Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book I: On the Canonical Books
Chapter 10: On the books of Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Maccabees
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).
These books are all together rejected by the Hebrews, as blessed Jerome witnesses in the Helmeted Prologue. Then the opinion of the Hebrews almost all the heretics of this time follow. The Magdeburgians, book 2 of the first Century, chapter 4, column 51, receive those books only which the Jews received. The same does Martin Chemnitz, in his Examination of the fourth session of the Council of Trent. Likewise John Brentius, in the Württemberg Confession, in the chapter On the Sacred Scripture, will have those books only received concerning which there was never a doubt, which are those alone which are received by the Jews. Calvin, book 1 of the Institutes, chapter 11, section 8, accuses the book of Wisdom of lying, so far is he from receiving it; book 2, chapter 5, section 18, he will not have the book of Ecclesiasticus to be of solid authority; book 3, chapter 5, section 8, he judges the same of the books of Maccabees; and in the Antidote of the Council of Trent, session 4, he seems to reject Tobias also and Judith. Calvin those ministers follow who published a Confession of Faith at Poissy. Finally Luther and Zwingli, in the prefaces of the Bibles turned by them, tear these five books from the sacred canon; and Luther especially contends that the books of Maccabees are of no authority, in his Assertion, article 37, which is on Purgatory.
But the Catholic Church holds these books, as the rest, for sacred and canonical. But before this be proved, it is to be noted that the heretics, and chiefly Chemnitz, deny not that these books are good and holy and worthy to be read; but yet that they are not such that firm arguments can be drawn from them. In this way they endeavor to elude those testimonies of the ancients in which these books are called Sacred or Ecclesiastical. Wherefore it is to be proved by us that these books are so sacred that they are of infallible truth; which is proved, first of all in general, then severally of each. First, then, these books, together with the rest, are placed in the canon by the Councils of Carthage the Third, canon 47, and Trent session 4; by the Pontiffs, Innocent I in the epistle to Exuperius, Gelasius I in the decree on the sacred and ecclesiastical books with seventy bishops; finally by the Fathers, Augustine book 2 of the Doctrine of the Christian chapter 8, Isidore book 6 of the Etymologies chapter 1, Cassiodorus book 1 of the Divine Readings, and Raban book 2 On the Institution of Clerics. And that they are set in these places as books of infallible truth is gathered from this, that they are numbered and set in the same order with the others which are of infallible truth. Besides, that the Council of Carthage, from which the other Councils took this canon, calls these books not only canonical but also divine; but for a book to be divine, what else is it than to have divine authority? Likewise that in the aforesaid places they are called canonical books and to pertain to the canon; but for a book to be canonical is to be of infallible truth. And certainly most vain is the distinction of Chemnitz, who says that some canonical books are of infallible truth and some are not; for, as he himself rightly deduces from blessed Augustine (book 11 against Faustus chapter 5, and book 2 against Cresconius chapter 32), books are called canonical because they are as it were a norm and rule, by which the weakness of our ignorance is ruled, and out of which judgment is made concerning all other books. How then shall those books be a norm and rule which are not of infallible truth?
But on the contrary Chemnitz objects, first, in this manner: Blessed Augustine, book 2 of the Doctrine of the Christian chapter 8, says that in the canonical books this is to be observed, that those which are received by all the Churches be preferred to those which are not received by all, and be held of greater authority. But if all were of infallible truth, one ought not to be preferred to another, but all would be of the same authority. Add that blessed Jerome, in the Helmeted Prologue, says that the canonical books are divided into the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa; and the same, in the preface on Judith, says that these books are numbered among the Hagiographa even by the Jews, and yet are not fit to confirm the dogmas of faith. I answer that blessed Augustine was most certain that all canonical books are of infallible truth; but was not equally certain concerning all the books which he had enumerated, whether they were canonical. For although he himself so thought, yet he knew that the matter had not yet been defined by a general Council, and that therefore some books could, without the stain of heresy, be not received by others. This, then, is what he says is to be observed in the books which are called canonical, that those which are received by all be preferred to those which are not received by all — because, namely, of the former there was then greater certainty than of the latter that they were canonical; but now, because general Councils have defined the whole matter, we are equally certain of the authority of all the books, nor ought we to prefer one to another. And that blessed Augustine really thought all those books which he there calls canonical to be of infallible truth is plain, both from the Council of Carthage the Third, which he himself subscribed, and also because there cannot be produced one place out of Augustine where he calls some book canonical, and yet says that its truth can be doubted; whereas on the contrary there can be produced infinite places where he says that all the books which are called canonical are of infallible truth. Epistle 19 to Jerome: “I have learned to defer this fear and honor to those books of the Scriptures alone which are now called canonical, that I most firmly believe that no author of them erred in writing anything.” In the same manner he speaks epistles 8, 9, 48, 112; book 2 On Baptism chapter 3; on Psalm 67; book 2 against Cresconius chapters 31 and 32; book 11 against Faustus chapter 5; and elsewhere everywhere. To the place of Jerome I say that the Jews had two kinds of Hagiographa, some within the Ark and some without the Ark, as Epiphanius teaches in the book On Measures and Weights. Those which were within the Ark were called Hagiographa for distinction from the historical and prophetical volumes, and these were held canonical, and of these Jerome speaks in the Helmeted Prologue; but those which were without the Ark were called Hagiographa for distinction from the canonical and sacred, and of these Jerome speaks in the preface of Tobias and Judith. Whence it is plain that those books concerning which there can be doubt are never called canonical by Jerome.
