Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book I: On the Canonical Books
Chapter 13: On the book of Wisdom
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).
The book of Wisdom has testimony from the ancient Councils and Fathers. The Council of Sardica, in the epistle to all the Bishops (of which Theodoret makes mention, book 2 of the History chapter 8), proves from chapter 7 of this book that the Son of God is the maker of all things and true God; the Council of Toledo the Second, chapter 1, likewise names the book of Wisdom sacred Scripture. Finally the Fathers teach the same. For Dionysius, chapter 4 of the Divine Names, cites it as a book of sacred Scripture. Melito of Asia, in the epistle to Onesimus, sets Wisdom in the Catalogue of the holy Scriptures. Cyprian, in the book On the Habit of Virgins: “Since the divine Scripture says, What hath pride profited us,” etc. Likewise Cyril, book 2 against Julian, beyond the middle, calls it divine Scripture. Blessed Augustine of set purpose teaches and proves that from this book dogmas can be confirmed, and that the book is canonical, book 1 On Predestination, chapter 14.
And because Chemnitz, with incredible impudence, cites this place of Augustine mutilated, and plainly asserts that from this place it is gathered that this book was not to Augustine divine and of infallible truth, let us hear the whole place: “That the testimony from the book of Wisdom, set down by me also, those brethren so rejected (you said) as though it were adduced not from a canonical book — as if, even the attestation of this book being excepted, the thing itself were not clear which we willed to be hence taught.” This Chemnitz cites. But let us hear what is set down below in the same chapter: “The sentence of the book of Wisdom ought not to have been repudiated, which has deserved in the Church of Christ, from the rank of the Readers of the Church of Christ, to be recited through so long a course of years, and to be heard by all Christians, from Bishops even to the lowest laity, faithful, penitents, catechumens, with the veneration of divine authority.” And below: “It behoves that they prefer this book of Wisdom to all commentators, since to it preferred themselves also, even in the times next to the Apostles, excellent commentators, who, adducing it as a witness, believed that they adduced nothing but a divine testimony.” Add that all the ancients assert this book to be Solomon's; whence it manifestly follows that it is canonical. Eusebius, book 4 of the History chapter 22, says that Hegesippus and Irenaeus and all the choir of the ancients thought this book to be Solomon's. By like reason Tertullian On Prescription, Cyprian in the Sermon on Mortality, Hilary on Psalm 127, Ambrose sermon 8 on Psalm 118, Basil book 5 against Eunomius, Epiphanius in the heresy of the Anomoeans, cite this book under the name of Solomon. But as to what blessed Jerome, in the preface on the book of Solomon, says — that this book is by many thought to be of Philo the Jew — and blessed Augustine, book 2 of the Doctrine of the Christian chapter 8, says it is of Jesus the son of Sirach, it is not contrary to the common opinion of the Doctors. For the sentences indeed are Solomon's, not Philo's, as the ancients say, and it is most clear from chapter 9, where the author of the book says: Thou hast chosen me to be king of thy people, and hast said that I should build a Temple on thy holy mount, etc.; yet these sentences were collected by some other, who by many is thought to be Philo — not he who was after Christ, but another more ancient — who indeed comprehended in Greek words the sentences of Solomon, the Holy Spirit dictating; even as in Proverbs 25 those parables of Solomon are said to have been transferred into a book by the men of Ezechias King of Juda, when before perhaps they were had in loose papers. But blessed Augustine retracted his opinion, book 2 of the Retractations, chapter 4.
