Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book I: On the Canonical Books
Chapter 15: On the books of 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).
The books of Maccabees, besides the common testimonies, have testimony, and are honorably produced, by St. Cyprian in the book On the Exhortation to Martyrdom chapter 11, by St. Gregory Nazianzen in the oration on the Maccabees, by St. Ambrose book 2 On Jacob chapters 10, 11, 12, and by others everywhere who call these same books in express words divine Scripture, as St. Cyprian book 1 epistle 3 to Cornelius, and Isidore book 6 of the Etymologies chapter 1. And St. Augustine (to whom Calvin often attributes much authority), book 18 of the City of God chapter 36, says: “The books of Maccabees, which not the Jews, but the Church holds for canonical.” And book 2 against the epistles of Gaudentius chapter 23, he studiously defends the authority of those same books, calling them holy Scripture. But let us see the arguments of the adversaries.
First, Calvin objects, book 3 of the Institutes chapter 5 section 8, that the author of these books praises the preposterous zeal and the superstitious deed of Judas Maccabee, who ordered sacrifice to be offered for the dead (2 Maccabees 12). For besides that it is superstitious to pray for any dead whatsoever, there accedes also that these, for whom Judas ordered prayer to be made, had died bound by a mortal crime, for whom that one ought not to pray even Catholics teach; and that they so died is plain, for as it is there said, They found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews, which is had Deuteronomy 7:25. I answer that to pray for the dead, of whom it is not certain that they are in heaven or in hell, is pious and religious, as we shall show in its place; for the present let it suffice to oppose to Calvin Augustine, who from this very place proves that it is pious to pray for the dead, in epistle 61 to Dulcitius, book 1 On the Manners of the Church chapter 23, and the book On the Care for the Dead chapter 1. So great, then, is the difference between the spirit of Augustine and of Calvin, that Augustine, because he believes the books of Maccabees to be canonical, thence gathers that it is good to pray for the dead; Calvin, because he thinks it evil to pray for the dead, thence deduces that the books of Maccabees are not canonical. And to that which is objected I answer that Judas piously thought that these, in the article of death, had conceived sorrow for their sin before God, and had found mercy with the Lord; which those words signify: Because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness had great grace laid up for them.
Secondly Calvin objects, in the Antidote of the Council, that the author of this book cannot be held canonical, since (book 2, last chapter) he asks pardon for his errors. Add that in chapter 2 he says: “And to us indeed ourselves, who have taken upon us this work of abridging, we have undertaken no easy labor, nay rather a business full of watching and sweat.” By which words he indicates that he composed this book after a human manner; for authors truly sacred wrote not by their own wit and labor, but by the Holy Spirit revealing, as is plain, Jeremias 36, of Jeremias, who with so great facility dictated to his notary Baruch the things which God revealed to him, that he seems to read from some book. I answer that God indeed is the author of all the divine Scriptures, but yet was wont to be present in one way to the prophets, in another to others, especially the historians. For to the prophets he revealed things to come, and at the same time assisted, lest they should mix anything false in writing; and therefore the prophets had no other labor than of writing or dictating. But to other writers God did not always reveal the things which they were to write, but stirred them up to write the things which they had seen or heard, of which they remembered, and at the same time assisted lest they should write anything false; which assistance did not bring it about that they should not labor in thinking and seeking what and how they should write. Wherefore St. Luke, in the preface to the Gospel written by him, testifies that he had diligently attained all things which pertained to the writing of the Gospel, and that from those who had themselves heard and seen, and had been ministers of the word. But as to the pardon, this author asks not pardon for errors (seeing he knew there were none), but for a less polished discourse; even as blessed Paul also confesses himself unskilled in speech, 2 Corinthians 11.
The third objection is of others. In 2 Maccabees 1 it is said, When our fathers were led into Persia; but it is certain that the Jews were led away not into Persia, but into Babylon; not therefore does the author of this book narrate a true history. Some labor greatly to show when the Jews were led into Persia; but I think the matter most easy. For the author of this book calls Persia not only that region which is properly called Persis, but also the others bordering on it; which is plain from the first book of Maccabees chapter 6, where the messenger who came to Babylon to Antiochus is said to have come to him in Persia. Nor is this manner of speaking foreign to other writers, since Chrysostom, homily 6 on Matthew, says that the Jews were freed from the Persian captivity.
