On Dionysius the Areopagite and the Writings Supposedly Attributed to Him Against Gottfried Arnold

Of the Principal Chapters of the

Dissertation.

TO avoid the confusion of the illustrious Dionysii in Antiquity, the principal ones are reviewed and distinguished from one another: From the 2nd Century. Dionysius of Corinth. Beda, Comestor, and Hugo of St. Cher original: "Hugo Cardin." are noted according to Dorsch and Jo. Möller. §. II. from the 3rd Century. (1) Dionysius of Paris. It is investigated whether he was the same as the Areopagite. Authors for and against are cited. (2) Dionysius of Alexandria. (3) Dionysius of Rome. §. III. from the 6th Century. Dionysius Exiguus the Short. He is praised for his Collection of Ecclesiastical Canons and Pontifical Decretals. §. IV. from the 15th Century. Dionysius of Rickel. §. V. Dionysius the Areopagite is presented. The reason for the naming is given. The eulogy of Suidas. What happened to him at Heliopolis. The assembly of the Apostles at the tomb of Mary is rejected as a fabrication. The writers of the life of Dionysius the Areopagite: Hilduinus, St. Methodius, Nic. Gregoras, Mich. Syngelus, Perionius, Binet, and Halloix original: "Halloisius" are recommended. §. VI. The lost and extant writings of Pseudo-Dionysius are enumerated. Among their editions, the Antwerp edition of Corderius and the Paris edition are praised. Those desiring a richer knowledge of them are referred to Cave, de Nourry, and Ittig. §. VII. The disagreements of the learned regarding the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius. Why do the Papists fight for their authenticity? It is shown that the arguments of the Anti-Areopagite defenders of Dionysius prevail. The stronger patrons of either opinion are brought forward by name and at length. §. VIII. Arnold's inconsistency is noted. Has he been instructed with new arguments compared to the rest of the Areopagite's defenders? §. IX. The primary scope purpose of Arnold is to attack the negative argument of the Anti-Areopagites. Whose testimonies he invokes. Why he does not draw Dionysius of Alexandria and John Chrysostom into his party. The neglected opinion of Tentzel is preferred to that of Daille. §. X. The first testimony brought by Arnold is examined. Gregory of Nazianzus