Preface

Preface

THE WORKS
OF
DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE,

NOW FIRST TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH,
FROM THE ORIGINAL GREEK,
BY THE
REV. JOHN PARKER, M.A.,

My thanks are due to Miss M. C. Dawes, M. A., for careful
revision of the translation.

DEDICATED

TO

L’ABBÉ J. FABRE D’ENVIEU,

HON. CANON OF ST. DENIS,

IN THANKFUL RECOGNITION

OF THE

CONFIRMATION GIVEN TO THE FAITH, BY HIS

“LIVRE DU PROPHÈTE DANIEL.”

Felix es Gallia! quae, tantos et tales meruisti suscipere
sacerdotes.

PREFACE TO THE “DIVINE NAMES.”

PREFACE TO THE “DIVINE NAMES.”

THE Treatise on “Divine Names” was written by Dionysius, at the request of Timothy, and at the instigation of Hierotheus, to express, in a form more easily understood, the more abstract Treatise of Hierotheus, who was his chief instructor after St. Paul. Its purpose is to explain the epithets in Holy Scripture applied alike to the whole Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It does not pretend to describe the unrevealed God, Who is beyond expression and conception, and can only be known through that union with God, “by which we know, even as we are known.” Holy Scripture is the sole authority, beyond which we must neither think nor speak of Almighty God. The Treatise, being written by one of the most learned Greeks, the phraseology is, naturally, that of Plato and Aristotle ; but Plato and Aristotle are not authorities here. When Plato treated his Hebrew instructor with such reverence, and was so versed in the Pentateuch, we need not be sensitive as to the admission of Plato’s authority. But, as a matter of fact, on the question of Exemplars and some other points, the opinions of Plato are expressly refuted. The phrase of Luther, “Platonising, rather than Christianising,” proves only a very meagre acquaintance with Dionysius. The Greek language is moulded in a marvellous manner to express the newly revealed Christian Faith in its most exalted form, in a style which Daillé confesses to be always of the same “colour;” and Pearson, “always like itself.” Jahn has followed Dionysius step by step in order to trace the connection between the language of Plato and Dionysius, for the purpose of exploding the puerile supposition that such complex writings as these could have been evolved from the elementary treatises of Proclus and Plotinus. Most probably, some of the lost writings of Dionysius are in part preserved in those writers and in Clement of Alexandria; but Dionysius is the Master, not Pupil! The works are very distinct and precise upon the Divinity of Christ, and the Hypostatic Union. Like St. Paul, Dionysius affirms that He, Who made all things, is God; and further that Jesus is God, by some startling phraseology. He speaks of James, “the Lord’s brother,” as “brother of God” David, from whom was born Christ after the flesh, is called “father of God.” When speaking of the entombment of the Blessed Virgin, he speaks of her body as the “Life-springing” and “God-receptive body;” thus testifying that Jesus, born of a pure Virgin, is Life and God. He describes the miracles of Jesus as being, as it were, the new and God-incarnate energy of God become Man. The newly-coined words indicate an original thinker moulding the Greek language to a newly acquired faith. There are two words, “Agnosia” and “Divine Gloom,” which illustrate a principle running through these writings,—that the negative of abstraction denotes the superlative positive. “Divine Gloom” is the darkness from excessive light; “Agnosia” is neither ignorance nor knowledge intensified: but a supra-knowledge of Him, Who is above all things known. It is “the most Divine knowledge of Almighty God, within the union beyond mind, when the mind, having stood apart from all existing things, and then, having dismissed itself, has been united to the superluminous rays—thence and there, being illuminated by the unsearchable wisdom.” In the Mystic Theology, Dionysius exhorts Timothy thus,—“But, thou, O dear Timothy, leave behind both sensible perception, and intellectual efforts, and all objects of sense and intelligence; and all things being and not being, and be raised aloft as far as attainable, ἀγνώστως—unknowingly,—to the union with Him above every essence and knowledge. For by the resistless and absolute ecstacy from thyself, in all purity, thou wilt be carried high to the superessential ray of the Divine darkness, when thou hast cast away all, and become liberated from all.” Thus, we must pass beyond all things known, and all things being, and lie passive under the illuminating ray of God, if we would attain the highest conception of Him, “Who passeth all understanding.” God “unknown” is still the God of Dionysius, and He is still to be worshipped unknowingly. There is a tradition that Dionysius erected the altar in Athens “to God unknown,” as author of the inexplicable darkness, which he observed in Egypt, and found afterwards from St. Paul to have been contemporaneous with the Crucifixion. Did St. Paul adapt his discourse at Athens to the conversion of Dionysius?

