; I advise him to enter that storehouse of all antiquity of which we treated above, and in which Bivar professes that he always finds an immense treasure for himself, and to see whether the bishop of Equilium does not make Titus such and so great there that Timothy can scarcely be compared to him. For he writes indeed that he was adorned with most illustrious parents, and traces his lineage back even to Minos king of Crete, and likewise recounts that by an altogether admirable and divine calling he came to the knowledge of Christ; at Whose passion, resurrection, and ascension into heaven he was also present, and together with the disciples received the Holy Spirit descending bodily upon him.

Which things if they are true, as Bivar seems to believe, certainly it cannot be left in doubt that Titus was both far older than Timothy, and likewise several years older than Dionysius himself (for whereas Dionysius at the time of the passion was only twenty-five years old, Titus is gathered from the same Equilinus to have been at least twenty-nine), so that accordingly he could not equally be called son by Dionysius as Timothy could. Concerning which matter see Equilinus in book VII of the Catalogue, chapter 108, where he says that Titus, when twenty years old, and chiefly devoted to the poems of Homer and the books of the philosophers, heard a voice from heaven which warned him that those profane studies must thenceforth be left behind by him, and provision made for the salvation of his soul: and that nine years later the same man, having read the book of Isaiah, being now more desirous both of his own salvation and of that of others, was sent by his maternal uncle the proconsul of Crete to Jerusalem, and there came to the knowledge of Christ. Behold therefore twenty-nine years of Titus before the passion of Christ; which neither Dionysius equalled, much less Timothy.

From these things, as I opine, it appears that there was sufficient cause why St. Timothy could be called child or son by Blessed Dionysius, and not likewise Titus: inasmuch as he was older by birth than both, as well Dionysius himself as Timothy. Wherefore, since the arguments objected against our and the common opinion have now been abundantly answered, and this third question sufficiently, as it seems to me at least, explained, I will now pass over to the fourth and last.

FOURTH QUESTION.

On the body of St. Dionysius the Areopagite: whether it is in the town of Saint-Denis near Paris, or at Regensburg in Bavaria.

It makes no small contribution to the name and glory of any saint that among famous and noble peoples contention was made of old and is made today concerning his body. For from the piety of peoples, and from the esteem of holy relics, contests of this sort are wont to arise among Christians. Thus therefore between the Franks and the Germans, or rather, between the religious men of two most celebrated monasteries, the one in the town of Saint-Denis not far from Paris, the other at Regensburg in Bavaria, there flourished of old and now flourishes no small contention concerning the sacred body of St. Dionysius the Areopagite. For the former fight with all their strength that they have always possessed and now possess it; the latter, on the other hand, that those men indeed possessed it of old, but that they themselves now possess it. For the people of Regensburg

say that it was transferred to them, and show, or at least endeavour so far as they can to show, the time and manner and opportunity.

For they say that in the time of the Emperor Arnulf, that is, about the year of Christ 890, by Gisalbert, one of the nobles of the emperor (who under the guise of having committed a sacrilege had by prearrangement been relegated to the monastery of Saint-Denis), after he had bound the monks to himself by friendly and liberal intercourse, and once entertained them at a merry banquet, and buried them in wine and sleep, that holy body was secretly stolen away, and carried off to the emperor: which emperor deposited it at Regensburg in the monastery of Blessed Emmeram (which he desired to be most ornate). Nay, they also report that certain squared

stones, they say, are preserved in the same place, on which this epigram is inscribed in Roman capital letters:

Dionysius the Areopagite rests here; under the Emperor Arnulf and King Otto, under Ebles abbot of the monastery of St. Dionysius, Gisalbert stole him on the fifth before the Nones of July. Carried off by theft, he came hither on the day before the Nones of December, in the time of Bishop Tuto.