The fourth objection: in 2 Maccabees 2 it is said that Jeremias, when Jerusalem and the Temple were spoiled and burned by the Chaldees, hid the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant in a certain cave of Mount Nebo, and said that that place should be hidden until God should again gather his people. But here two lies are contained. One, that Jeremias did this; for before the city was taken by the Chaldees, Jeremias was always in prison, and was hateful to almost all in Jerusalem, as is had Jeremias 37 and 38; wherefore neither by himself nor by others could he effect it. But after the city was taken, the Chaldees plundered all things, as is had 4 Kings last chapter; and so there remained not anything which Jeremias could hide. The other lie is that, returning again from the captivity, they should have the ark and the tabernacle; for they never afterward had it. I answer that this could very well have been done, both before the spoiling of the city and the Temple (as Epiphanius thinks, in the life of Jeremias), and also afterward, as others will have it. Before, indeed: not in the time of Sedecias, but of Joachim; for thrice Nabuchodonosor came into Judea, and led thence captive the king and the people: first, in the time of Joachim, as is had 2 Paralipomenon last chapter; secondly, in the time of Joachim, as is had 4 Kings 24; thirdly, in the time of Sedecias, 4 Kings 25. And although in the time of Sedecias Jeremias was almost always in prison, and hateful to all, yet in the time of Joachim he was free and of great authority, so that it is credible that at his persuasion Joachim voluntarily surrendered himself to the King of Babylon. For it is agreed that Jeremias persuaded this (Jeremias 27), and it is agreed at the same time that Joachim did it (Jeremias 29). He could therefore, the king consenting, carry away the ark and the tabernacle; he could also after the city was taken, for Jeremias was highly esteemed by Nabuchodonosor, as is plain Jeremias 39. And that the ark or the tabernacle was not taken away by the soldiers plundering the city of Jerusalem is plain enough from Jeremias 52, where are enumerated all the things which the Chaldees took away from the Temple of the Lord, even to the phials and little mortars, and no mention is made of the ark and the tabernacle. Nor indeed is the other a lie, that the ark should again be found when the people should be gathered again; for Jeremias spoke not of that gathering which was in the time of Cyrus, but either of the last time, which shall immediately precede the day of judgment (as Epiphanius will have it, in the life of Jeremias), or it is to be understood mystically, that the ark should appear, that is, Christ should come in the flesh, in the new gathering of the people, as Rupert expounds, book 10 On the Victory of the Word chapter 21.
The fifth objection: in the first book of Maccabees chapter 1 Alexander the Great is said to have reigned first in Greece; and this seems false, since Alexander was not the first, but before him were many Kings of the Lacedaemonians, Macedonians, Corinthians, Athenians, etc., as is plain from the Chronicle of Eusebius. Besides, it is there said that Antiochus the Illustrious reigned in the 137th year of the reign of the Greeks; whereas it is agreed from the same Eusebius that Antiochus reigned in the 156th year, for so many are the years from the first year of the Monarchy of the Greeks even to Antiochus. Finally, book 1 chapter 8, the Romans are said to commit their magistracy each year to one man, and all to obey one; but this is false, for two Consuls were then created. I answer that the Scripture, when it says that Alexander reigned first in Greece, speaks not of any kingdom whatsoever, but of the Monarchy of the Greeks; and when it says that Antiochus the Illustrious reigned in the 137th year of the reign of the Greeks, it numbers the years not from Alexander, but from Seleucus, who after Alexander the First reigned in Syria, as Eusebius admonishes in the Chronicle. For because Judea is a part of Syria, the Jews numbered the years from the first King of Syria; and from Seleucus to Antiochus are 137 years, to which if you add the 19 years which are from Alexander to Seleucus, there will be 156 years. But to that concerning the Romans I answer that mention is made of one Consul only, because it was set in custom among the Romans that the Consuls should command on alternate days. Of which thing the unhappy issue of the battle of Cannae can be a witness, the cause whereof was the rashness of the one Consul, with whom on that day was the command. And so, although there were two Consuls, yet the Republic seemed committed to one. And this was instituted from the very first rise of the consular dignity, lest (as Livy says, book 2) if two Consuls should command together, the kings being expelled, the terror should seem not removed but doubled.