The only heresiarch, whom Dionysius mentions by name, is Elymas, the Sorcerer, Simon Magus, a man of great intellectual attainments and a considerable author. Flavius Clemens and Eugenius, Bishop of Toledo, were disciples of Simon before their conversion to Christ. The tenets of Elymas are described by Hippolytus. He formed an eclectic system from the Old Testament and the Christian Faith, and with Cerinthus and Carpocrates originated many heresies to which the apostolic epistles allude, and which in later times became prominent in the Church. In refuting these heresies, by manifestation of the truth, Dionysius anticipated many errors—ancient and modern.

Jerome informs us (Scr. Ecc. 46) that Pantaenus, one of the most celebrated Christian philosophers of Alexandria, was sent, A.D. 193, by Demetrius, Bishop of that city, to India, at the request of a delegation from India for that purpose. Pantaenus discovered, on his arrival, that St. Bartholomew (one of the twelve) had preached the coming of Jesus Christ, in that country. Pantaenus found a copy of the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew in India. Now, by the extract, contained in the Scholia of Maximus, from the Scholia of Dionysius of Alexandria (250) upon the Divine Names, and also by the extract from a letter of the same Dionysius, recently discovered in the British Museum (Nos. 12151-2), we know that the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite were known and treasured in Alexandria a few years after the death of Pantaenus. Can we reasonably doubt that Pantaenus took the writings of Dionysius, and the more abstract works of Hierotheus, to India? Have we not here an explanation of the remarkable similarity between the Hindu philosophy, as expressed by Sankara in the eighth, and Râmânuja in the thirteenth century, and the “Divine Names?” Sankara treats of the Supreme as “absolutely One;” Râmânuja as “non-dual, with qualification.” Both these truths are combined and expressed in Dionysius.

I cannot but believe that many of the beautiful expressions about Vishnu, the Redeemer, in the Râmâyana of Tulsidâs are Christian Truths under a Hindu dress. Many learned Hindus affirm that it is needless for them to become Christian, because they have a more exalted conception of the Supreme God than Christians themselves. I submit that the “Divine Names” will be instrumental in bringing India to the Christian Faith, in the best and only effectual way—by communities and not by individuals—through the most learned and devout, and not through the most ignorant.

Dionysius was first converted, and then, through him, those who naturally and properly followed his lead.

LUCIUS FLAVIUS DEXTER.

Dexter was a friend of Jerome. Jerome even addresses him as “filius amicus,” and describes him as “clarus apud saeculum et Christi fidei deditus.”

Dexter became Prefect of the Pretorian Oriental Guards, and was one of the most illustrious statesmen of his time. He resided two years in Toledo. From the archives of the Church of Toledo and other cities he compiled a chronicle from A.D. 1 to A.D. 430, giving a brief summary of the Church events in Spain. That chronicle he dedicated to Jerome, who, enrolled both Chronicle and Author amongst his “illustrious men.” It was at the request of Dexter that Jerome wrote his book on Ecclesiastical Writers. Among the earliest Bishops of Toledo, Dexter describes a remarkable man,—Marcellus,—surnamed Eugenius, on account of his noble birth.

Bivarius says he was of the house and family of Caesar, being uncle to the Emperor Hadrian. Marcellus was consecrated Bishop by Dionysius the Areopagite at Aries, and sent to Toledo. Respecting him, Dexter records that Dionysius dedicated the books of the Divine Names to him, u.c. 851, A.D. 98. Dexter further records that Dionysius surnamed Marcellus, Timothy, on account of his excellent disposition. Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, relates that Timothy, Bishop of Ephesus, to whom the works of Dionysius were originally dedicated, was martyred during the reign of Nerva, A.D. 96-97. Upon the return of Dionysius to Gaul, after his visit to St. John, released from Patmos, we find him calling his friend Marcellus, Timothy, and presenting the books of the “Divine Names “to him, A.D. 98; in order that he might still have a Timothy on earth,— “in vivis”—although his first Timothy, “migravit ad Christum,” A.D. 97.

