Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book I: On the Canonical Books
Chapter 5: On the heretics who attacked the books of the first order of the Old Testament
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. I, De Verbo Dei, Book I: On the Canonical Books of Scripture. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Although in the Catholic Church the authority of the enumerated books, by the consent of all the orthodox, has always flourished, yet there were not wanting heretics who strove to withdraw from those same books all authority whatsoever. And since those heresies of theirs, long ago by the diligence of our forefathers extinguished and buried, have again in this our age been pursued with the pen by Sixtus of Siena in the last part of his Bibliotheca, I will as briefly as I can rid myself of those ancient foes, or rather shadows of foes. Eighteen heresies, then, against those books which we recounted in the first order, arose at diverse times.
The first is of those who rejected the books of the Old Testament altogether, because they thought them dictated by a certain evil god. So held first the Simonians, Basilidians, and Marcionites, in Irenaeus, book 1, chapters 20, 22, 29; then the Manichees, in Epiphanius, heresy 66; the Bogomiles, in Euthymius, part 2 of the Panoply, title 23, chapter 1; the Albigenses, in Antoninus, part 4, title 11, chapter 7. In our age too, fifteen preachers of the Anabaptists, in the Colloquy of Frankenthal, judged that the Old Testament was to be admitted into a dispute of faith no otherwise than in so far as it agrees with the New. This heresy is refuted by Epiphanius in the heresy of the Manichees, by Augustine both in the books against Faustus the Manichee and in the two others against the adversary of the law and the prophets, and by Peter of Cluny in the epistle against the Petrobrusians. And truly it seems a thing to be wondered at, that those heretics who venerated the books of the New Testament could contemn the books of the Old, since these have from those very books the most numerous and most splendid testimonies of their authority: It is necessary, says the Lord, that all things be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me. And the Apostle: Paul, an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, which he had promised before by his prophets in the holy Scriptures. And again: It is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a bondwoman, and one by a free woman; which things are said by an allegory: for these are the two testaments. Likewise elsewhere: God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all hath spoken to us by his Son, etc.
The second heresy was of a certain Ptolemy, who (as Epiphanius relates, heresy 33) divided the law of Moses among three authors, and made the Creator of the world the author of one part, Moses of another, the Elders of the Synagogue of a third. Nor was the Creator of the world to Ptolemy the true God, but a certain middle power between God and the Devil. And so he judged not only the whole law, but not even any part of it, to be sacred and divine. This heresy is refuted by Zachary in Luke, chapter 1, where he testifies that the Lord God of Israel spoke by the mouths of the saints who are from the beginning, that is, of all his prophets. The same is refuted by the Apostle Paul, when he affirms that all Scripture is divinely inspired, 2 Timothy 3.
The third is the heresy of Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia, who indeed rejects not the prophets openly, but, while he impudently affirms that they never foretold anything of Christ (as can be understood from the fragments of his commentaries which are recited in the Fifth Synod, collation 4), both too much extenuates the profit and authority of the prophets themselves, and makes Christ himself and the Apostles guilty of most manifest lies. For what else than a lie will that be which the Truth itself says of himself, when, the testimony of Isaias being read through, he subjoined: This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears? what else than a lie will that be which Peter says: To him all the prophets give testimony? I pass over the other testimonies of the prophets, which everywhere in the New Testament are expounded of Christ by the Evangelists and Apostles. For they are so many that they cannot briefly be numbered. See Matthew 1, 2, 4, 12, 21, 27; Mark 12, 15; Luke 11; John 2, 12, 19; Acts 2, 4, 13; Ephesians 4; Hebrews 1, 10, etc.
The fourth heresy rejects the Psalms of David as human, or rather profane, songs, written without any divine inspiration. Philastrius, in the catalogue of heretics, chapter 127, makes the Nicolaitans and Gnostics the authors of this error. Eusebius, book 7 of the History, chapter 25, left it in writing that Paul of Samosata took away from the Church those Psalms which were sung to Christ, as though recently invented. But perhaps that Paul removed from his church not so much the Psalms of David as certain ecclesiastical hymns. For it is not credible that the Psalms of David could, after so many ages, have seemed to Samosata to be recently invented. This raving is refuted in most plain words, both by David himself, and also by Christ and the Apostles: These are the last words, says the author of the book of Kings, which David the son of Isai said: the man to whom it was appointed concerning the Christ of the God of Jacob, the excellent psalmist of Israel, said: The Spirit of the Lord hath spoken by me, and his word by my tongue. And the Lord: How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying: The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on my right hand? which words are read written in Psalm 109. And all the Apostles with one voice: Thou, O Lord, who by the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of our father David thy servant, hast said: Why did the Gentiles rage? Psalm 2. Finally the Apostle Paul, in the epistle to the Hebrews: As the Holy Ghost saith: To-day if you shall hear his voice; which are the words of Psalm 94.