The sixth objection: in the first book of Maccabees chapter 4 Judas is read to have purged the Temple in the year 148, that is, one year before the death of Antiochus, who died in the year 149, as is said 1 Maccabees 6; but this is repugnant to book 2 chapter 10, where it is had that Judas purged the Temple two years after the death of Antiochus. Besides, book 1 chapter 6 says that Antiochus the Illustrious died in Babylonia in his bed of grief of mind, because his affairs had not succeeded as he had wished; but book 2 chapter 1 says he was cut in pieces limb by limb with many of his own in the temple of Nannea; and again book 2 chapter 9 says he died with internal pain of the bowels, and because he had fallen from his chariot on the way. Finally book 1 chapter 9 says that Judas died in the year 152; but book 2 chapter 1 says he wrote a letter in the year 188, which if it were true, he would have written it in the 36th year after his death. All these things, since they cohere so ill among themselves, afford manifest signs of falsity. To the first part of this argument, that Sixtus of Siena may answer, he writes in book 8 of the Holy Bibliotheca that the purgation of the Temple was made twice; but neither does this seem to be true, nor necessary for the solution of the argument. And that it is not true the Scripture sufficiently indicates, since all the things which it relates of this purgation in one place, it relates also in the other. And that it is not necessary is thence proved, because, only one purgation being posited, in both places there is still no repugnance in this book. For although the purgation of the Temple is narrated in book 1 chapter 4 before the death of Antiochus, and in book 2 chapter 10 is narrated after the death of Antiochus, yet in this latter place it is indeed narrated after the death of Antiochus, but is not asserted to have been done after the death of Antiochus. For the author willed to finish the things which he was to say of Antiochus, and then at last to return to Judas and the purgation of the Temple; but as to what is said, that it was done after two years, there is not signified after two years from the death of Antiochus, but after two years from the profanation. For the Temple was profaned in the year 145, as is said book 1 chapter 1, and after two years elapsed, in the year 148, it was purged, as is had book 1 chapter 4. Wherefore rightly Eusebius in the Chronicle, and Josephus book 12 of the Antiquities chapter 10, write that the Temple was purged the third year from the profanation, that is, after two years now elapsed. As to the other part of the argument, nearly all agree that it is the same Antiochus, namely Epiphanes, whose death is described book 1 chapter 6 and book 2 chapter 9; for he could on the way be seized with pains of the bowels, and fall from his chariot, as is said book 2 chapter 9, and afterward, thus sick, come to Babylon, and there, grief of mind being added from the message brought to him of the ill success in Judea of his own, at length die. But concerning the Antiochus whose death is described book 2 chapter 1, there is the greatest question. Some will have it to be Antiochus the Great, as Lyra on this place and certain others; but this cannot be. For Antiochus the Great died before Judas, who wrote this letter, was leader of the Jews, nor was there any war of the Jews with Antiochus the Great. Others will have it to be Antiochus the son of Demetrius, who is also called Tryphon, or Gryphus, by Eusebius; so Rupert, book 10 On the Victory of the Word chapter 6. But neither can this be true. For in the time of that Antiochus, not Judas, but John Hyrcanus was leader of the Jews, and yet Judas writes the letter. Besides, the letter is written to Aristobulus the master of Ptolemy Philometor, who (it is agreed from Eusebius in the Chronicle) was in the time of Judas, that is, long before the times of Antiochus Gryphus. It must therefore be said that this Antiochus is Antiochus Epiphanes, that very one of whom the matter is treated book 1 chapter 6 and book 2 chapter 9; for then lived Judas who wrote the letter, and also Aristobulus to whom it was written. Besides, this was the first and chief enemy of the Jews among the Kings of Syria, so that deservedly there was so great joy in Judea at his death. Finally, what is said book 2 chapter 9 of Antiochus the Illustrious, that he wished to spoil the temple in Persia, and was shamefully put to flight, altogether agrees with what is here said of this Antiochus, that he fell and was struck in the temple of Nannea, and that many of his soldiers were cut in pieces limb by limb. Nor indeed is it necessary to affirm that he perished there where he is said to have fallen; for he can be said to have fallen, because his army was routed and put to flight. Even as Genesis 14 the divine Scripture narrates that the King of Sodom fell in battle, and yet a little after brings him in living and meeting Abraham. And so Antiochus is said to have fallen in that sense, because his army was cut down and struck, and he himself, escaping by shameful flight, perhaps also wounded, fell from his chariot on the very way, and a little after died. To the third proof some answer that it was not Judas Maccabee, but some other, who wrote that letter; so Rupert, book 10 On the Victory of the Word chapter 15. But this seems not to be true. For in the year 188 not Judas, but John Hyrcanus was leader of the Jews; nor was there any of the leaders of the Jews who was called Judas except the one Maccabee; nor is it likely that, with the Senate and people in the title of the letter, another should be named than the Prince. Others will have it that this Judas is indeed the Maccabee, but that the years which are set at the beginning of the letter are computed not after the manner of the Greeks from Seleucus, but after the manner of the Hebrews from the twelfth year of Ahasuerus, in which all the Jews were freed from slaughter by the work of Queen Esther; so Lyra and Hugh the Cardinal on this place, whom almost all the more recent follow. But first it seems not credible that in these books the years are always computed after the manner of the Greeks, except in this one place; then also, even numbering from the twelfth year of Ahasuerus, the year 188 cannot fall in the times of Judas Maccabee. For Lyra, whom the rest follow, thus computes: from the 12th year of Ahasuerus to the end of his reign are 29 years; to these let there be added the six years in which Darius the son of Ahasuerus reigned, and there are 33; to which if there be again added 148, which are from the beginning of the reign of the Greeks even to Judas, there will be 188 years. But in this computation there are three most grave errors. The first, that from 29 and 6 and 148 there are not made 188, but 183, as is plain. The second, that these authors omit the nineteen years which are from the beginning of the Monarchy of Alexander even to the reign of Seleucus; for those 148 years of the Greeks, which are numbered 1 Maccabees 4 even to the victory of Judas, are numbered from Seleucus, not from Alexander, as we said above. If therefore you add the nineteen years which are from Alexander to Seleucus, all the years will be 202 from the twelfth year of Ahasuerus, not 188 as they will have it. The third error is that in this computation they make Ahasuerus the last but one of the Kings of the Persians, following the dreams of the Jews against the opinion of the Latins and of all the Greeks. Eusebius in the Chronicle sets after Ahasuerus still three Kings of the Persians; Josephus, whom I have above followed, numbers seven Kings after Ahasuerus; from which it follows that from the twelfth year of Ahasuerus even to Judas there flowed not 188 years, but far more than 200. Therefore with Melchior Cano and some others I think the question is to be dissolved thus, that we say: those words in the year 188 are not the beginning of the following letter which Judas wrote, but the end of the preceding one, which was written by the whole people of the Jews, under the leader John Hyrcanus. This the Greek codices plainly indicate, which after those words, in the year 188, set a distinction; and reason certainly requires it, that, since those words are between the beginning of one letter and the end of another, and the number of the years is wont to be set at the end rather than at the beginning, we should refer them to the preceding letter, not to the following.