John Calvin, book 1 of the Institutes, chapter 11, section 8, convicts the book of Wisdom of a lie: “Concerning the origin of idols,” he says, “it is received almost by public consent, which is had in the book of Wisdom, that the first authors of them were those who conferred this honor on the dead, that they might superstitiously worship their memory; and indeed I confess that this perverse custom was most ancient, nor do I deny that it was a torch by which the kindled fury of men to idolatry the more blazed up; yet I grant not that this was the first fountain of the evil. For that idols were already in use before this ambition in consecrating the images of the dead had prevailed, of which frequent mention is made among profane writers, is plain from Moses, when he narrates that Rachel stole the idols of her father, not otherwise than as speaking of a common vice.” Thus he, who plainly enough contends that what is had in Wisdom 14 concerning the origin of idols is false. But Calvin assumes a false thing, and then gathers another false thing. For he assumes that before the times of Rachel there were no idols which bore the figure of men; and since it is agreed that then there were some idols, he deduces that the first idols were not images of men, as the book of Wisdom teaches. But he assumes a false thing; for, in the first place, those very idols which Rachel stole were images of men — or rather the image of a man. For there was only one image, but the Scripture uses the name of a multitude, because that name in the Hebrew has no singular number. The Hebrew word is teraphim [the Hebrew forms in this passage are garbled in the sole surviving scan], which signifies an idol representing the figure of a man, and which by the art of the devil spoke and gave answers. That the teraphim is the figure of a man is plain from 1 Kings 19, where Michol, when she would rescue David from the hands of Saul, sent him out through the window, and in the bed, in his place, set an image which should represent a man (in the Hebrew it is teraphim) for that which we have, a statue or image. And that these idols spoke is plain from Ezechiel 24, where, for what we read, He consulted the idols, in the Hebrew it is teraphim; and likewise Zacharias 10, where we read, The idols have spoken vain things. Then it is certain that Belus, the first King of the Assyrians, who was before Rachel, nay before Abraham, was held for a god after his death, as Eusebius witnesses at the beginning of the Chronicle; and that the statue set up to him by Ninus his son was the first idol publicly proposed for adoration, Ambrose teaches on the first chapter to the Romans (or whosoever was the author of those Commentaries), and blessed Cyril, book 3 against Julian, not far from the end. Finally, that the beginning of idols was the fabrication of human images in memory of the dead, as the book of Wisdom teaches, Cyprian witnesses at the beginning of the book On the Vanity of Idols, Chrysostom homily 87 on Matthew, Hegesippus in Jerome in the book On Illustrious Men, and others everywhere. But you will object: if the statue erected to Belus by Ninus his son was the first idol, how is it true which the book of Wisdom says, that the first idol was made by a father in memory of a son? I answer that the statue of Belus was the first idol publicly proposed for adoration; but the first idol absolutely was the image of a dead son made by a parent, and privately honored. For thence, the depraved custom prevailing (as is said in the same chapter 14 of Wisdom), the figures were bought, by the command of tyrants, to be publicly worshipped.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIII. De libro Sapientiae. Liber Sapientiae testimonium habet ab an¬ tiquis Conciliis et Patribus. Concilium Sardi- cense in epist. ad omnes Episcopos, cujus meminit Theodoretus lib. II. hist. cap. 8, ex c. VII. hujus libri probat, filium Dei esse re¬ rum omnium effectorem et verum Deum ; Concilium item Toletanum II. cap. 1. librum Sapientiae Scripturam sacram nominat. Denique Patres idem docent. Nam Diony¬ sius c. IV. divinorum nom. ut librum sacrae Scripturae citat. Melito Asianus in epist. ad Onesimum, in Catalogo sanctarum Scriptu¬ rarum Sapientiam ponit. Cyprianus in lib. De habitu virginum : « Cum dicat, inquit, Scriptura divina : quid nobis profuit super¬ bia, etc. » Similiter Cyrillus lib. II In Julia¬ num, ultra medium, vocat Scripturam di¬ vinam. B. Augustinus ex professo docet et (1) Judith. V. 22. 