After which words Johannes Aventinus adds thus in the fourth book of his Annals: "This Gisalbert was the wealthiest of the nobles: by prearrangement he is condemned of sacrilege: being deported on purpose to the monastery of St. Dionysius, he is gladly received by the monks: feasting well and frequently with whom (for he both had what he gave, and no one gave more lavishly) he became far more welcome. When he sees that sufficient trust is placed in him, supplying expenses in abundance, he prepares with royal luxury a sumptuous supper and studiously the best wine for the monks and all the inmates of the monastery: he draws out the banquet into the night; and when all of them were buried in wine and sleep, it is handed down in writing that Gisalbert then perpetrated the sacrilege. Moreover, there is shown a diploma given to the priests of St. Emmeram by Pope Leo IX, who in the presence of the ambassadors of Gaul at Regensburg, in the church of St. Emmeram, having examined on the spot the chests and monuments of the whole of that same shrine, decided the dispute; he pronounced sentence, and declared that so great a denizen of heaven, carried off from Gaul by theft and delivered to the Emperor Arnulf, was laid at Regensburg in Bavaria. He curses the Gauls unless they cease to lie. And what is enough for one for whom these things are too little? For my part, I would not cross swords with the obstinate. For not to believe those testimonies is lamented and desperate impudence." Thus he.

Accordingly the chief argument, and that on which they rely as the strongest, is that when that controversy flared up about the year 1052, the decision of this dispute was at length referred to Pope Leo IX, and he judged in favour of the people of Regensburg (among whom he himself then was). For they also bring forward the diploma of the same pontiff, in which in express words the body of St. Dionysius is adjudged to them. Since this is still extant, and is recited by several writers (for both Baronius into his eleventh volume of the Annals, and Severinus Binius into his third volume of the Councils, where they treat of Pope Leo IX, have entered it), it does not seem worth while to bring it in here as well.

Baronius writes that he found this diploma, or constitution, as he calls it, of Pope Leo IX, somewhat faulty in the ancient writings of the Roman pontiffs of Antonio Agustín. That Antonio Agustín was a Spanish writer, and bishop of Lleida, distinguished in life and learning, yet a very recent author, who scraped together from every quarter the writings and constitutions of the pontiffs. Moreover, Baronius, after bringing forward that constitution of the pope, brings forward in turn what the Franks allege to the contrary, and especially Rigord, an ancient writer of the Gothic nation, chronographer of the king of the Franks, who flourished under Philip Augustus king of the Franks and under his son Louis, and published a book on the deeds of the same Philip. Nevertheless Baronius neither decides nor discusses the dispute, but as though wearied in a long work, and panting towards the end, only compares this altercation concerning the body of St. Dionysius to that which went on for many centuries between the monks of Monte Cassino and those of Fleury concerning the sacred pledge of Blessed Benedict. I, however, who, as being exercised in a far smaller journey, can carry my labours further for thoroughly investigating the Lives of the most ancient saints, have resolved so to elucidate this controversy that whoever wishes to honour and venerate so holy and so salutary a pledge may be able to know from our writings where chiefly he ought to seek it for himself.