Secondly the same Chemnitz, and the other adversaries, object this reason. The Church which was at the time when these books were published was doubtful of their authority; necessarily therefore the later Church also ought to be doubtful of the same books. For there is a twofold way of knowing whether some book is truly divine: one, from the testimony of someone who is agreed to be a Prophet or Apostle, to whom God is wont to reveal mysteries; the other (as Augustine teaches, book 33 against Faustus chapter 6), by the sure testimonies of those who lived while the book was published, who testify that those books were published by Prophets or Apostles, and whose testimonies have come down even to us through the succession of men using those books; for so we judge not only of sacred but also of profane books. The first way has no place at this time; for now Prophets or Apostles live not on earth. Therefore we must proceed by the second way, and from the testimonies of the first Church we ought to determine concerning the canonical books; therefore if the first Church was doubtful, much more have we cause of doubting. And that the Synagogue of the Jews doubted of these books is plain from Josephus, book 1 against Apion. And that the first Church of the Christians was engaged in a like doubt is plain from Origen, Athanasius, Nazianzen, Epiphanius, Jerome, and the other Fathers above cited, who set not these books in the canon, and plainly say that there was always a question concerning these books among learned men. I answer that the ancient Church's having doubted of these books can be understood in two ways. In one way, that it was so doubtful that there were no men of that time who could testify that these books were published by Prophets or Apostles; and in this way the argument has its force, for therefore the Church received not the book of Henoch, because it had no testimonies of the time in which the book was written, nor even of the nearest times, as blessed Augustine teaches, book 18 of the City of God chapter 38. But we deny that the ancient Church was doubtful in this way; for it is agreed that there were always some worthy of credit who thought these books canonical. In the other way it can be understood that the Church doubted because some doubted, yet the Church itself then would not define the matter; and this is most true, as the testimonies brought forward rightly prove. But it cannot thence be gathered that the later Church ought to be doubtful; and this we prove in this manner. Concerning the book of Judith there was at the beginning a doubt, and yet the Nicene Synod received that book into the canon (Jerome witnessing, in the preface on Judith), which Synod, together with three others, the heretics receive and greatly esteem; not therefore are we compelled always to doubt, even if it was sometime doubted. Besides, if these books of the Old Testament cannot now be certainly received for canonical, because the first Church doubted of them, by the same reason there could not be certainly received for canonical the epistle of James, of Jude, the Apocalypse, the second of Peter, the second and third of John, and the epistle to the Hebrews, because of these too it was doubted in the first Church. But the Calvinists receive all these books for truly canonical, as is plain from the books of Calvin, in which these books are everywhere cited, and from the confession of the Calvinist ministers, article 3, which they offered at Poissy in the year 1561; and the Lutherans, although they think variously of these books, yet the Magdeburgians receive the Apocalypse as truly canonical (Century 1, book 2, chapter 4, column 36). But to that which they objected concerning the two ways of tracing out the authority of books, I admit those to be the two ways, and that now there are no Prophets or Apostles, and that we must proceed by the second way, etc.; but I affirm that, for the following Church to be able to decree that some book is canonical, it is enough if it have some testimonies of men worthy of credit of that time, or at least of the next.