The fifth heresy is of the Hebrews, who in the Talmud, order 4, tract 3, neither have the book of Job among the divine volumes, nor think that Job himself ever lived among men. The later Rabbis, as R. Solomon, R. Levi ben Gerson, and some others, seem indeed to receive the book, seeing they attempted to illustrate it with commentaries; but Job himself they reprove not once nor lightly. For R. Solomon boldly affirms that holy Job, impatient of the calamity which had befallen him, sinned not in words but in heart; and R. Levi, going further, writes that this blessed man paid most just penalties for denying the divine providence and the resurrection of the dead. Martin Luther too, in the Table Talk, under the title Of the Patriarchs and Prophets, affirms that he does not believe that all things were so done as they are narrated in the book of Job; and again, under the title Of the books of the Old and New Testament, he says that the book of Job is as it were the argument of a fable, to set forth an example of patience. But truly, that the history of Job was not feigned, and that Job himself was truly a holy and perfect man, Ezechiel can be a most abundant witness against the Hebrews: If, says God by Ezechiel, these three men were in the midst thereof, Noe, Daniel, and Job, they shall deliver their own souls by their justice. To pass over meanwhile what Tobias, chapter 3, and James, chapter 5, write of holy Job; and also what out of this book, chapter 5, the Apostle brings forward (as out of the rest of the divine Scripture), 1 Corinthians 3; for the testimonies of these the Talmudists receive not.
The sixth heresy is of those heretics who (as Philastrius witnesses, in the catalogue of heresies, chapter 132, and James of Christopolis, in the preface of his commentaries on the Canticle) reject the book of Solomon which is entitled Ecclesiastes, because Solomon seems to have composed that book in his extreme old age, when, depraved by the love of women, he placed the highest good in the pleasures of the body, and made a way for the philosophy of Epicurus or Aristippus. Martin Luther, in the Table Talk, under the title Of the books of the Old and New Testament, says that the author of the book entitled Ecclesiastes seems to him to be without boots and spurs, and to ride only in slippers, as he himself was wont to do while yet he was in the monastery. But so far is it from being the case that Solomon's Ecclesiastes preaches of pleasure, that rather it exhorts with the gravest discourse, as a severe and vehement master of morals, to the contempt of human things and the fear of God. What is that exordium? Vanity of vanities, said Ecclesiastes: vanity of vanities, and all is vanity. What that peroration? Let us all hear together the end of speaking: Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is all man. Nor do the middle parts disagree: Laughter I counted error, and to mirth I said, Why art thou vainly deceived? And: I said in my heart, God shall judge both the just and the wicked. And: Keep thy foot when thou goest into the house of God, and draw near to hear; for much better is obedience than the victims of fools. And: Speak not any thing rashly, and let not thy heart be hasty to utter a word. And: It is better to go to the house of mourning than to the house of feasting. And: Because sentence is not speedily pronounced against the evil, the children of men commit evils without any fear. And: Better is wisdom than weapons of war; and he that shall offend in one thing shall lose many good things. And: Woe to thee, O land, whose king is a child, and whose princes eat in the morning. Blessed is the land whose king is noble, and whose princes eat in due season, for refreshment, and not for riotousness. Finally: Know that for all these God will bring thee into judgment. Remove anger from thy heart, and put away evil from thy flesh; for youth and pleasure are vain. Do these things savor of Aristippus? Or did ever such severe precepts come forth from the workshop of Epicurus?