The seventh objection is taken from this, that the former book of Maccabees seems to fight with the Gospel. For book 1 chapter 1 the author of that book affirms that the prophecy of Daniel concerning the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place was fulfilled when Antiochus Epiphanes placed an idol in the Temple of the Lord. But Christ, Matthew 24, asserts that that prophecy is to be fulfilled in the last days. I answer that in the books of Maccabees no mention is made of the prophecy of Daniel, but only the idol of Antiochus is called the abominable idol of desolation, as indeed it was. The last objection, which some bring, from this, that in these books those seem to be commended who slew themselves, such as was Eleazar book 1 chapter 6 and Razias book 2 chapter 14, St. Augustine long ago dissolved, in epistle 61 to Dulcitius, and book 2 against the epistle of Gaudentius chapter 23; and the sum of the answer is: that the deaths of these men are narrated in Scripture, not praised, or at least not so praised as if they did piously and holily what they did, although it cannot be denied that boldly and manfully, and by the judgment of men, they did it bravely.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
caput xv. De libris Machabceorum. Libri Machabseorum, praeter communia testimonia, testimonium habent , et honori¬ fice producuntur a S. Cypriano in libr. de exhort. martyr, cap. XI. aS. Greg. Nazian. in oratione de Machabaeis, a S. Ambrosio lib. II. de Jacob. c. 10, 11, 12, et ab aliis passim qui eosdem libros Scripturam divi¬ nam disertis verbis appellant. S. Cyprianus lib. I. ep. 3. ad Cornelium , et Isidorus lib. VI. Etymologiarum c. 1. S. autem August. (cui multum auctoritatis saepe Calvinus tri¬ buit) lib. XVIII. de Civit. Dei cap. 36. in¬ quit : « Machabaeorum Libri, quos non Ju¬ daei, sed Ecclesia pro canonicis habet. » Et lib. II. contra epistolas Gaudentii cap. 23. eorumdem librorum auctoritatem studiose defendit, Scripturam sanctam eos appel¬ lans. Sed adversariorum argumenta videa¬ mus. Primum objicit Calvinus lib. III. Instit. LIBER I. 100 cap. 5. §. 8. quod auctor horum librorum laudat prmposterum zelum , et superstitio¬ sum factum Judse Machabaei , qui pro mor¬ tuis sacrificium offerri jussit, II. Machab. 12. Nam praeterquam quod superstitiosum est pro quibuscumque mortuis orare, accedit etiam, quod isti, pro quibus Judas orare jussit, decesserant lethali crimine obligati, pro qualibus non esse orandum etiam Catho¬ lici docent : sic autem eos decessisse patet ; nam ut ibidem dicitur : Invenerunt autem sub tunicis interfectorum de donariis idolorum , a quibus lex prohibet Judoeos (1), quae habetur Deut. VII. 25. Respondeo : orare pro mortuis , quos non est certum esse in coelo, vel in gehenna, pium et religiosum esse , ut ostendemus suo loco : nunc satis sit opponere Calvino Au¬ gustinum, qui ex hoc ipso loco probat, pium esse orare pro mortuis, in epist. LXI. ad Dulcitium, lib. I. de moribus Ecclesiae c. 23. et lib. de cura pro mortuis cap. 1. Itaque tantum interest inter spiritum Augustini et Calvini, ut Augustinus quia libros Macha- bseorum credit esse canonicos , inde colligat bonum esse orare pro mortuis ; Calvinus quod existimet malum esse orare pro mor¬ tuis, inde deducat libros Machabaeorum non esse canonicos. Ad illud autem quod objici¬ tur , respondeo : Judam pie existimasse eos in articulo mortis dolorem de peccato suo coram Deo concepisse, et misericordiam apud Dominum invenisse, quod significant illa verba : Quia considerabat quod hi, qui cum pietate dormitionem acceperant, optimam habe¬ rent repositam gratiam (2). Secundo objicit Calvinus in Antidoto Con¬ cilii : non posse hujus libri auctorem haberi canonicum, cum lib. II. cap. ult. veniampe- tat erratorum. Adde quod cap. II. ait : a Et nobis quidem