And for the people of Regensburg indeed, besides the things which have been set forth above, and the authority of perchance one or two modern writers, I find nothing at all that I can add. Whereas for the cause of the Franks very many things occur which for the sake of disclosing and asserting the truth I have to bring forth. For since those men have brought forward nothing stronger for themselves than the pontifical letters which they allege, those letters would assuredly avail very much if it were established that they were such, and if they were not rather accounted fictitious or surreptitious by great men: they would avail if they had emanated from the Roman archive, and had been found there by Baronius, its most accurate investigator, and had not been taken from him who probably borrowed them from the workshop of Regensburg. For he who first of all brought those letters to light (so far at least as I after diligent inquiry have been able to know) was Johannes Aventinus, a heretical writer, who wrote about a hundred years ago; and after him (yet I know not whether from him) Antonio Agustín, of whom above; certainly from Antonio Agustín, Baronius, as he himself confesses: and from Baronius, like most other things without further judgement, Severinus Binius, who also let them into the volumes of the Councils, as I indicated above. Moreover, against those letters there makes first what Rigord relates in his book On the Deeds of Philip Augustus, at his fifth year, and is recited also by Baronius, volume XI of the Annals, at the year of Christ 1052, namely, that the chest of St. Dionysius was commanded by Henry I king of the Franks to be inspected and opened in the presence of the nobles of the realm, and that this was done in the year of the Lord 1050, and the body of the same saint was found, except two bones from the neck, which had been given to the Church of Vergy, and one from the arm, which Pope Stephen III had formerly carried off to Rome. The words of Rigord are these: "This King Henry, having heard rumours that in Germany, in the city of Regensburg, in the abbey of St. Emmeram the martyr, there had been found a certain body which they said was that of Dionysius the Areopagite, sent his messengers to the Emperor Henry with his letters, that he should put off the day of its elevation until through trustworthy messengers they should be most fully certified whether the body of the hieromartyr Dionysius the Areopagite, archbishop of Athens, disciple of the Apostle Paul, was in France, in the church which Dagobert had founded, or not. Having heard this, the emperor sent great and wise men into France that they might fully learn the truth of the matter. Having seen the messengers of the emperor, King Henry convoked the archbishops, bishops, and barons of the whole realm, and sent them with Odo his dearest brother to the church of the most blessed martyr Dionysius. And after prayer had been made, there were brought three silver vessels of Dionysius, Rusticus, and Eleutherius before all the people, most diligently sealed: and when the vessel of the blessed martyr Dionysius was opened, his whole body with the head was found, except two bones from the neck, which are in the church of Vergy, and a certain bone from the arm, which Pope Stephen III carried with him to the Roman Church, and placed in the church which today is called the Schola Graecorum. Seeing this, all the people, lifting up pure hands to the Lord with tears and sighs, commending themselves to God and the blessed Virgin Mary and the holy martyrs, departed with joy. Then the messengers who had been sent, returning most speedily to the emperor, certified the emperor most fully concerning the things which they had seen and heard. This was done in the time of Pope Leo IX, in the year of the Lord 1050."

The monks of Saint-Denis knew, therefore, what, and how much, and to whom had been given by them from the relics of St. Dionysius before that pontifical diploma was published by the people of Regensburg: namely, at least three bones, one to the pontiff, two to the church of Vergy, and that before the year one thousand and fifty. How therefore can it be that it was whole, except

a single smallest particle of the right hand, two years later, that is, in the year of the Lord one thousand and fifty-two, as the Regensburg letters allege?

Besides, since by the same monks of Saint-Denis from that year of the Lord 1050 in which the relics of the holy martyr were visited, and when the sacred chest was opened before all the people, were found sacredly covered; since, I say, the solemnity of that day began thenceforth to be celebrated yearly, and to be called the Discovery of the Body of Blessed Dionysius (just as even to the present day it is called and celebrated), how did Pope Stephen (if indeed he made that diploma against them) not by the same effort effectively interdict to them the festivity of that solemnity? How did not a single one of the subsequent pontiffs prohibit it? For even today at the Nones of July they celebrate that solemnity, with no one forbidding, no one opposing. Nay, Pope Nicholas II also, the successor of the already mentioned Stephen IX, in a bull which he published in the third year of his pontificate, manifestly indicates that the body of St. Dionysius rests in that oft-named monastery of the same martyr. That bull is extant in Jacques Doublet in book II of the Antiquities of the Abbey of Saint-Denis, chapter 9. Nay, the successor of Nicholas II also, Alexander II, in his bull likewise given in the fourth year of his pontificate, Indiction IV, indicates the very same thing in these words: "Wherefore we make known to all present and future, namely kings and dukes, princes and rulers, or all the faithful of the Apostolic See, that the venerable Abbot Rainerius and the monks of the monastery of the Blessed Martyr Dionysius, where the saint himself rests in body, approached our presence suppliantly requesting that the privileges granted to the same monastery by Lord Dagobert king of the Franks, founder of that place," etc. See Doublet in the same place, chapter 10. If therefore Stephen IX had adjudged the body of St. Dionysius away from the monks of Saint-Denis, by what reason, I pray, would his next two successors adjudge it to them? Finally, at no time ever did the kings of France cease, not even after those letters, as they call them, of Stephen, to go to the relics of St. Dionysius as being present in that monastery of Saint-Denis, and to implore help from the patron and guardian of their realm. Hence in the year one thousand one hundred and ninety, Philip Augustus king of the Franks, being about to set out for the recovery of the Holy Land, first went to Saint-Denis for the sake of obtaining help. Concerning whom Rigord, who was then living, writes thus: "Therefore the most Christian king, humbly prostrated in prayer upon the marble pavement before the bodies of the holy martyrs Dionysius, Rusticus, and Eleutherius, commended himself to God and the blessed Virgin Mary and the holy martyrs and all the saints. At length rising with tears from prayer, he most devoutly received the wallet and staff of pilgrimage from the hand of William archbishop of Reims, his maternal uncle, legate of the Apostolic See." Next, in the year one thousand one hundred and ninety-one, the queen herself, solicitous for the departure and success of her husband, with equal piety comes together with the nobles of the realm to pray at the same sacred pledges; and while the queen prays here, then the king there besieges Acre, a most fortified city of Palestine, and captures it after forcing it to surrender. The same Rigord relates the matter thus: "In the same year," he says, "on the eighth before the Kalends of September, by the counsel of Lord William archbishop of Reims, and of Queen Adela, and of all the bishops, the bodies of the most blessed martyrs Dionysius, Rusticus, and Eleutherius, with the purest silver vessels in which they were contained most diligently sealed, were brought out and placed upon the altar, other bodies of saints resting in the same church being joined to them there, so that the faithful coming together there to so holy a spectacle, lifting up pure hands with Moses with groaning and sighs for the deliverance of the Holy Land, and for the king of the Franks and all his company, might pour forth prayers to the Lord:

because Christians trust not in the power of arms, but in the power and mercy of Christ; nor do they do valiantly in themselves, but in God, overcoming unbelieving peoples, and bringing to nothing the enemies of the cross of Christ. And on the following feast of Blessed Dionysius, when the silver vessel was opened in which the body of the most sacred martyr Dionysius was contained, in the presence of the venerable bishops of Senlis and Meaux, and Adela queen of the Franks, and many abbots and religious men, his whole body with the head, as we have said before, was found, and most devoutly shown to all the faithful of God who had come together from distant parts for the sake of praying." See more there.

Besides, in the year of the Lord one thousand two hundred and forty-four, when Pope Innocent IV on account of the violence of the Emperor Frederick had fled for refuge to St. Louis in France, and the same Louis at that time, his health failing, had fallen into a most grievous sickness, he himself and his most serene mother Queen Blanche requested of Odo abbot of Saint-Denis that they should without delay bring out from the crypt in which they rested, and place in public view, the most sacred bodies of Dionysius, Rusticus, and Eleutherius, "in whose patronage (to use the words of Nangis) the whole region rejoices, and the power of the realm stands, so that by their prayers they might obtain health for the king from the Lord. Since the king after the Lord and the most sacred Virgin Mother (as the same Nangis speaks) hoped more confidently in them, as in the advocates and protectors of himself and of the realm: and not undeservedly. For what could the Lord deny to Blessed Dionysius, Who had said to him when thrust into prison for the Catholic faith: The love and benignity which you have shall always obtain whatsoever you shall ask for." Finally, that I may briefly comprise what the same author pursues in more words, in the presence of Charles bishop of Noyon and Peter bishop of Meaux there were brought forth into the light and publicly exposed for veneration the bodies of the holy martyrs Dionysius and his companions; and when they were carried in solemn procession and supplication of the people, from that very hour the holy king began to recover, and shortly, both for the safety and prosperity of the realm and for the relief of the Holy Land (upon which he afterwards ardently expended both all his resources and his life itself), grew wholly well. Who therefore can now doubt that even then the sacred body of St. Dionysius was in truth in France and in the said monastery, and that the very same and no other was venerated by Blessed Louis and his most holy mother?