But if Ecclesiastes sometimes teaches that the delight of eating and drinking is not to be spurned, he does it not because he measures all things by pleasure, but that he may rebuke certain covetous and sordid men, who choose rather to defraud themselves of the necessary and lawful conveniences and delights of human life than to take away even the least from their heap of money. And not a few things also are said in this book, not from the opinion of Solomon, but from the opinion of the common crowd and of foolish and voluptuous men; which St. Gregory elegantly and copiously shows, book 4 of the Dialogues, chapter 4. Nor is that truly affirmed by the heretics, that this book was written at the time when Solomon was corrupted by the love of women; which can be demonstrated by four reasons. First, because in the third book of Kings, chapters 4 and 11, and in the book entitled Ecclesiasticus, chapter 47, when the acts of Solomon are recounted in order, it is narrated of his books before his loves. Then, in this very book of which we treat, Ecclesiastes constantly affirms that his wisdom, which of course he had once received by a divine gift, remained with him even to that age: My wisdom also remained with me, he says; but it is not likely that the light of heavenly wisdom could dwell together with that depravation of heart of which the Scripture speaks, when it says, 3 Kings 11: And the women turned away his heart; and when he was now old, his heart was depraved by women, to follow strange gods. Then, in the second chapter of this book Solomon enumerates all his delights, his palaces, fishponds, orchards, menservants, maidservants, songs, harmonies, vessels of gold and of silver, and very many other things of the kind; but of so many concubines and wives, before which he easily contemned all other delights, and which alone could soften and corrupt his heart, he makes not even mention. He had not therefore yet begun to love, at the time he was composing this book. Lastly, who would believe that from a mind so soft and effeminate as was Solomon's, when he served the loves of seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines, such grave sentences as we a little before recited could have proceeded? I am not ignorant that it is the opinion of the ancient Jews (as St. Jerome witnesses on chapter 1 of Ecclesiastes) that this book was composed by Solomon after he had done penance for his sins; which opinion the same Jerome seems also to approve in the Commentary on Ezechiel, chapter 43. But I have always thought the opinion of St. Augustine the more probable, who, on Psalm 126 and often elsewhere, writes that Solomon was reprobated by God, because the divine Scripture most gravely reproves his old age, and nowhere adds anything of penance. Yet if any prefer to follow the former opinion, I hinder it not, since either opinion serves for that which we now treat. And thus far of Ecclesiastes.
The seventh heresy is not unlike the former. For, as Philastrius, chapter 133, and James of Christopolis in the place noted have left in writing, there were not wanting among the ancient heretics who thought that the Canticle of Canticles was written not by the Spirit of the true God, but by the inspiration of Cupid, and that nothing else was comprehended in that Canticle than the amorous discourses of King Solomon and of his wife, the daughter of Pharao. Wherefore the Canticle was profane, and for that cause no name of God is found in the whole book; which same thing Beza attributes to Castalio, in the preface on Josue. But if that bride, who in these songs is so greatly celebrated, were the daughter of Pharao, that is, of a most powerful king, how many things would be said most ineptly by a most wise man! Can that of Canticle 1 suit a king's daughter: The sons of my mother have fought against me; they have made me the keeper in the vineyards: my vineyard I have not kept? Or that also in the same place: Go forth after the steps of thy flocks, and feed thy kids? What of this: The keepers that go about the city found me: they struck me, and wounded me? What likewise of this: Who shall give thee to me for my brother, sucking the breasts of my mother, that I may find thee without, and kiss thee? Who would believe the daughter of the King of Egypt to be either a rustic woman, or the sister of Solomon, or to have been able to be wounded by the keepers of the walls? But the same who in one place is described as a rustic, in another is called the daughter of a prince: How beautiful are thy steps in shoes, O prince's daughter! And again, she who in chapter 5 is said to be wounded by the keepers of the walls, the same in chapter 6 is brought in as terrible as an army set in array. Without doubt this is the prudence of the Holy Spirit, that God, to explain his benevolence toward the human race, and with how ardent a charity, through the mystery of the Incarnation, Christ joined the Church to himself as a bride, willed long before to sing a nuptial song. And that no occasion might be given of suspecting that either the daughter of Pharao, or some other certain woman, was praised in that song, he willed those things to be written of his bride which could be applied to no one woman. For which reason also we believe it was brought to pass that, when the bride's beauty is commended and, as it were, painted in her own colors, those things are said which indeed most aptly suit the Church, but could rather disgrace than adorn any woman. For what would be the beauty of that woman whose head was vast as Carmel, whose nose as a tower, whose eyes as fishponds, whose teeth as flocks of shorn sheep, but she herself all black as the tents of Cedar? Nor is that beside the purpose, that of the ten names of God which everywhere occur in the divine books of the Old Testament, and are briefly explained in the epistle of St. Jerome to Marcella (which is the 136th), not one has place in this spiritual epithalamium. For in the rest of the books of the Old Testament, God, because he dealt with the synagogue, that is, with the handmaid, again and again named himself God, Lord, mighty, almighty; but in the Canticle of love, where the Son of God speaks with the Church, that is, the bridegroom with the bride, he deservedly passes over those names which were fitted to strike terror, and calls himself only bridegroom, father, friend, lover, and beloved; which names pertain to cherishing or exciting love.