This touch of nature, preserved in a chronicle, written more than 1400 years ago, by an illustrious statesman, who was son of a Bishop celebrated for learning and sanctity, may fairly be deemed, by an unprejudiced mind, reasonable proof that the “Divine Names” were written previous to A.D. 98.

N.B. As the result of some research I affirm that our Saviour’s last commission is the Key to Church history in the first century. As He commanded the Apostles to preach the Gospel throughout the world, so the Gospel was preached when St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Colossians, Chap. I. v. 23 (τοῦ κηρυχθέντος ἐν πάσῃ κτίσει), and with such success amongst the most learned and noble, that, but for the cruel massacre of Flavius Clemens and his family for the Christian Faith, there would have been a Christian Emperor in the first century. As Jesus said, “Ye shall be witnesses of Me unto the uttermost parts of the earth” (), so the Apostles planted the Church of Christ in Gaul, Spain and Britain, with its threefold ministry; and by the end of the second century there was an organised Church throughout each of those territories.

Dr. Schneider informs me “that in Germany they now admit that the external proofs are in favour of genuineness of Dionysius, but they confine themselves to the internal proofs. They pretend that the doctrine is too clear and precise to have been written in the apostolic age.”

How could the chief Areopagite, the convert and companion of St. Paul, and the familiar friend of St. John, Theologus, have understood theology!!

PREFACE TO MYSTIC THEOLOGY.

MYSTIC THEOLOGY is like that ladder set up on the earth whose top reached to Heaven on which the angels of God were ascending and descending, and above which stood Almighty God. The Angel ascending is the “negative” which distinguishes Almighty God from all created things. God is not matter—soul, mind, spirit, any being, nor even being itself, but above and beyond all these. The Angel descending is the “Affirmative.” God is good, wise, powerful, the Being, until we come to Symbolic Theology, which denotes Him under material forms and conditions: Theology prefers the negative because Almighty God is more appropriately presented by distinction than by comparison.

PREFACE TO THE LETTERS
OF DIONYSIUS THE
AREOPAGITE.

THESE Letters attest the existence of the writings, and the wisdom spoken among the perfect, in the Apostolic Age.—To Gaius, who is commemorated by St. John and St. Paul, we owe the explanation of Agnosia, and valued teaching on the Personality of our Lord; to Dorotheus we are indebted for a fuller explanation of the Divine Gloom; to Sosipater, twice mentioned in the Acts and Romans, we owe the wisest letter ever penned for the instruction of the Christian Apologist and Missionary. The Letter to Polycarp touches on those mysterious signs in the heavens, by which Almighty God shewed His universal power. Dionysius shews his reverence for God’s holy word, by never seeking to explain away, or to substitute what seems a less miracle for a greater. The trifold Mithra commemorated amongst the Babylonians shews that Hezekiah’s sign was not merely visible and observed in Judea. The King, as High Priest of his people, was already robed for evening prayer, when he observed the sun gone back; and one day became almost three, i.e. thirty-two hours instead of thirty-six. Dionysius describes the darkness at the time of the Crucifixion, as it appeared in Egypt, and is recorded by Phlegon. We do not explain and interpret the facts recorded in the Gospel, by denying them, or by treating the same testimony outside the Gospel as superstitious.

To Demophilus, we owe a knowledge of Church-law and order, which teaches the Christian duty of being “sent,” and which should teach clergy to obey their Bishop, and not merely the Act of uniformity. To Titus, we owe the preservation of the sum of the Symbolic Theology. From the letter to St. John in Patmos, we learn the love between St. John arid Dionysius, and that St. John was then Called the “Sun of the Gospel.” From the letter to Apollophanes, we know that the prayers of Dionysius for the conversion of his friend did not fall to the ground. Apollophanes was tutor to Polemon, who again was tutor to Aristides, who presented his “Apology” to the Emperor Hadrian. The conversion of Statonice, the wife of Apollophanes, was the cause of St. Paul’s being cast into chains at Philippi, where the messengers from Corinth found him, through whom he sent the Epistle recently brought to light.

