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

denied having taken thoughts and words from the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius; indeed, it is rendered probable that Pseudo-Dionysius did this instead.
§. XI. The testimony of Isaac the Syrian is examined. It is doubted whether anyone of this name wrote the Book on Angels. Arnold’s impudence in citing uncertain and non-existent writings is criticized. §. XII. It is proved against Arnold that Isaac the Syrian was not a 4th-century writer. The foundation of the Arnoldine-Echellensis error is pointed out. Tentzel's learned conjecture on this matter.
§. XIII. Whether Juvenal of Jerusalem supports Arnold's cause. It is denied from his own writings. How much the testimony of Nicephorus Callisti is worth in this matter. The judgments of Bellarmine, Labbe, and others concerning the history of Nicephorus. §. XIV. It is shown that Nicephorus himself does not favor Arnold, based on the cited words of Nicephorus and their context. §. XV. It is shown that the testimony of Andrew of Caesarea does not hurt the Anti-Areopagites. §. XVI. What Arnold replies to the dissent of the first three centuries. Whether the Occult Theology of the Old Church, or the so-called disciplina arcani discipline of the secret, supports the concealment of the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius for so many centuries. It is proven against Schelstrate from Gebh. Th. Meier and Tentzel that it only obtained in the Church in the 4th and 5th centuries. §. XVII. Arnold's new argument is examined. Was it hidden from the learned in the Primitive Church by the Mystical Theology because of the mysteries the Areopagite's writings are said to contain? This is denied, given the counter-argument from the books of the New Testament, which are full of mysteries yet read by everyone, including the Gentiles themselves. §. XVIII. Arnold’s absurd epiphonema concluding exclamation. The power of the negative argument is discussed.
§. XIX. Arnold's exception, taken from the silence of Eusebius and Jerome, is met, and his dishonesty is noted. §. XX. Another specimen of Arnold's dishonesty and cunning. Why Arnold attacks the negative argument of the Anti-Areopagites, when they enjoy many more affirmative ones. Two are brought as examples. 1. That he mentions temples, altars, and other things of this kind, which are proper to later centuries. 2. That he denies being a disciple of the Apostles. It is indicated where more such arguments may be found. §. XXI. Arnold is argued to have defended a bad cause even worse. Bellarmine's judgment concerning this controversy over Pseudo-Dionysius. Ittig's witty retort to Bellarmine. The dissertation is concluded with the words of Casaubon.