The eighth heresy is of Porphyry, of whom St. Jerome thus writes, in the preface of his Commentaries on Daniel: “Against the prophet Daniel Porphyry writes his twelfth book, being unwilling that it should have been composed by him whose name it bears, but by some one who lived in Judea in the times of Antiochus who was called Epiphanes; and that Daniel did not so much foretell things to come as that man narrate things past. Finally, that whatsoever he said down to Antiochus contains true history; but if he opined anything beyond, since he knew not the future, he lied.” And, to pass over the divine testimony of Christ concerning the book of Daniel from chapter 24 of St. Matthew, which is not received by Porphyry: Josephus writes, book 11 of the Antiquities, chapter 8, that to Alexander the Great, coming to Jerusalem, the volume of Daniel was offered by the priests, and that place shown him in chapter 8, where Daniel both foretold and expounded that the ram should be overcome and put to flight by the he-goat, that is, the King of the Persians by the King of the Greeks. But since Alexander preceded Antiochus by more than a hundred and fifty years, by what reason can it be that this book was written in the time of Antiochus, which was shown so long before to Alexander? And that the prophecies which follow in Daniel after the age of Antiochus are not lies, as Porphyry will have it, but most true oracles, he at length will understand who shall diligently unroll those books which St. Jerome, in the preface of his Commentary on Daniel, admonishes are to be read.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT Y. De hcereticis, qui libros Testamenti veteris primi ordinis oppugnarunt. Et si vero in Ecclesia Catholica, Orthodo¬ xorum omnium consensione enumeratorum librorum semper viguit auctoritas ; non de¬ fuere tamen haeretici , qui libris iisdem om¬ nem prorsus auctoritatem detrahere niteren¬ tur. Quoniam autem illas eorum haereses majorum nostrorum diligentia jamdudum exstinctas ac sepultas , rursum hoc nostro saeculo Sixtus Senensis in extrema sua Bi¬ bliotheca stylo prosecutus est, quam bre¬ vissime potero ab antiquis istis non tam hos¬ tibus, quam umbris hostium me expediam. Igitur decem et octo haereses adversus eos libros, quos in primo ordine recensuimus, diversis temporibus exstiterunt. Prima eorum est, qui libros Testamenti veteris, quod eos a malo Deo quodam dicta¬ tos existimarent , in universum respuebant. Ita sensere primum Simoniani , Basilidiani, Marcionitse apudlrenaeum lib. I cap. 20, 22, 29., deinde Manichaei apud Epiphan. haeres. 66. Bogomiles apud Eutymium Panopliae par. II. tit. 23, cap. 1. Albig^nses apud An- tonin. par. IV. tit. 11. c. 7. Nostro etiam sae¬ culo, quindecim Anabaptistarumprcedicantes in Colloquio Franckenthal, vetus Testamen¬ tum haud aliter in disputationem Fidei ad¬ mittendum censuerunt, quam quatenus cum novo Testamento concordat. Refellunt hanc haeresimEpiphaniusin hae- resi. Manichaeorum, Augustinus, cum in lib. adversus Faustum Manichaeum , tum in aliis duobus contra adversarium legis et Prophe¬ tarum, et Petrus Cluniacensis in epist. con¬ tra Petrobrusianos. Et sane mirandum videtur, eos haereticos qui Testamenti novi libros venerabantur, contemnere potuisse libros Testamenti vete¬ ris, cum hi ab illis et plurima et luculen¬ tissima suae auctoritatis habeant testimonia : Necesse est, inquit Dominus, impleri omnia quee scripta sunt in lege Moysi , et Prophetis, et Psalmis de me (2). Et Apostolus : Paulus, inquit, Apostolus segregatus in Euangelium Dei, quod ante promiserat per Prophetas suos in Scripturis sanctis (3). et rursum: Scriptum est, quia Abraham duos filios habuit , unum de ancilla, et unum de libera , quee sunt per alle¬ goriam dicta : heee enim sunt duo Testamen¬ ta (4). Item alibi : Multifariam multisquee modis , olim Deus loquens Patribus in Prophe¬ tis, novissime locutus est nobis in Filio, etc. (5) Altera haeresis Ptolomaei cujusdam fuit : qui, ut Epiphanius refert haeres. NXX1II, legem Mosis tres in patres dividebat ; atque unius quidem mundi Opificem auctorem fa¬ ciebat, alterius Mosem , tertiae Seniores Sy¬ nagogae. Nec vero mundi Opifex Ptolomaeo Deus verus erat, sed medium quoddam nu¬ men inter Deum , et Diabolum. Itaque non modo legem universam , sed nec ullam ejus partem sacram divinamque esse censebat. Refellit hanc haeresim Zacharias apud Lu¬ cam, c. I., ubi testatur, Dominum Deum Is¬ rael locutum esse per ora Sanctorum , qui a saeculo sunt, id est, omnium Prophetarum ejus. Refellit eamdem Apostolus Paulus, cum omnem Scripturam divinitus inspiratam esse affirmat, II Timoth. III. Tertia est haeresis Theodori Mopsuestiae Episcopi, qui Prophetas omnes, non quidem aperte rejicit, sed dum impudenter affirmat, nihil eos de Christo unquam praedixisse , ut ex fragmentis commentariorum ejus quae in V Synodo collat 4, recitantur intelligi pot¬ est, cum ipsorum Prophetarum utilitatem et auctoritatem nimium extenuat, tum ipsum Christum et Apostolos clarissimorum men¬ ti) Nunc videri potest explicitius in Spicilegio Solesmensi. — (2) Luc. XXIV. 44. — (3) Rorn. 1. 1 — (4) Ga^at. IV. 22. — (5) Hebr. 1. 1. 2. 76 LIBER I. daciorum reos facit. Quid enim aliud, quam mendacium erit, quod ipsa veritas de se ait, cum perlecto testimonio Isaiae subjunxit : Hodie impleta est hcec Scriptura in auribus vestris ? (1) quid aliud quam mendacium erit, quod Petrus ait : Huic omnes Prophetce testi¬ monium perhibent ? (2) Omitto csetera Prophetarum testimonia, quae passim in Testamento novo de Christo ab Evangelistis et Apostolis explicantur. Tot enim sunt, ut brevi enumerari non possint. Vide Matth. I, II, IV, XII, XXI, XXVII, Mare. XII, XV, Luc. XI, Joan. II, XII, XIX, Actor. II, IV, XIII, Ephes. IV, Hebr. I, X, etc. Quarta haeresis Psalmos Pavidis ut huma¬ na, vel profana potius cantica / sine ullo di¬ vino afflatu conscripta repudiat. Auctores hujus erroris Philasfcrius in catalogo haeret, cap. 127, Nicolaitas et Gnosticos facit. Pau¬ lum Samosatenum scriptum reliquit Euse- bius lib. VII. hist. c. 25, Psalmos illos, qui in Christum canebantur, tanquam recens exco¬ gitatos de Ecclesia sustulisse. Sed fortasse Paulus iste non tam Psalmos Davidis, quam Hymnos aliquos Ecclesiasti¬ cos ab Ecclesia sua removit. Neque enim credibile est, Davidis Psalmos post tot secu¬ la Samosateno recens excogitatos videri po¬ tuisse. Sane deliramentum hoc refellunt aper¬ tissimis verbis, cum ipse David , tum etiam Christus et Apostoli : Hcec sunt novissima verba , inquit auctor libri Regum , quee dixit David. filius Isai : dixit vir cui constitutum est de Christo Dei Jacob , egregius Psaltes Israel : Spiritus Domini locutus est per me, et sermo ejus per linguam meam (3) ; et Dominus : Quo¬ modo ergo David in spiritu vocat eum Dominum dicens : Dixit Dominus Domino meo sede a dex¬ tris meis ? (4) quae verba in. CIX Psal. scri¬ pta leguntur. Et Apostoli omnes una voce, Tu Domine , inquiunt , qui Spiritu sancto per os patris nostri David pueri tui dixisti : Quare fremuerunt gentes , Ps. II. (5) Denique Apost. Paulus ini. epist. ad Hebraeos : Sicut dixit , inquit, Spiritus sanctus : hodie si vocem ejus audieritis ; quae sunt verba Ps. XCIV. (6) Quinta haeresis Hebraeorum est, quiinTal- mud. ord. IV, tract. 