CANNES,
Circumcision, 1897.

LITURGY

LITURGY

OBJECTIONS TO GENUINENESS.

THE most plausible objection to the genuineness of these writings is thus expressed by Dupin: “Eusebius and Jerome wrote an accurate catalogue of each author known to them—with a few obscure exceptions,—and yet never mention the writings of the Areopagite.” Great is the rejoicing in the House of the Anti-Areopagites over this PROOF;—but what are the facts? Eusebius acknowledges that innumerable works have not come to him—Jerome disclaims either to know or to give an accurate catalogue either of authors or works. The Library of Caesarea contained three hundred thousand volumes, according to the modest computation of Doublet, according to Schneider, many more—Jerome says there are some writings, so illustrious in themselves, that they will not suffer from not being mentioned by him; Jerome fallows Dionysius on the Heavenly Hierarchy; Jerome’s Catalogue of Illustrious Men contains one hundred and thirty-five names.

Josephus is mentioned for his testimony to Christ —Seneca, for his correspondence with St, Paul—Philo, for his description of the Therapeutse of Alexandria. Yet Dupin would have the unwary infer that Jerome gives a full catalogue of each Author known to him, with a few obscure exceptions.

The “Ecclesiastical History” of Eusebius treats of the nature of Christ, the companions of the Apostles, the Martyrdoms—the succession of Bishops—the persecutions—the folk-lore of the Church to the fourth Century. The Book would fill about 125 pages, yet Dupin would have us believe that he gives a complete catalogue; He does not give the writings of Hymenseus and Narcissus, of Athenagoras, and Pantaenus, nor a complete list of Clement, Origen, and Dionysius of Alexandria. His silence, in my opinion, is owing to “odium theologicum.” According to Eusebius, Jesus is διττός; according to Dionysius, Jesus is ἁπλοῦς; both true when properly understood, but when misunderstood—“Hinc lachrymae illae”—Dupin formed his premise for his conclusion, not from facts.

FALLACY OF NAMES.

Pearson, Daillé, Blundellum, Erasmus, Valla, Westcott, Lupton, pronounce against the genuineness. Who are you? But Pearson demolishes Daillé; Vossius pulverises Blundellum; Erasmus repudiates Valla. Dr. Westcott, following Dupin, assumes the non-genuineness, but his literary instinct places his Article on Dionysius before that on Origen. Dean Colet bumps the scale against Mr. Lupton.

Pearson, in the xth Chapter of Ignatii Vindiciae, gives the shortest and best summary in favour of the genuineness. Speaking of the scholars of his own day, he says, “No one is so ignorant as not to know that these writings were recognised as genuine by the best judges in the sixth, fifth, fourth, and third centuries.” Unhappily, he also said, Every “erudite” person regarded them in his day as written in the fourth century, and he assumed the date of Eusebius’ death, as the date of the works, to account for his silence. Hence every inerudite person, who wished to pass for erudite, maintained that opinion for his own reputation. But when Pearson had re-surveyed the evidence, he confessed, with shame, that though he had given, what seemed to him a true opinion, he left the decision of the whole matter to the judgment of a more learned person.

Erasmus, in his “Institutio” of a Christian Prince, writes thus:—“Divus ille Dionysius qui fecit tres Hierarchias.” In his prime work, “ratio verae religionis,” Erasmus not only enumerates the “Divine Names,” the “Mystic and Symbolic Theology,” but calls them, not Stoic, not Platonic, not Aristotelian, but “celestial” philosophy. He so moulds Dionysius into his book, that it becomes Dionysius writing elegant Latin. The only reason which outweighed with him all external testimony, was, that Erasmus could not imagine that any man, living in apostolic times, and so far removed from the age of Erasmus, could possibly have penned such a mirror of apostolic doctrine. How could the Areopagite, though disciple of Paul, and familiar friend of John Theologus, possibly be so learned as the author of these writings? Such is the testimony of the two Theologians who have been permitted to be doubtful of the genuineness.