And so we say not (as Chemnitz most impudently calumniates) that the Church, that is, the Pope, can at his own will, without any testimonies of the ancients, make a canonical book of a non-canonical, and a non-canonical of a canonical, and that if the Pope willed, the divine Scripture would have no more authority than the fables of Aesop; for these are not our assertions, but their lies. For we confess that the Church can in no way make a canonical book of a non-canonical, nor the contrary, but only declare which is to be held canonical; and this not rashly, nor at will, but from the testimonies of the ancients, and from the likeness of the books concerning which there is doubt with those concerning which there is no doubt, and finally from the common sense and, as it were, taste of the Christian people; in which manner blessed Jerome, in the book On Illustrious Men, on James, says that the epistle of James gradually, in course of time, merited authority. Now these three things the Church observed in declaring these books canonical. For first it had testimonies of the ancients concerning each; for although testimonies are not had from the Synagogue of the Jews, yet they are had from the Apostolic Church, and this suffices. For the Apostles could, without other testimonies, declare those books to be canonical, which also they did; otherwise Cyprian and Clement, and the others whom we shall cite, would never so constantly have said that they are divine. Then it saw them to be conformable to the others. Finally it observed that these books were gradually received for canonical by all Christians; which argument they could not have who were in the first Church.
The last objection is of this kind: The Church receives those books which blessed Jerome receives, and reprobates those which he reprobates, as is plain from distinction 15, the canon Sancta Romana; but blessed Jerome, in the Helmeted Prologue and in the prologue of the Proverbs, asserts that these five books are not canonical. So Cajetan, otherwise a Catholic and pious doctor, argues at the end of his Commentaries on Esther. Some answer that blessed Jerome only says that they are not canonical among the Jews; and indeed in the Helmeted Prologue he numbers, together with these books of the Old Testament, also the book of the Shepherd, which is of the New Testament, and says of all together that they are not in the canon; not therefore does he speak of the canon of the Jews only. Besides, in the prologue of the Proverbs: “As therefore the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobias and the Maccabees, but receives them not among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read also these two volumes, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, for the edification of the people, not to confirm the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.” I admit therefore that Jerome was of that opinion, because a general Council had not yet decreed anything concerning these books — except the book of Judith, which Jerome also afterward received. And as to what Gelasius says in that distinction 15, the canon Sancta Romana, it is understood of the books of the Doctors, as of Origen, Rufinus, and the like, not of the sacred books, as is manifestly deduced from the canon itself.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT X. De libris T obice, Judith , Sapientiae , Ecclesias¬ tici , et Machabccorum. Hi libri simul omnes rejiciuntur ab He¬ braeis, ut B. Hieronymus testatur in prologo Galeato. Deinde Hebraeorum sententiam se^ quuntur haeretici hujus temporis fere omnes. Magdeburgenses lib. II. cent. 1. c. IV. coi. 51. solos eos libros recipiunt, quos Judaei recipiebant. Idem facit Martinus Kemnitius in examine sess. IV. Concilii Tridentini. Item Joannes Brentius in Confessione Wiir- tembergensi, cap. de Scriptura sacra, eos tantum libros de quibus nunquam est dubi¬ tatum recipi vult, qui sunt ii soli , qui a Ju¬ daeis recipiuntur. Calvinus lib. I. Instit. cap. 11. §. 