3., nec librum Job in divinis voluminibus habent , nec ipsum Job unquam vixisse inter homines putant. Poste¬ riores Rabbini , ut R. Salomon. R. Levi ben Gerson, et alii nonnulli , librum quidem re¬ cipere videntur, quippe quem commentariis illustrare conati sunt; sed ipsum Job non semel , nec leviter reprehendunt. Siquidem R. Salomon audacter affirmat, Sanctum Job impatientem calamitatis quae illi acciderat, non verbis, sed corde peccasse; R. autem Levi ulterius progressus scribit : hunc bea¬ tum virum abnegatae providentiae divinae, resurrectionisquemortuorum justissimas poe¬ nas dedisse. Marti nus quoque Lutherus in conviviali¬ bus sermonibus, tit. de Patriarchis et Pro¬ phetis, affirmat , se non credere omnia ita esse gesta, ut in lib. Job narrantur. Et rur¬ sus tit. de lib. veteris et novi Testamenti ait : librum Job esse veluti fabulae argu¬ mentum ad proponendum patientiae exem¬ plum. At profecto, nec historiam Job esse confi¬ ctam, et ipsum Job vere Sanctum atque per¬ fectum virum fuisse , locupletissimus testis adversus Hebraeos Ezechiel esse potest : Si fuerint , inquit Deus per Ezechielem, tresviri isti in medio ejus , l\oe, Daniel , et Job , ipsi in justitia sua liberabunt animas suas (7) : ut in- terim omittamus, quae de S. Job, Tobias c. III. et Jacobus cap.V. scribunt; necnon quae ex hoc libro c. V. Apostolus , ut ex reliqua divina Scriptura , in medium adducit I. Co- rint. III ; horum enim testimonia Thalmudis- tae non recipiunt. Sexta haeresis eorum est haereticorum, qui teste Pliilastrio in Catal. haereseon, cap. 132. et Jacobo Christopolitano, praefatione com¬ mentariorum in Cantica, librum Salomonis repudiant, qui inscribitur Ecclesiastes, quod eum librum Salomon in extrema senectute composuisse videatur , cum depravatus amore mulierum, summum bonum in cor¬ poris voluptatibus constituebat, atque ad Epicuri, sive Aristippi philosophiam aditum parabat. Martinus Lutherus in convivialibus ser¬ monibus, tit. de lib. veteris et novi Testa¬ menti, dicit, auctorem libri, qui Ecclesiastes inscribitur, sibi videri ocreis et calcaribus destitutum, equitare tantum in soccis, que¬ madmodum ipse soleret, cum adhuc esset in coenobio. Sed tantum abest, ut Salomonis Ecclesia¬ stes de voluptate concionetur, ut omnes po- I (1) Luc. IV, 21. — (2) Act. X. 46. —(3) 11. Reg. Xlll. 1. — (4) Matii. XXII. 46. — (5) Act. IV. 26. — (6) Hebr. 111.7. 8. — (7) Cap. XIV. 14. CAPUT y. 77 tius ad humanarum rerum despicientiam Deiqne metum, quasi magister morum se¬ verus et vehemens, oratione gravissima ad- hortetur. Quale est illud exordium? Vanitas vanitatum , dixit Ecclesiastes : Vanitas vanita¬ tum et omnia vanitas (1). Qualis illa perora¬ tio ? Finem loquendi pariter omnes audiamus ; Deum time , et mandata ejus observa , hoc est enim omnis homo (2). Nec vero media dissen¬ tiunt : Risum , inquit, reputavi errorem , et gaudio dixi , cur frustra deciperis ? (3). Et : Dixi in corde meo , justum et impium judicabit Deus (4). Et : Custodi pedem tuum ingrediens domum Dei et appropinqua ut audias : multo enim melior est obedientia , quam stultorum. vic¬ timae (3). Et: Ne temere quid loquaris, nec cor tuum sit velox ad proferendum sermonem. Et : Melius est ire ad domum luctus , quam ad do¬ mum convivii (6). Et : Quia non profertur cito contra malos sententia , absque timore ullo filii hominum perpetrant mala (7). Et: Melior est sapientia , quam arma bellica , et qui in uno pec¬ caverit, multa bona perdet (8). Et : Vae tibi terra , cujus Rex puer est , et cujus Principes, mane comedunt. Beata terra , cujus Rex nobilis est , e/ cujus Principes vescuntur in tempore suo, ad reficiendum , et non adluxuriam (9). Deni¬ que : 6'«Yo, quod pro his omnibus adducet te Deus in judicium. Aufer iram a corde tuo , et amove malitiam a carne tua : adolescentia enim et voluptas vana sunt (10). Num ista sapiunt Aris lippum ? Anne unquam ex Epicuri offi¬ cina lam severa pra3cepta prodierunt? Quod si Ecclesiastes interdum edendi et bibendi delectationem non esse aspernan¬ dam praecipit, non eo facit, quod omnia vo¬ luptate metiatur, sed ut avaros et sordidos quosdam perstringat, qui malunt necessariis ac licitis vitee humanae