GREGORY OF TOURS.

Gregory is the great authority of those who think that the St. Denis of France is not identical with Dionysius the Areopagite. The authority is worthy of their critical acumen. Gregory collects the more obscure martyrdoms, in Gaul, under Nero, and subsequent Emperors. He gives several martyrdoms under Nero, and thus proves the Apostolic Evangelisation of Gaul. Gregory quotes, and misquotes, and misunderstands the ancient document, “Concerning seven men sent by St. Peter into Gaul,—in Gallias—to preach.” “Under Claudius —sub CLDIO—Peter the Apostle sent certain disciples into Gaul to preach,—they were, Trophimus, Paulus, Martial, Austremonius, Gatianus, Saturninus, Valerius, and many companions.”—These men were sent A.D. 42–43. Gregory omits Valerius, and inserts Dionysius —who was not converted to the Christian Faith till A.D. 44 or 49. Then Gregory misreads “Claudio “for “consulibus Decio,” and adds, “Grato” as the fellow-consul. Thus a disciple of the Apostles, sent by Clement, successor of Peter, arrives in Gaul A.D. 250, and the identical names of his companions recur miraculously in the third century. At the very time that Trophimus is thus supposed to have arrived at Aries, we have a letter from Cyprian, A.D. 254, urging Pope Stephen to depose Marcion, 15th or 18th Bishop of Aries from Trophimus. Such is the basis upon which our critical friends build their house upon the sand.

THE PÈRES BOLANDISTES.

The Pères Bolandistes are a wonder in Christendom. They are critical, and yet follow the gross blunder of Gregory of Tours. They belong to the papal obedience, and yet prefer Gregory of Tours when wrong, to Gregory XIII., when right. They pronounce the solemn declaration of Pope John XIXth, “that Martial of Limoges was an apostolic man,” as of no historic value. They think that St. John Damascene did not possess the same critical apparatus for proving the authenticity of the writings of Dionysius, that we possess in the xixth Century. Their “actes authentiques” of Dionysius acknowledge that he was sent to Gaul by Clement, successor of Peter; and yet they affirm that he arrived in Gaul, A.D, 250. After Clement I., who succeeded Peter and Paul, there was not another Clement, Bishop of Rome, for a thousand years. Happily, Les petits Bolandistes are more rational and critical than their Pères.

GENERAL OBJECTION.

“The style, the theological learning, the language and allusions, prove the writings written after the apostolic age.”

Is the Epistolary style the proof? St. Paul, St. John, St. Peter, St. Luke, and nearly the whole of the New Testament is written under the form of Epistles. The Epistle of St. James,—the first written in the Canon of the New Testament,—will bear comparison with the book of Job for ornate diction. Consult the marginal references to the Epistle of St. Peter, to see the scriptural knowledge of the Apostles. Men use the testimony of the High Priests, that the Apostles were unlearned and ignorant men, but omit their testimony that they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus; and the further testimony, that Jesus opened their understanding, that they should understand the testimony of the Scriptures, respecting Himself; and further, that the Holy Spirit should recall to them whatever He had said to them. Those who would rather assume twenty miracles, than acknowledge one natural fact, surmise, that a Syrian, in the ivth century, may have written Greek permeated with technical expressions of Plato and Aristotle. There is not a single allusion to persons or events after the first century, unless it be supposed that the Epistle of Ignatius, A.D. 108, is quoted. The works abound in names recorded in the New Testament. The Apostolic Epistles allude to the leaven of heresy already working. The Antwerp edition gives about five hundred references to Holy Scripture in the Writings of Dionysius. He quotes every book in the Bible, except the two last particular Epistles of St. John, or John Presbyter. Dionysius writes four letters to Gaius, to whom St. John wrote his third Epistle. We have, therefore, in the writings of this Apostolic man, a proof that the Canonical Scriptures were quoted as the Oracles of God, in the first century, and a triumphant testimony that

Faith is more trustworthy than criticism.