8 98 LIBER I. probat, ex hoc libro posse confirmari dog¬ mata , et librum esse Canonicum , lib. I. de prsedest. cap. H. Et quoniam Kemnitius incredibili impu¬ dentia hunc locum Augustini truncate citat, et asserit aperte, ex hoc loco colligi hunc li¬ brum non fuisse Augustino divinum et infal¬ libilis veritatis; totum- locum audiamus : « Quod, inquit, a me quoque positum, nimi¬ rum testimonium de libro Sapientiae, fratres istos ita respuisse dixistis , tanquam non de libro Canonico adhibitum. Quasi et excepta hujus libri attestatione , res ipsa non clara sit, quam voluimus hinc doceri. » Haec citat Kemnitius. Sed audiamus quae in eodem capite infra ponuntur : « Non debuit repudiari sententia libri Sapientiae, qui meruit in Ecclesia Chri¬ sti de gradu Lectorum Ecclesiae Christi tam longa annositate recitari, et ab omnibus Christianis, ab Episcopis usque ad extremos laicos, Fideles poenitentes, Catechumenos cum veneratione divinae auctoritatis audiri.» Et infra : « Oportet ul librum istum Sapien¬ tiae omnibus Tractatoribus anteponant, quo¬ niam sibi eum anteposuerunt etiam tempori¬ bus proximi Apostolorum egregii Tractato¬ res, qui eum testem adhibentes, nihil se ad¬ hibere nisi divinum testimonium credide¬ runt. » Adde, quod omnes Veteres hunc li¬ brum Salomonis esse asserunt ; ex quo ma¬ nifeste sequitur esse canonicum. Eusebius lib. IV. hist. c. 22. dicit, Hegesippum et Ire- naeum et omnem antiquorum chorum hunc librum Salomonis esse existimasse. Pari ra¬ tione Tertullianus de praescript. Cyprianus serm. de mortalitate. Hilar. in Ps. CXXVII. Ambrosius serm. 8. in Ps. CXVIII. Basilius lib. V. contra Eunomium. Epiph. haeres. Anomoeorum, nomine Salomonishunc librum citant. Quod vero B. Hieronymus Praefatione in libro Salomonis hunc librum dicit a mul¬ tis putari Philonis Judaei , et B. Augustinus lib. II. doctr. Christ. cap. 8. dicit esse Jesu filii Sirach, non est contrarium communi sententiae Doctorum. Nam sententiae quidem sunt Salomonis, non Philonis, ut Veteres di¬ cunt, et clarissimum est ex c. IX., ubi auctor libri dicit : Tu elegisti me regem populo tuo , et dixisti me aedificare Templum in monte san¬ cto tuo , etc. (1), tamen collectae sunt hae sen¬ tentiae ab aliquo alio , qui a multis putatur Philo, non ille qui fuit post Christum , sed alius antiquior, qui quidem verbis Graecis Salomonis sententias complexus est, Spiritu sancto dictante , sicut Proverbiorum XXV, dicuntur parabolae illae Salomonis translatae in librum a viris Ezecliiae Regis Juda , cum antea forte in schedulis haberentur. B. Au¬ gustinus autem se,ntentiam retractavit lib. II. Retract. cap. 4. Joannes Calvinus lib. I. Instit. cap. 11. §. 8. librum Sapientiae mendacii coarguit : « De idolorum , inquit, origine publico fere consensu receptum est, quod in libro Sa¬ pientia? habetur : primos scilicet extitisse eo¬ rum auctores, qui hunc honorem detulerunt mortuis, ut ipsorum memoriam superstitiose colerent': et sane fateor, perversum hunc morem fuisse vetustissimum, nec facem fuisse nego, qua accensus hominum ad idolatriam furor magis exarsit : non tamen concedo hunc fuisse primum mali fontem. Idola enim jam fuisse prius in usu , quam ista in conse¬ crandis imaginibus mortuorum ambitio in¬ valuisset, cujus apud 'profanos Scriptores crebra fit mentio, constat ex Mose ; cum Ra- chelem narrat furatam esse patri suo idola, non secus ac de communi vitio loquitur. » Ileec ille, qui satis aperte falsum esse con¬ tendit quod habetur Sap. XIV. de orig. ido¬ lorum. At Calvinus assumit falsum, et deinde colligit aliud falsum. Assumit enim ante Ra- chelis tempora non fuisse idola quse homi¬ num figuram referrent : et cum constet tunc aliqua idola fuisse, deducit, prima idola non fuisse imagines hominum, ut liber Sapientia? docet. At falsum assumit : nam in primis ista ipsa idola, quse furata est Iiachel, erant imagines hominum : vel potius imago homi¬ nis. Una enim tantum erat imago , sed no¬ mine multitudinis utitur Scriptura, quia illud nomen in Hebrseo non habet numerum sin¬ gularem. Vox Hebrsea est □ quse quidem idolum significat, hominis figuram repraesen¬ tans, et quod arte diaboli loquebatur et res¬ ponsa dabat. Quod hominis figura sit Q^snn patet exi. Reg. XIX. ubi Michol cum vellet eruere Davidem de manibus Saul, emisit il¬ lum per fenestram, et in lecto, loco ejus po¬ suit simulacrum quod hominem referret, in Hebrseo est msnn pro eo , quod nos habe¬ mus statuam , vel simulacrum. Quod autem ista idola loquerentur , patet ex Ezechicle XXIV. ubi enim nos legimus : Interrogavit idola ; in Hebraeo est didih et similiter Za- (1) Sap. IX, 7. chariae X. ubi legimus : Simulacra locuta sunt inutile. Deinde certum est Belum pri- i muni Regem Assyriorum , qui fuit ante Rachelem, immo et anteAbraham, fuisse pro Deo habitum post mortem, ut Eusebius tes¬ tatur initio Chronici ; et statuam illi a Nino filio positam, fuisse primum idolum publice propositum ad adorandum, docet Ambrosius in primum cap. ad Rom. sive quicumque fuit eorum Commentariorum auctor, etB. Cyril- lus lib. III. in Julianum non procul a fine. Denique initium idolorum fuisse fabricatio¬ nem imaginum humanarum in memoriam defunctorum, ut liber Sapientiae docet, tes¬ tatur Cyprianus initio libri de Idolorum va¬ nitate, Chrysost. hom. 87. in Matth. Hege- sippus apud Hieronymum in libro De viris illustribus, et alii passim. Sed objicies : si statua erecta Belo a Nino filio fuit primum idolum , quomodo verum est quod liber Sapientiae dicit , primum ido¬ lum factum esse a patre in memoriam filii? Respondeo, statuam Beli fuisse primum ido¬ lum publice ad adorandum propositum : at primum idolum absolute fuisse imaginem filii mortui a parente factam, etprivatim ho¬ noratam. Inde enim invalescente prava con¬ suetudine (ut in eodem c. XI V. Sap. dicitur) empta sunt tyrannorum imperio publice coli figmenta.