Secondly. Otto of Freising, a good and ancient bishop, and a writer most zealous for faith and truth, greatly weakens the authority of the Regensburg letters, whom Bellarmine deservedly proclaims "distinguished in nobility, piety, and learning," as being the grandson of the Emperor Henry IV, nephew by a sister of Henry V, uterine brother of King Conrad, and paternal uncle of the Emperor Frederick I, who willingly and gladly submitted all this nobility to God in order that he might become a Cistercian monk. Christ, however, willed him to be first an abbot, then a bishop. He therefore, although causes were not wanting to him why he should favour the people of Regensburg more than the Franks (if indeed there were place for favour against the truth), for he was both a German and the brother of Leopold duke of Bavaria, where Regensburg is; nevertheless touched upon this fable of the people of Regensburg in such a way as to seem to mock them, not to believe them. For thus he wrote in the sixth book of his Chronicle, chapter 11: "Now he (Arnulf) loved above the other places of his realm Regensburg, the metropolis of Bavaria. Whence he also enlarged its walls, and adorned the monastery of St. Emmeram with many ornaments, and enriched it with large possessions. They relate there, and show in writing, that the aforesaid king transferred St. Dionysius from the Gauls to the aforesaid monastery. Whether this is so, let them see to it themselves." Thus he, as if he should say: I, however, do not believe it. For if he had believed it, using the same language as above

he would have said, he honoured it chiefly with the body of St. Dionysius brought over from the Gauls, or certainly would have used some similar kind of expression. Now this Otto is far worthier of credit than either Aventinus or Krantz, whom he preceded by at least four hundred years.

Thirdly. Widukind, who preceded the same Aventinus and Krantz in writing by at least six hundred years, and was a whole century more ancient than those Regensburg letters; he, I say, Widukind in book I of the Deeds of the Saxons writes that Charles the Simple, king of the Franks, against whom his nobles had then rebelled, sent the hand of St. Dionysius to Henry king of the Saxons (namely in the year of the Lord 920), for the sake of winning his friendship for himself. His words are these: "Now when the king had crossed the Rhine to enlarge his empire over the Lorrainers, a legate of Charles met him, and having saluted him in most humble words, said: My lord Charles, formerly endowed with royal power, now deprived of it, has sent me to you, declaring that to him surrounded by enemies nothing can be more pleasant, nothing sweeter, than to hear something of the glory of your magnificent progress, and to be consoled by the fame of your virtues. And he has sent over to you this sign of faith and truth; and he brought forth from his bosom the hand of the precious martyr Dionysius enclosed in gold and gems. Have this, he says, as a pledge of perpetual covenant and mutual love," etc. See above, chapter 29 of the Life itself of St. Dionysius.

Now if what the people of Regensburg affirm is true, that they received the whole body of St. Dionysius from Arnulf king of the Bavarians about the year of the Lord 890 (for about that time he reigned), whence could Charles the Simple thirty years later have that hand which he sent to the Emperor Henry? If from France (for thence he indicates that he is sending it), therefore the whole body, except the smallest particle of the hand, was not already at Regensburg: whereas if Regensburg had it, and sent it over into Saxony, how a hundred years and more afterwards, that is, in the year 1052 (as the people of Regensburg themselves say), could it be decreed that the body was whole among them? many parts of which had already been transported into various places: the hand into Saxony, the bone of the arm to Rome, other bones into Burgundy, and other relics of the same sacred body elsewhere? Concerning which see the Antiquities of the Abbey of Saint-Denis in France, book I, chapter 30.

Fourthly. In the same letters of the people of Regensburg that theft, or rather nefarious sacrilege, whereby they report the body of Dionysius to have been transferred to them (if indeed the matter were true), is excused with soft and vain words bringing an irksome consolation, and by the piety of the emperor; whereas nevertheless it is sufficiently established that he was by far the most impious of men: who also, almost all historians write, perished of the disease of the impious Herod on account of his shameful crimes. Liutprand certainly, a man "on account of his erudition and prudence of great authority, as Bellarmine says" (he is the one whom the Emperor Berengar sent as legate to Constantine the Greek emperor), in book I of the Deeds Done by the Emperors and Kings of Europe, writes thus concerning Arnulf alienated from his senses by a deadly draught: "Now I believe that King Arnulf by the just censure of the severe Judge incurred a plague of this sort. For while prosperity everywhere magnified his empire, he attributed all things to his own valour, and did not render due honour to almighty God. The priests of God were dragged in chains: sacred virgins were oppressed by force, married women were violated. For neither could the churches be an asylum for those fleeing for refuge. For in them they held banquets, shameful gestures, sportive songs, and revelries. Nay, women also were publicly prostituted in the same." And a little lower down concerning his most shameful death he subjoins thus: "And having set out for his own lands, he expired of a most shameful malady. For being vehemently afflicted with tiny worms, which they call lice, he gave up the ghost.