Thanks be to God!

OBJECTIONS TO GENUINENESS.

THE most plausible objection to the genuineness of these writings is thus expressed by Dupin: “Eusebius and Jerome wrote an accurate catalogue of each author known to them—with a few obscure exceptions,—and yet never mention the writings of the Areopagite.” Great is the rejoicing in the House of the Anti-Areopagites over this PROOF;—but what are the facts? Eusebius acknowledges that innumerable works have not come to him—Jerome disclaims either to know or to give an accurate catalogue either of authors or works. The Library of Caesarea contained three hundred thousand volumes, according to the modest computation of Doublet, according to Schneider, many more—Jerome says there are some writings, so illustrious in themselves, that they will not suffer from not being mentioned by him; Jerome fallows Dionysius on the Heavenly Hierarchy; Jerome’s Catalogue of Illustrious Men contains one hundred and thirty-five names.

Josephus is mentioned for his testimony to Christ —Seneca, for his correspondence with St, Paul—Philo, for his description of the Therapeutse of Alexandria. Yet Dupin would have the unwary infer that Jerome gives a full catalogue of each Author known to him, with a few obscure exceptions.

The “Ecclesiastical History” of Eusebius treats of the nature of Christ, the companions of the Apostles, the Martyrdoms—the succession of Bishops—the persecutions—the folk-lore of the Church to the fourth Century. The Book would fill about 125 pages, yet Dupin would have us believe that he gives a complete catalogue; He does not give the writings of Hymenseus and Narcissus, of Athenagoras, and Pantaenus, nor a complete list of Clement, Origen, and Dionysius of Alexandria. His silence, in my opinion, is owing to “odium theologicum.” According to Eusebius, Jesus is διττός; according to Dionysius, Jesus is ἁπλοῦς; both true when properly understood, but when misunderstood—“Hinc lachrymae illae”—Dupin formed his premise for his conclusion, not from facts.

FALLACY OF NAMES.

Pearson, Daillé, Blundellum, Erasmus, Valla, Westcott, Lupton, pronounce against the genuineness. Who are you? But Pearson demolishes Daillé; Vossius pulverises Blundellum; Erasmus repudiates Valla. Dr. Westcott, following Dupin, assumes the non-genuineness, but his literary instinct places his Article on Dionysius before that on Origen. Dean Colet bumps the scale against Mr. Lupton.

Pearson, in the xth Chapter of Ignatii Vindiciae, gives the shortest and best summary in favour of the genuineness. Speaking of the scholars of his own day, he says, “No one is so ignorant as not to know that these writings were recognised as genuine by the best judges in the sixth, fifth, fourth, and third centuries.” Unhappily, he also said, Every “erudite” person regarded them in his day as written in the fourth century, and he assumed the date of Eusebius’ death, as the date of the works, to account for his silence. Hence every inerudite person, who wished to pass for erudite, maintained that opinion for his own reputation. But when Pearson had re-surveyed the evidence, he confessed, with shame, that though he had given, what seemed to him a true opinion, he left the decision of the whole matter to the judgment of a more learned person.

Erasmus, in his “Institutio” of a Christian Prince, writes thus:—“Divus ille Dionysius qui fecit tres Hierarchias.” In his prime work, “ratio verae religionis,” Erasmus not only enumerates the “Divine Names,” the “Mystic and Symbolic Theology,” but calls them, not Stoic, not Platonic, not Aristotelian, but “celestial” philosophy. He so moulds Dionysius into his book, that it becomes Dionysius writing elegant Latin. The only reason which outweighed with him all external testimony, was, that Erasmus could not imagine that any man, living in apostolic times, and so far removed from the age of Erasmus, could possibly have penned such a mirror of apostolic doctrine. How could the Areopagite, though disciple of Paul, and familiar friend of John Theologus, possibly be so learned as the author of these writings? Such is the testimony of the two Theologians who have been permitted to be doubtful of the genuineness.

GREGORY OF TOURS.