commodis et delecta¬ tionibus seipsos fraudare, quam de cumulo pecuniarum vel minimum detrahere. Nec pauca etiam sunt, quae in hoc libro non ex sententia Salomonis, sed ex vulgi, at¬ que insipientium, et voluptariorum homi¬ num opinione dicuntur : quod eleganter et copiose demonstrat S. Gregorius, lib. IV Dialog. cap. 4. Sed nec illud vere ab haereticis affirmatur, librum hunc eo tempore esse conscriptum, quo Salomon amore mulierum corruptus erat ; id quod quatuor rationibus demons¬ trari potest. Primum enim in III. lib. Reg. cap. IV etXI. et in eo libro qui Ecclesiasticus inscribitur, cap. XLVII, cum ordine recen¬ seantur acta Salomonis prius de libris ejus, quam de amoribus narratur. Deinde in hoc ipso libro, de quo agimus, constanter affirmat Ecclesiastes, sapientiam suam, quam videlicet divino munere quon¬ dam acceperat, ad eam usque aetatem se- cum permansisse : Sapientia quoque, inquit, perseveravit mecum( 11) : non est autem veri¬ simile, coelestis sapientiae lumen cum ea cordis depravatione simul habitare potuisse, de qua loquitur Scriptura, cum ait III Reg. XI. Et averterunt mulieres cor ejus ; cumque jam ess"et senex , depravatum - est cor ejus per mulieres, ut sequeretur Deos alienos (12). Deinde in secundo capite hujus libri enu- meratlSalomon omnes delicias suas, palatia, piscinas, pomaria, servos, ancillas, cantica, modulationes^ aurea vasa atque argentea, et alia id genus permulta ; tot vero concubina¬ rum atque uxorum, prae quibus omnes alias delicias facile contemnebat, quaeque solee cor ejus emollire atque corrumpere potue¬ runt, nec meminit quidem. Amare igitur nondum ceeperat, quo tempore librum hunc conficiebat. Postremo, quis credat ab animo illo tam molli, atque effeminato, qualis erat Salomo¬ nis, cum is septingentarum conjugum, et trecentarum pellicum amoribus inserviret, tam graves sententias, quales paulo ante re¬ citavimus, proficisci potuisse? Non ignoro, sententiam veterum Judajo- rum esse, teste S. Hieronymo in c. I Ec- clesiastaj, librum hunc esse compositum a Salomone post peractam peccatorum poeni¬ tentiam, quam etiam sententiam idem Hie¬ ronymus approbare videtur in Commenta¬ rio Ezechielis, cap. XLIII, sed probabilio¬ rem semper existimavi S. Augustini senten¬ tiam, qui in Psal. CXXVI etalil^ssepe, Salo¬ monem reprobatum a Deo fuisse scribit, quod Scriptura divina senectutem ejus gravissime reprehendat, nec de poenitentia aliquid us¬ quam addat. Si quis tamen priorem senten¬ tiam sequi malit, nihil impedio, cum utra¬ que sententia ad id, quod modo agimus, de¬ serviat. Atque hactenus de Ecclesiaste. Septima hseresis non dissimilis est supe- (1) Eccl. 1. 2. — (2) Eccl. Xll. 13. — (3) Eccl. 11. 2. — (4) Eccl. 111. 17. — (5) Eccl. IV. 17. — (6) Eccl. Vll. 3. — (7) Eccl. VJU. 11. — (8) Eccl. IX. 18. — (9) Eccl. X. 16. — (10) Eccl. XI, 9. — (11) Eccl. 11. 9. — (12) 11. Reg. IX. 3. et 4. 78 LIBER L riori, ut enim Philastrius c. 133. et Jacobus Christopolitanus loco notato scriptum reli¬ querunt ; non defuerunt ex antiquis haereti¬ cis, qui existimarunt, Canticum Canticorum, non spiritu Dei veri, sed Cupidinis afflatu scriptum esse , nihilque aliud eo Cantico comprehendi, quam sermones amatorios Sa¬ lomonis Regis, et uxoris ejus filiae Pliaraonis. Quocirca profanum esse Canticum, eaquede causa nullum in toto libro Dei nomen inve¬ niri, quod idemCastalioni tribuit Beza, prae¬ fatione in Josue. At si sponsa illa quae in his carminibus tantopere celebratur, filia Pharaonis, id est, potentissimi Regis esset, quam multa inep¬ tissime a sapientissimo homine dicerentur! An illud Cant. I. in filiam Regis convenire potest : Filii matris mete pugnaverunt contra me , posuerunt me custodem in vineis : Vineam meam non custodivi (1)? Num etiam illud ibi¬ dem : Abi post vestigia gregum tuorum , et pasce hcedos tuos (2) ? Quid