8. arguit mendacii librum Sapientiae, tantum abest, ut eum recipiat. Lib. II. cap. 5. §. 18. librum Ecclesiastici non vult esse solidae auctoritatis. Lib. III. cap. 5. §. 8. idem judicat de libris Machabaeorum. In an¬ tidoto autem Concilii Trident. sess. IV, To- biam quoque et Judith repudiare videtur. Calvinum sequuntur ministri illi, qui apud (1) Dan. XUl. 54. CAPUT X. 91 Pissiacum confessionem Fidei ediderunt. De¬ nique Lutherus et Zwinglius in praefationi¬ bus Bibliorum a se conversorum, quinque istos libros a sacro canone avellunt, et prae¬ cipue libros Machabaeorum non esse alicujus auctoritatis contendit Lutlierus in Assert. art. 37, qui est de Purgatorio. Ecclesia vero Catholica libros istos ut cae- teros pro sacris et canonicis habet. Sed an¬ tequam id probetur, notandum est, haereti¬ cos , et praesertim Kemnitium , non negare hos libros esse bonos , et sanctos , et dignos qui legantur ; sed tamen non esse tales, ut ex iis firma argumenta pluci possint : hoc modo eludere conantur ea testimonia Vete¬ rum, in quibus hi libri vocantur Sacri, vel Ecclesiastici. Quocirca probandum nobis est, hos libros ita esse sacros, ut sint infalli¬ bilis veritatis ; id quod probatur, primum de omnibus generatim , deinde seorsim de singulis. Primum igitur hos libros una cum caeteris in canone ponunt Concilia Carthag. III. can. 47. Trid. sess. IV. Pontifices, Innocentius I. in epist. ad Exuperium. Gelasius I. in de¬ creto de libris sacris et Ecclesiasticis , cum LXX. Episcopis. Denique Patres , Augusti¬ nus lib. II. Doctr. Christ. cap. 8. Isidorus lib. VI. Etymol. cap. 1. Cassiodorus lib. I. Divinarum lectionum , et Raban , lib. II. De Institut. Clericorum. Poni autem in his locis ut libros infallibilis veritatis, inde colligi¬ tur, quod numerantur et ponuntur in eodem ordine cum aliis, qui sunt infallibilis veri¬ tatis. Praeterea quod Concilium Carthaginiense, ex quo caetera Concilia istum canonem de¬ sumpserunt, vocat hos libros non solum ca¬ nonicos, sed etiam divinos : librum autem esse divinum quid aliud est , quam divinam auctoritatem habere? Item quod in locis prae¬ dictis dicantur libri canonici et ad canonem pertinere : porro librum esse canonicum, est esse infallibilis veritatis. Et certe vanissima est distinctio Kemnitii, qui libros quosdam canonicos dicit esse in¬ fallibilis veritatis, et quosdam non esse : nam, ut ipsemet recte deducit ex B. Augus¬ tino lib. XI. Contra Faustum cap. 5. et lib. II. Contra Cresconium c. 32., dicuntur libri canonici , quia sunt quasi norma et regula, qua imperitiae nostrae regatur infirmitas , et ex qua de omnibus aliis libris judicetur. Quomodo ergo erunt norma et regula libri illi, qui non sunt infallibilis veritatis? . At contra primo objicit hoc modo Kemni- tius : B. Augustinus lib. II. Doct. Christ. c. 8. dicit , in libris canonicis illud observan¬ dum , ut qui recipiuntur ab omnibus Eccle¬ siis praeponantur illis, qui non recipiuntur ab omnibus et majoris auctoritatis habere¬ tur. At si essent omnes infallibilis veritatis, non deberet unus alteri praeponi, sed essent omnes ejusdem auctoritatis. Adde quod B. Hieronymus in prologo Galeato dicit, libros canonicos dividi in Legem, Prophetas et Ha¬ giographa, et ipse idem praefatione in Judith dicit, hos libros inter Hagiographa etiam a Judaeis numerari, et tamen non esse idoneos ad Fidei dogmata confirmanda. Respondeo, B. Augustinum fuisse certissi¬ mum, omnes libros canonicos esse infallibi¬ lis veritatis : sed non fuisse aeque certum de omnibus libris, quos enumeraverat an essent canonici. Nam etsi ipse ita sentiebat, tamen sciebat, rem non fuisse adhuc a generali Concilio definitam, et propterea potuisse sine labe haeresos quosdam libros ab aliis non re¬ cipi. Id igitur est , quod dicit observandum esse in libris, qui dicuntur canonici, ut ii qui ab omnibus recipiuntur praeponantur iis, qui non ab omnibus recipiuntur. Quia videlicet de prioribus major tunc erat certitudo, quam de posterioribus, quod essent canonici : nunc autem quia generalia Concilia rem totam de¬ finierunt, aeque certi sumus de auctoritate omnium librorum , nec unum alteri