Extant fragments.

 Containing various sections of the works.

 The works of dionysius.

 From the books on nature.

 Ii.—from the books on nature.

 Ii. a refutation of this dogma on the ground of familiar human analogies.

 Iii. a refutation on the ground of the constitution of the universe.

 Iv. a refutation of the same on the grounds of the human constitution.

 V. that to work is not a matter of pain and weariness to god.

 Iii.—from the books against sabellius. on the notion that matter is ungenerated.

 Epistle to dionysius bishop of rome.

 Iv.—epistle to dionysius bishop of rome.

 From the same first book.

 From the same first book.

 From the second book.

 From the same second book.

 From the same second book.

 From the third book.

 From the fourth book.

 About the middle of the treatise.

 And again:

 The conclusion of the entire treatise.

 The epistle to bishop basilides.

 V.—the epistle to bishop basilides.

 Canon ii.

 Canon iii.

 Canon iv.

 Containing epistles, or fragments of epistles.

 Part ii.—containing epistles, or fragments of epistles.

 Epistle ii.—to novatus.

 Epistle iii.—to fabius, bishop of antioch.

 Epistle iv.—to cornelius the roman bishop.

 Epistle v.—which is the first on the subject of baptism addressed to stephen, bishop of rome.

 Epistle vi.—to sixtus, bishop.

 Epistle vii.—to philemon, a presbyter.

 Epistle viii.—to dionysius.

 Epistle ix.—to sixtus ii.

 Epistle x.—against bishop germanus.

 Epistle xi.—to hermammon.

 Epistle xii.—to the alexandrians.

 Epistle xiii.—to hierax, a bishop in egypt.

 Epistle xiv.—from his fourth festival epistle.

 Elucidations.

Elucidations.

(Apocalypse, note 7, p. 105, and note 9, p. 106.)

The moderation of Dionysius is hardly less conspicuous than his fearlessness of inquiry in the questions he raises about the Apocalypse.316 P. 84, note 6. He utterly refuses to reject it.317 P. 82, note 6. He testifies to the value set upon it by his fellow-Christians. Only, he doubts as to (the John) the “inspired person” who was its author, and with critical skill exposes the inferiority of the Greek of the Apocalypse to that of the Gospel and Epistles of St. John. Obviously he accepts it as part of the canon, only doubting as to the author. Modestly he owns that it passes his understanding. So Calvin forbore to comment upon it, and owned to “headache” when he came to it.