illucl : Invenerunt me custodes , qui circumeunt civitatem , percus¬ serunt me , et vulneraverunt me( 3)? Quid item illud : Quis mihi det , te fratrem meum sugen¬ tem ubera matius mete , ut inveniam te foris , et deosculer te ( 4)? Quis credat filiam Regis Hllgypti vel mulierem rusticanam, vel soro¬ rem Salomonis esse, vel a custodibus muro¬ rum vulnerari potuisse ? At eadem, quae alicubi ut rusticana des¬ cribitur , alibi filia principis appellatur : Quam pulchri , inquit, sunt gressus tui in cal¬ ceamentis filia Principis (f). Et rursum, qua; cap . Y vulnerata dicitur a murorum custo¬ dibus, eadem cap. YI, terribilis introduci¬ tur, ut castrorum acies ordinata. Nimirum haec est prudentia Spiritus sancti, ut expli¬ caret Deus benevolentiam suam in genus humanum, et quam ardenti charitate per mysterium Incarnationis Ecclesiam, quaSi sponsam aliquam, sibi Christus copulaverit, multo ante ^ani voluit carmen nuptiale. Ut autem nulla daretur occasio suspican¬ di, vel filiam Pharaonis, vel aliam certam feminam isto carmine laudari, ea de sponsa sua scribi voluit, quae nulli uni mulieri ap¬ tari possent. . Qua etiam ratione factum esse credimus, ut cum sponsae forma commendatur, et quasi coloribus suis depingitur, ea dicantur, qua; aptissime quidem in Ecclesiam conve¬ niunt, feminam vero aliquam dedecorare potius quam ornare possint. Qua; namque esset species ejus mulieris, cujus caput esset vastum ut Carmelus, nasus ut turris, oculi ut piscina;, dentes ut greges ovium deton¬ sarum, ipsa vero tota nigra ut tabernacula Cedar. Neque vero illud alienum est, quod ex de¬ cem nominibus Dei, quse passim occurrunt in divinis libris Testamenti veteris, quaeque breviter explicantur in epist. S. Hieronymi ad Marcellam, quse est n. 136, nullum in hoc spirituali epithalamio locum habet. Si¬ quidem in reliquis libris Testamenti veteris, Deus, quod ageret cum synagoga, id est, cum ancilla, identidem se Deum, Dominum, fortem, omnipotentem nominabat ; in Can¬ ticis vero amoris, ubi Dei Filius cum Eccle¬ sia, id est, sponsus cum sponsa colloquitur, merito ea nomina praetermittit, quse ad in¬ cutiendum terrorem accommodata erant: et solum se sponsum, patrem, amicum, aman¬ tem, atque amatum appellat; quse nomina ad amorem fovendum, vel excitandum per¬ tinent. Octava hseresis Porphyrii est, de quo ita scribit S. Hieronymus, praefatione Commen¬ tariorum in Danielem : « Contra Prophetam Danielem duodecimum librum scribit Por- phyrius, nolens eum ab ipso, cujus inscrip¬ tus est nomine, esse compositum, sed a quo¬ dam, qui temporibus Antiochi, qui appella¬ tus est Epiphanes, fuerit in Judsea : et non tam Danielem ventura dixisse, quam illum narrasse praeterita. Denique quidquid usque ad Antiochum dixerit, veram historiam con¬ tinere : si quid autem ultra opinatus sit, quia futura nescierit, esse mentitum. » Ac, ut omittamus de libro Danielis divi¬ num Christi testimonium ex cap. XXIY S. Matthaei, quod a Porphyrio non recipitur, scribit Joseph. lib. XI. Antiq. cap. 8., Ale¬ xandro Magno venienti Hierosolymam, obla¬ tum a sacerdotibus fuisse volumen Danielis, atque eum locum c. YIII demonstratum, ubi arietem ab 'hirco, id est, Regem Persarum a Rege Graecorum devictum ac profligatum iri, Daniel idem et praedicabat, et explana¬ bat. Cum autem Alexander Antiochum annis amplius centum et quinquaginta praecesse¬ rit, qua ratione fleri potest ut is liber Antio¬ chi tempore scriptus fuerit, qui tanto ante Alexandro demonstratus fuit? Quae vero post Antiochi aetatem in Daniele sequuntur vati- (1) Cantic. 1. 5. et 7. — (2) Cantic. V. 7. — (3) Cantic. Vlll. 1. — (4) Cantic. Vll. 1. cinia, ea non mendacia, ut vult Porphyrius, sed oracula esse verissima is demum intelli- get, qui eos libros diligenter evolvet, quos S. Hieronymus praefatione Commentarii in Danielem legendos monet.