ipsis , qui hoc opus breviandi causa suscepimus, non facilem laborem, imo vero negotium plenum vigiliarum et sudoris assumpsimus. » Quibus verbis indicat se hu¬ mano more hunc librum composuisse; Au¬ ctores enim vere sacri non ingenio et labore suo, sed Spiritu sancto revelante scripserunt, ut patet Hierem. XXXVI, de Hieremia , qui tanta facilitate dictabat Notario suo Baruch ea quae Deus ei revelabat, ut ex libro aliquo legere videtur. Respondeo : Deum quidem esse auctorem omnium divinarum Scripturarum, sed aliter tamen adesse solitum Prophetis, aliter aliis, praesertim historicis. Nam Prophetis revela¬ bat 'futura et simul assistebat, ne aliquid falsi admiscerent in scribendo , et ideo Pro¬ phetae non alium habuerunt laborem, quam scribendi, vel dictandi : aliis autem Scripto¬ ribus Deus non semper revelabat ea quae scripturi erant, sed excitabat , ut scriberent ea quae viderant, vel audierant , quorum re¬ cordabantur , et simul assistebat ne falsi aliquid scriberent : quae assistentia non fa~ ciebat ne laborarent in cogitando et quae¬ rendo quid et quomodo scripturi essent. Quare S. Lucas praefatione in Evangelium a se scriptum testatur, se assecutum omnia diligenter quae ad Evangelii scriptionem per¬ tinebant, idque ab iis , qui ipsi audierant et viderant, et ministri fuerant sermonis. Quod autem ad veniam attinet , non petit veniam iste auctor erratorum, quippe qui nulla esse sciebat ; sed orationis minus politae : quem¬ admodum etiam B. Paulus se imperitum ser¬ mone confitetur II. Cor. XI. Objectio tertia aliorum, II. Machab. I. dicitur : Cum in Persidem ducerentur patres nostri (3) : at certum est , non in Persidem, sed in Babylonem abductos fuisse Judaeos ; non igitur veram historiam narrat auctor hujus libri. Nonnulli valde laborant ut osten¬ dant quando in Persidem ducti fuerint Ju¬ daei, sed existimo rem esse facillimam. Nam auctor hujus libri Persidem vocat , non so¬ lum eam regionem quae proprie dicitur Per¬ sis, sed etiam alias finitimas : id patet ex libro I. Machab. cap. VI., ubi nuntius qui venit in Babylonem ad Antiochum, dicitur venisse ad eum in Perstem. Neque iste loquendi modus ab aliis Scriptoribus alie¬ nus est, cum Chrysostomus homil. VI. in Matth. dicat , Judaeos ex captivitate Persica liberatos. Objectio quarta , II. Machab. II. dicitur : Hieremias, cum spoliaretur et incenderetur Hierusalem et Templum a Chaldaeis, abscon¬ disse tabernaculum, et arcam foederis in spe¬ lunca quadam montis Nebo ; et dixisse, lo¬ cum illum fore occultum donec Deus iterum congregaret populum suum. At hic duo men¬ dacia continentur. Unum quod Hieremias illud fecerit : nam antequam urbs a Chaldaeis caperetur, Hieremias semper fuit in carcere, et erat invisus pene omnibus in Hierusalem, ut habetur Hierem. XXXVII et XXXVIII., (1) 11. Maeli. Xll. 40. — ( 2 ) Ibid. V. 45 — (3) Ibid. 1, 19. CAPUT XY. i 01 quocirca nec per se , nec per alios potuit, ici efficere : postquam autem capta est urbs, Chaldaei omnia diripuerunt , ut habetur IY. Reg. ult., proinde non remansit aliquid quod Hieremias posset abscondere. Alterum men¬ dacium est, quod iterum revertentes a cap¬ tivitate essent Arcam et Tabernaculum ha¬ bituri ; non enim unquam eam postea ha¬ buerunt. Respondeo : potuisse illud optime fieri, et ante spoliationem urbis et Templi (ut Epi- phanius sentit in vita Hieremiae) et etiam postea, ut alii volunt. Ante quidem : non tempore Sedecise, sed Joachim, ter enim Nabuchodonosor venit in Judaeam, et abduxit inde captivum Regem et populum. Primum, tempore Joachim, ut habetur II. Paralip. ult. Secundo, tempore Joachim, ut habetur 1Y. Reg. XXIY. Tertio, tempore Sedeciae, 1Y. Reg. XXY. Tametsi autem tempore Sedecise Hieremias fuerit fere semper in carcere, et omnibus invisus ; tamen tempore Joachim liber erat et magnae auctoritatis , ita ut cre¬ dibile