praepo¬ nere debemus. Quod autem B. Augustinus revera sense¬ rit, omnes eos libros, quos ibi vocat canoni¬ cos, esse infallibilis veritatis , patet , tum ex Concilio Carthaginensi III. cui ipse subscri¬ psit : tum etiam quia non potest proferri unus locus ex Augustino ubi librum aliquem vocet canonicum, et tamen de ejus veritate dubitari posse dicat : contra vero possunt infinita loca proferri ubi dicit, omnes libros qui canonici vocantur esse infallibilis verita¬ tis. Epist. XIX. ad Hier. «Ego solis eis Scri¬ pturarum libris, qui jam canonici appellan¬ tur, didici hunc timorem honoremque de¬ ferre , ut nullum eorum auctorem scribendo aliquid errasse firmissime credam. » Eodem modo loquitur ep. 8, 9, 48, 112. lib. II. De Bapt. c. 3. in Psalm. LXVII. Lib. II. Contra Cresconium cap. 31. et 32. Lib. XI. Contra Faustum c. 5. et alibi passim. Ad locum Hieronymi dico ; duo genera Hagiographorum Judaeos habuisse, quaedam intra Arcam, et quaedam extra Arcam, ut 92 LIBER I. docet Epiphanius libro de mensuris et pon¬ deribus. Quae erant intra Arcam Hagiogra¬ pha dicebantur ad distinctionem historico¬ rum et propheticorum voluminum , et haec canonica habebantur , et de his loquitur Hieronymus in prologo Galeato : quse autem erant extra Arcam, dicebantur Hagiographa ad distinctionem canonicorum et sacrorum, et de his loquitur Hieronymus in praefatione Tobise et Judith, ex quo patet, nunquam ca¬ nonicos dici a Hieronymo eos libros, de qui¬ bus dubitari possit. Secundo objiciunt idem Kemnitius, et cse- teri adversarii hanc rationem. Ecclesia, quse fuit eo tempore quo libri isti editi sunt, du¬ bia fuit de eorum auctoritate ; necessario igitur etiam Ecclesia posterior de eisdem li¬ bris dubia esse debet. Nam duplex est via cognoscendi an aliquis liber sit vere divi¬ nus ; una ex testimonio alicujus quem con¬ stat Prophetam, vel Apostolum esse, cui Deus mysteria revelare soleat : altera, ut August. docet lib. XXXIII, Contra Faustum cap. 6., per testimonia certa eorum qui vi¬ vebant dum liber ederetur, qui testentur, libros illos a Prophetis, vel Apostolis editos, et quorum testimonia per successionem ho¬ minum iis libris utentium ad nos usque de¬ venerint, sic enim non solum de sacris , sed etiam de profanis libris judicamus. Non habet locum hoc tempore prima via; non enim nunc Prophetae vel Apostoli in ter¬ ris vivunt ; ergo secunda via progrediendum est, et ex testimoniis primae Ecclesiae debe¬ mus nos de libris canonicis statuere : ergo si prima Ecclesia dubia fuit, multo magis nos dubitandi causam habemus. Dubitasse autem de his libris Synagogam Judaeorum, patet ex Joseph lib. I. contra Appionem. In simili dubitatione versatam primam Eccle¬ siam Christianorum, patet ex Origine, Atha- nasio, Nazianzeno , Epiphanio, Hieronymo, et caeteris Patribus supra citatis , qui hos li¬ bros in canone non ponunt, et aperte dicunt, semper de his libris quaestionem inter doctos homines fuisse. Respondeo , Ecclesiam veterem dubitasse de his libris , duobus modis intelligi posse : uno modo, quod ita fuerit dubia, ut nulli homines ejus temporis essent, qui testari possent eos libros a Prophetis vel Apostolis editos, et hoc modo argumentum suas habet vires, ideo enim librum Henoch non recepit Ecclesia, quia nulla habuit testimonia ejus temporis, quo liber scriptus erat , nec etiam temporum proximorum , ut Beatus Augusti¬ nus docet lib. XVIII. De Civit. Dei cap. 38. Sed negamus hoc modo dubiam fuisse pris¬ cam Ecclesiam ; constat enim, semper fuisse aliquos fide dignos, qui hos libros canonicos putarent. Altero modo potest intelligi, Ecclesiam dubitasse, quia aliqui dubitabant, nec tamen ipsa Ecclesia tunc remistam definire voluit; et hoc verissimum est, ut recte probant tes¬ timonia adducta : sed non potest inde col¬ ligi, posteriorem Ecclesiam dubiam esse de¬ bere, idque hoc modo probamus. De libro Judith fuit initio dubitatum, et tamen Nicae¬ na Synodus eum librum in canonem recepit, teste Hieronymo praefatione in Judith, quam Synodum una cum tribus aliis haeretici re¬ cipiunt, et magni faciunt , non igitur cogi¬ mur semper