Gregory is the great authority of those who think that the St. Denis of France is not identical with Dionysius the Areopagite. The authority is worthy of their critical acumen. Gregory collects the more obscure martyrdoms, in Gaul, under Nero, and subsequent Emperors. He gives several martyrdoms under Nero, and thus proves the Apostolic Evangelisation of Gaul. Gregory quotes, and misquotes, and misunderstands the ancient document, “Concerning seven men sent by St. Peter into Gaul,—in Gallias—to preach.” “Under Claudius —sub CLDIO—Peter the Apostle sent certain disciples into Gaul to preach,—they were, Trophimus, Paulus, Martial, Austremonius, Gatianus, Saturninus, Valerius, and many companions.”—These men were sent A.D. 42–43. Gregory omits Valerius, and inserts Dionysius —who was not converted to the Christian Faith till A.D. 44 or 49. Then Gregory misreads “Claudio “for “consulibus Decio,” and adds, “Grato” as the fellow-consul. Thus a disciple of the Apostles, sent by Clement, successor of Peter, arrives in Gaul A.D. 250, and the identical names of his companions recur miraculously in the third century. At the very time that Trophimus is thus supposed to have arrived at Aries, we have a letter from Cyprian, A.D. 254, urging Pope Stephen to depose Marcion, 15th or 18th Bishop of Aries from Trophimus. Such is the basis upon which our critical friends build their house upon the sand.

THE PÈRES BOLANDISTES.

The Pères Bolandistes are a wonder in Christendom. They are critical, and yet follow the gross blunder of Gregory of Tours. They belong to the papal obedience, and yet prefer Gregory of Tours when wrong, to Gregory XIII., when right. They pronounce the solemn declaration of Pope John XIXth, “that Martial of Limoges was an apostolic man,” as of no historic value. They think that St. John Damascene did not possess the same critical apparatus for proving the authenticity of the writings of Dionysius, that we possess in the xixth Century. Their “actes authentiques” of Dionysius acknowledge that he was sent to Gaul by Clement, successor of Peter; and yet they affirm that he arrived in Gaul, A.D, 250. After Clement I., who succeeded Peter and Paul, there was not another Clement, Bishop of Rome, for a thousand years. Happily, Les petits Bolandistes are more rational and critical than their Pères.

GENERAL OBJECTION.

“The style, the theological learning, the language and allusions, prove the writings written after the apostolic age.”

Is the Epistolary style the proof? St. Paul, St. John, St. Peter, St. Luke, and nearly the whole of the New Testament is written under the form of Epistles. The Epistle of St. James,—the first written in the Canon of the New Testament,—will bear comparison with the book of Job for ornate diction. Consult the marginal references to the Epistle of St. Peter, to see the scriptural knowledge of the Apostles. Men use the testimony of the High Priests, that the Apostles were unlearned and ignorant men, but omit their testimony that they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus; and the further testimony, that Jesus opened their understanding, that they should understand the testimony of the Scriptures, respecting Himself; and further, that the Holy Spirit should recall to them whatever He had said to them. Those who would rather assume twenty miracles, than acknowledge one natural fact, surmise, that a Syrian, in the ivth century, may have written Greek permeated with technical expressions of Plato and Aristotle. There is not a single allusion to persons or events after the first century, unless it be supposed that the Epistle of Ignatius, A.D. 108, is quoted. The works abound in names recorded in the New Testament. The Apostolic Epistles allude to the leaven of heresy already working. The Antwerp edition gives about five hundred references to Holy Scripture in the Writings of Dionysius. He quotes every book in the Bible, except the two last particular Epistles of St. John, or John Presbyter. Dionysius writes four letters to Gaius, to whom St. John wrote his third Epistle. We have, therefore, in the writings of this Apostolic man, a proof that the Canonical Scriptures were quoted as the Oracles of God, in the first century, and a triumphant testimony that

Faith is more trustworthy than criticism.

Thanks be to God!

THE WORKS
OF
DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE.

PART II.

THE HEAVENLY HIERARCHY,
AND
THE ECCLESIASTICAL HIERARCHY

NOW FIRST TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH,
FROM THE ORIGINAL GREEK,
BY THE
REV. JOHN PARKER, M.A.,