sit, ad ejus persuasionem Joachim sponte se tradidisse Regi Babylonis. Constat enim Hieremiam hoc suasisse, Hier. XXVII., et simul constat Joachim id fecisse, Hierein. XXIX. Potuit igitur Rege consentiente , Ar¬ cam et Tabernaculum asportare : potuit etiam posteaquam civitas capta est; nam Hieremias a Nabuchodonosor maximi fiebat, ut patet Hier. XXXIX. Non fuisse autem a militibus diripientibus urbem Hierosolymam ablatam Arcam aut Tabernaculum, satis pa¬ tet ex Hier. LII , ubi enumerantur omnia, quae ex Templo Domini Chaldaei abstulerunt, usque ad phialas et mortariola,; et Arcae ac Tabernaculi nulla mentio fit. Neque vero al¬ terum est mendacium, quod rursum Arca invenienda esset , quando iterum congrega¬ retur populus : nam non loquebatur Hier, de illa congregatione,quae fuit tempore Cyri ; sed vel de tempore novissimo, quod proxime diem judicii praecedet, ut vult Epiphanius in vita Hierem., vel mystice intelligendum est, Arcam apparituram, id est, Christum in carne venturum in nova populi congregatione , ut exponit Repertus lib. X. De victoria verbi cap. 21. Objectio quinta. Lib. I. Machab. cap. I. Alexander Magnus primus regnasse dicitur in Graecia, et hoc falsum videtur, cum non fuerit Alexander primus, sed ante illum multi fuerint Reges Lacedaemoniorum, Macedo¬ num, Corinthiorum , Atheniensium , etc. ut ex Chronico Eusebii patet. Praeterea ibidem dicitur Antiochus illustris regnasse anno 137 regni Graecorum : cum tamen constet ex eo¬ dem Eusebio , Antiochum regnasse anno ■156., tot enim sunt anni a primo anno Mo¬ narchiae Graecorum usque ad Antiochum. Denique lib. I. cap. VIII. dicuntur Romani singulis annis committere uni homini magis¬ tratum suum et omnes uni obedire : at hoc est falsum, nam duo Consules eo tempore creabantur. Respondeo : Scripturam, cum dicit Ale¬ xandrum primum regnasse in Graecia, non de regno quocumque, sed de Monarchia Graecorum loqui : et cum dicit , Antiochum illustrem regnasse anno 137. regni Graeco¬ rum, non numerare annos ab Alexandro, sed a Seleuco, qui post Alexandrum I. regnavit in Syria, ut monet Eusebius in Chronico : quia enim Judaea pars est Syriae, a primo Rege Syriae annos numerabant Judaei : a Se¬ leuco autem ad Antiochum sunt anni 137., quibus si addas annos 19, qui sunt ab Ale¬ xandro ad Seleucum, erunt anni 156. Ad illud autem de Romanis respondeo : unius tantum Consulis mentionem fieri, quia in more apud Romanos positum erat , ut alter¬ nis diebus Consules imperarent. Cujus rei testis esse potest infelix exitus pugnae Can¬ nensis , cujus causa temeritas fuit alterius Consulis, penes quem eo die imperium erat. Itaque licet duo Consules essent , uni tamen commissa esse Respublica videbatur. Idque institutum est ab ipso primo exortu Consu¬ laris dignitatis, ne videlicet (ut ait Livius 1. 11.) si duo simul Consules imperarent, Regi¬ bus exactis, non remotus sed duplicatus ter¬ ror videretur. Objectio sexta. Lib. I. Mach. c. IY. Judas legitur purgasse Templum anno 148., id est, uno anno ante obitum Antiochi, qui obiit anno 149. ut dicitur I. Mach.YI. at id repug¬ nat lib. II. cap. X. ubi habetur, Judam pur¬ gasse Templum biennio post mortem Antio¬ chi. Praeterea lib. I. c. YI. dicitur Antiochus illustris mortuus in Babylonia in lecto suo prae dolore animi , quia non successerant ei negotia sicut optaverat : at lib. II. cap. I. dicitur membratim caesus cum multis ex suis in templo Nanneae ; et rursum lib. II. c. IX. dicitur mortuus cum dolore interno visce¬ rum, tum quia de curru in itinere cecide¬ rat. Denique lib. I. c. IX. dicitur Judas mor¬ tuus anno 152. at lib. II. cap. I., dicitur scripsisse epistolam anno 188. quod si esse # 102 LIBER I. verum , anno 36. post mortem suam eam scripsisset. Ilaec omnia, cum tam male inter se cohaereant , manifesta indicia falsitatis praebent. Ad primam argumenti