dubitare, etiamsi aliquando du¬ bitatum est. Praeterea si libri isti Testamenti veteris non possunt nunc certo pro canonicis recipi, quia de his dubitavit prima Ecclesia : eadem ratione non potuerunt certo pro canonicis accipi epistola Jacobi, Judae, Apocalypsis, secunda Petri, secunda et tertia Joannis, et epistola ad Hebraeos , quia de his etiam du¬ bitatum est in prima Ecclesia. At Calvinistae recipiunt pro vere canonicis hos omnes li¬ bros, ut patet ex Calvini libris, in quibus passim hi libri citantur, et ex confessione ministrorum Calvinistarum art. III. quam Pissiaci obtulerunt anno 1361. Lutherani autem etiamsi varie sentiant de his libris, tamen Magdeburgenses recipiunt Apocalyp- sim ut vere canonicam, cent. I. lib. II. c. 4. coi. 36. Ad illud autem quod objiciebant de dua¬ bus viis indagandi librorum auctoritatem ; admitto illas duas esse vias, et nunc non esse Prophetas, vel Apostolos, et oportet progre¬ di secunda via etc. : sed affirmo , ad hoc ut sequens Ecclesia possit decernere librum aliquem esse canonicum, satis esse, si ha¬ beat aliqua testimonia hominum fide di¬ gnorum illius temporis, vel certe proximi. Itaque non dicimus, ut Kemnitius impu¬ dentissime calumniatur, Ecclesiam, id est, Papam posse pro suo arbitratu sine ullis Ve¬ terum testimoniis facere librum canonicum de non canonico , et de canonico non cano¬ nicum ; et quod si Papa vellet, Scriptura di¬ vina non plus haberet auctoritatis, quam fabulae iEsopi ; ista enim non sunt nostra asserta , sed ipsorum mendacia. Fatemur enim , Ecclesiam nullo modo posse facere librum canonicum de non canonico, nec con¬ tra : sed tantum declarare quis sit habendus canonicus, et hoc non temere, nec pro arbi¬ tratu, sed ex Veterum testimonis et similitu¬ dine librorum de quibus ambigitur, cum il¬ lis de quibus non ambigitur, ac demum ex communi sensu, et quasi gustu populi Chri¬ stiani, quomodo B. Hieronymus lib. de vir. illustr. in Jacobo dicit, epistolam Jacobi paulatim tempore procedente meruisse auc¬ toritatem. Jam haec tria in his libris declarandis ca¬ nonicis Ecclesia observavit. Primum enim habuit de singulis Veterum testimonia : etsi enim non habeantur testimonia a Synagoga Judaeorum , tamen habentur ab Ecclesia Apostolica, et hoc sufficit. Apostoli enim po¬ terant sine aliis testimoniis declarare libros illos esse canonicos , quod et fecerunt ; alio- qui nunquam Cyprianus et Clemens, et alii, quos citabimus, tam constanter dixissent eos esse divinos. Deinde viderunt esse confor¬ mes aliis. Denique observarunt , istos libros paulatim ab omnibus Christianis pro canoni¬ cis receptos , quod argumentum habere non poterant, qui in prima Ecclesia fuerunt. Postrema objectio hujusmodi est : Eccle¬ sia eos libros recipit, quos B. Hieronym. re¬ cipit; eos reprobat, quos ille reprobat, ut patet dist. XV. can. Sancta Romana : B. autem Hieronymus in prologo Galeato, et in prologo Proverbiorum asserit , hos quinque libros non esse canonicos. Ita Cajet. Catho¬ licus alioqui, et pius doctor argumentatur ad finem Commentariorum Esther. Respondent aliqui : B. Hieronymum so¬ lum dicere, non esse canonicos apud Ju¬ daeos, ac certe in prologo Galeato simul cum istis libris veteris Testamenti numerat etiam librum Pastoris, qui est novi Testamenti, et omnes simul dicit non esse in canone , non igitur de canone Judaeorum tantum loquitur: Praeterea in prologo Proverbiorum : « Sicut ergo, inquit, Judith, et Tobiee, et Macha- baeorum libros legit quidem Ecclesia , sed eos inter canonicas Scripturas non recipit; sic et haec duo volumina Sapientiam, et Ec¬ clesiasticum legat ad aedificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem Ecclesiasticorum dog¬ matum confirmandam. » Admitto igitur, Hieronymum in ea fuisse opinione , quia nondum generale Concilium de his libris aliquid statuerat , excepto libro Judith , quem etiam Hieronymus postea re¬ cepit. Quod autem Gelasius dicit in illa dist. 15. can. Sancta Romana , intelligitur de li¬ bris Doctorum, ut Origenis, Ruffini, et simi¬ lium, non de libris sacris, ut ex ipso canone manifeste deducitur.