And it is reported that the aforesaid worms swarmed to such a degree that they could not be diminished by any cares of physicians." Thus there. And nevertheless those letters set down above wish "that the king of France should rejoice together in the glory of his apostle, who had so devout a thief of his body, better surely than gold and topaz." See the absurdity! And indeed after so great shameful crimes and sacrileges penned in letters for posterity, that Regensburg writing did not blush to utter these words concerning him: "Who was wont to condemn thieves and sacrilegious men." Battista Egnazio likewise in book III of the Roman Emperors touched upon the crimes of the same Arnulf and the punishments of his crimes as briefly as possible thus: "Because he first performed distinguished deeds against the Normans, and soon afterwards turning to rapines and despoilings of temples is punished by the just wrath of heaven. For both his former good fortune forsook him and shortly he died worn out by the lousy disease." You will find very similar things in Jakob Wimpfeling in the Epitome of German Affairs, chapter 15; for he writes thus: "Arnulf, the seventh emperor from Charlemagne, at first indeed having vigorously taken up arms thoroughly subdued the rebellious Normans, but soon raging against churchmen, by the nod of God was shortly consumed by the lousy disease which the Greeks call phthiriasis, leaving his son Louis as his successor. We have not found anyone to have seen the sons of his sons, or at length to have died happily, who having persecuted the clergy, the church, and the ministers of God had afflicted them with loss or insults." Thus he. With all of whom Jacobus Micyllus chimes in, in the Series of Roman Emperors, in these verses:

Arnulf succeeds, who vigorously performed distinguished deeds in the very beginning of his reign; thereafter pursuing rapines, he despoils the temples and gifts of the saints: whence he pays the penalty, consumed through the wrath of the Deity by little worms, while meantime the ninth century is brought to a close,

that is, he expired at the close of the ninth century of Christ, or about the nine hundredth year of the Lord.

Fifthly. How could the body of so great an apostle of the Franks, always guarded with such great care, honoured with such great veneration of the peoples, esteemed so highly by all the kings of the Franks, with the monks of Saint-Denis either ignorant or dissembling, be dug up from its crypt, brought out from the monastery, and carried out of the realm, in such a way that no rumour or murmur at all of their carried-off apostle leaked out to any of the Franks? that no one uttered a single word? For to feign that absolutely all the religious of that monastery were so overwhelmed and buried in wine and sleep that they did not know what was being done at home; that they either voluntarily offered the keys for the stealing away of so great a treasure, or did not perceive them being taken from them, is too vain, too ridiculous. Add indeed, what is the chief point, that it seems a mark of extreme wickedness and dishonesty that anyone should dare to attempt so great and so dreadful a sacrilege; namely, without cause to steal away from its rightful successors of so long a time that which in any realm is so sacred and so religious, that which is celebrated with so great worship and veneration, that than which nothing more precious, nothing holier is held among all the relics of that nation.

Nay, this also perchance someone will judge by no means to be despised, that the whole fable of the people of Regensburg concerning this translation to themselves has its origin and beginning from the word and oath of a worthless and sacrilegious man: who was believed when he said that that body which he was bringing to Regensburg (if indeed he brought anything) was the body of St. Dionysius, rather than all the religious of the monastery of Saint-Denis together solemnly denying this and openly showing that it was among them, nay, and foreign kings and princes also professing this. See above, chapter 27 of the Life, where I cited the words of St. Edward king of the English, written in the year of the Lord one thousand and fifty-nine, in which he says that St. Dionysius is named indeed among the English of famous memory, whereas among the Franks he is venerated

and possessed. If therefore it was among the Franks in the year one thousand and fifty-nine, how could it be decreed in the year one thousand and fifty-two that it had formerly been transferred into Germany, and even now

to be at Ratisbon? Let it remain therefore, as far more probable, that the said body of St. Dionysius is in France rather than anywhere else: and let this be the end of the questions.