hujus partem Six- tus Senensis ut respondeat, scribit in 1. VIII. Bibliothecae sanctae , bis factam esse Templi repurgationem : sed neque id verum esse videtur, neque ad argumenti solutionem ne¬ cessarium. Et quidem verum non esse satis indicat Scriptura , cum omnia quae de hac repurgatione uno in loco refert, referat etiam in alio. Non esse autem necessarium inde probatur ; quia posita una tantum repurga¬ tione, in utroque loco adhuc nulla est in hoc libro repugnantia. Tametsi enim repurgatio Templi in lib. I. c.IY. narratur ante mortem Antiochi, et lib, II. c. X. narratur post mor¬ tem Antiochi ; tamen hoc posteriore loco narratur quidem post mortem Antiochi , sed non asseritur facta post mortem Antiochi. Voluit enim auctor absolvere quae de Antio¬ cho dicturus erat , et tum demum redire ad Judam et Templi repurgationem : quod au¬ tem dicitur facta post biennium; non signi¬ ficatur post biennium a morte Antiochi , sed post biennium a profanatione. Nam profa¬ natum fuit Templum anno 145., ut dicitur lib. I. c. I., et post biennium exactum anno 148. repurgatum fuit, ut habetur lib. I. c. IV. Quare recte Eusebius in Chronico, et Joseph. lib. XII. Antiquitat. cap. X. scribunt, Tem¬ plum repurgatum tertio anno a profanatione, id est, post biennium jam exactum. Quod attinet ad alteram partem argu¬ menti ; conveniunt fere omnes , eumdern esse Antiochum, Epiphanem videlicet, cujus mors describitur lib. I. c. VI. et lib. II. c. IX. nam potuit in itinere corripi doloribus visce¬ rum, et cadere ex curru, ut dicitur lib. II. c. IX. et postea sic aeger pervenire in Baby¬ lonem , et ibi addito dolore animi ex nuntio ad se allato rei malae gestae in Judaea a suis, tandem mori. At de Antiocho , cujus mors describitur lib. II. cap. I., maxima quaestio est. Aliqui volunt esse Antiochum magnum, ut Lyranus in hunc locum et quidam alii : sed hoc esse non potest. Nam Antiochus ma¬ gnus obiit antequam Judas, qui hanc episto¬ lam scripsit, Dux Judaeorum esset , nec fuit ullum bellum Judaeis cum Antiocho magno. Alii volunt esse Antiochum Demetrii filium, qui etiam Triphon , seu Griphus dicitur ab Eusebio. Ita Rupertus lib. X. de victoria verbi, cap. VI. : sed neque hoc potest esse verum. Nam tempore istius Antiochi, non Judas, sed Joannes Ilircanus dux Judaeorum erat, et tamen Judas epistolam scribit. Prae¬ terea epistola scribitur Aristobulo magistro Ptolomaei Philometoris , quem constat ex Eusebio in Chronico fuisse tempore Judae, id est, diu ante tempora Antiochi Griphi. Dicendum igitur est, hunc Antiochum esse Antiochum Epiphanem, illum ipsum de quo agitur in lib. I. c. VI. et lib. II. cap. IX. nam tunc vivebat Judas qui epistolam scripsit, et etiam Aristobulus ad quem scripta est. Prae¬ terea iste fuit primus et summus ex Regibus Syriae inimicus Judaeorum, ut merito de ejus morte tanta laetitia esset in Judaea. Denique quod dicitur lib. II. c. IX. de An¬ tiocho illustri, quod templum in Perside spoliare voluit, et turpiter fugatus est , om¬ nino convenit cum eo quod hic dicitur de isto Antiocho, quod in templo Nanneae ceci¬ derit et percussus fuerit , et quod multi ejus milites membratim caesi fuerint. Neque vero necesse est affirmare illic eum interiisse, ubi dicitur cecidisse ; cecidisse enim dici potest, quoniam exercitus ejus fusus fugatusque est. Quemadmodum Gen. XIV, Regem Sodomo¬ rum in praelio cecidisse narrat Scriptura di¬ vina , et tamen paulo post eum viventem et Abrahae occurrentem introducit. Itaque An¬ tiochus in eo sensu dicitur cecidisse, quo¬ niam exercitus ejus caesus percussusque fue¬ rat, et ipse turpi fuga elapsus , forte etiam vulneratus , in ipso itinere de curru cecidit, et paulo post mortuus est. Ad tertiam probationem aliqui respon¬ dent : non esse Judam Machabaeum, sed ali¬ quem alium qui eam epistolam scripsit. Ita Rupertus lib. X. de victoria verbi cap. 15. sed non videtur id esse verum. Nam anno 188., non Judas, sed Joannes Hircanus Dux Judaeorum erat; nec ullus fuit ex ducibus Judaeorum qui vocaretur Judas praeter unum Machabaeum : nec est verisimile, cum Se¬ natu et populo in titulo litterarum alium no¬ minari quam Principem. Alii volunt , hunc Judam esse quidem Machabaeum , sed annos qui initio litterarum ponuntur supputari, non more Graecorum a Seleuco , sed more Hebraeorum ab anno duodecimo Assueri, quo liberati fuerunt omnes Judaei a nece , opera Esther Reginae. Ita Lyranus et Hugo Cardi¬ nalis in hunc locum , quos fere recenti ores omnes sequuntur. Sed primum non videtur credibile in his libris semper annos suppu¬ tari more Graecorum, praeterquam in hoc uno loco : deinde etiam numerando ab anno duodecimo Assueri , non potest incidere an¬ nus 188. in tempora Juda3 Machabeei. Lyra- nus enim, quem caeteri sequuntur, ita com¬ putat : ab anno 12. Assueri usque ad finem regni ejus sunt anni 29. : his addantur sex anni quibus regnavit Darius filius Assueri, et sunt 33. quibus si rursus addantur 148., qui sunt ob initio regni Graecorum usque ad Judam, erunt 188. anni. Sed in ista supputatione tres sunt gravis¬ simi errores. Primus , quod ex 29. et 6. et 148. non fiunt 188. sed 183. ut patet. Secun¬ dus, quod omittunt hi auctores annos no¬ vemdecim, qui sunt a principio Monarchiae Alexandri usque ad regnum Seleuci : illi enim 148. anni Graecorum , qui numerantur lib. I. Machabaeorum, c. IV. usque ad victo¬ riam Judae, numerantur a Seleuco , non ab Alexandro, ut supra diximus. Si ergo addas annos novemdecim qui sunt ab Alexandro ad Seleucum, erunt omnes anni 202. ab anno duodecimo Assueri, non 188. ut ipsi volunt. Tertius error est , quod in ista supputatione faciunt Assueram penultimum Regem Per¬ sarum, secuti somnia Judaeorum adversus sententiamLatinorumet Graecorum omnium. Eusebius in Chronico post Assueram adhuc tres Reges Persarum ponit : Josephus, quem ego supra secutus sum , septem Reges post Assueram numerat : ex quo sequitur, ab an¬ no duodecimo Assueri usque ad Judam, non 188. annos, sed longe amplius quam 200. effluxisse. Igitur cum Melchiore Cano et aliis non¬ nullis existimo , sic esse quasstionem dissol¬ vendam, ut dicamus : illa verba anno 188. non esse principium epistolae sequentis quam Judas scripsit, sed finem praecedentis quae scripta est a toto populo Judaeorum Duce Joanne Hircano. Id aperte indicant Graeci codices, qui post illa verba, anno 188. dis¬ tinctionem constituunt, et ratio certe id exi¬ git, ut cum sint illa verba inter initium unius epistolae et finem alterius, et numeras anno¬ rum in fine potius quam in principio poni soleat, ea nos ad epistolam praecedentem, non ad sequentem referamus. Objectio septima sumitur ex eo, quod liber prior Machabaeorum cum Evangelio pugnare videatur. Nam. lib. I. cap. 1. affirmat auctor ejus libri vaticinium Danielis de abominatio¬ ne desolationis stante in loco sancto imple¬ tum esse, quando Antiochus Epiphanes ido- um in Templo Domini collocavit. At Chris¬ tus Matth. XXIV. vaticinium illud asserit implendum in novissimis diebus. Respondeo : in libris Machabaeorum nullam fieri mentio¬ nem vaticinii Danielis, sed solum idolum Antiochi vocari abominandum idolum deso¬ lationis, ut revera erat. Objectionem postremam quam afferunt nonnulli, ex eo quod in his libris videntur ii commendari qui semet occiderunt, qualis fuit Eleazarus lib. I. cap. VI. et Raziaslib. II. cap. XIV. diluit jamdudum S. Augustinus in epistol. 61 „ ad Dulcitium, et lib. II. contra epist. Gaudentii cap. 23. et summa respon¬ sionis est : mortes horum hominum narrari in Scriptura, non laudari, vel certe non ita laudari quasi pie et sancte fecerint quod fe¬ cerunt, quamvis audacter et viriliter, et ho¬ minum judicio, fortiter eos fecisse negari non possit.