Book One: On the Sacred and Apocryphal Books

Chapter Thirteen: On the Book of Wisdom

The book of Wisdom has testimony from the ancient Councils and Fathers. The Council of Sardica in the epistle to all the bishops, which Theodoret mentions in Hist. bk.2 ch.8, proves from ch.7 of this book that the Son of God is the maker of all things and is true God; again the Second Council of Toledo ch.1 names the book of Wisdom as sacred Scripture.

Next the Fathers teach the same. For Dionysius Divine Names ch.4 cites it as a book of sacred Scripture. Melito Asianus in epist. to Onesimus puts Wisdom in the Catalogue of sacred Scriptures.

Cyprian in his book on the Habit of Virgins says, “When divine Scripture says, What advantage was pride to us etc.” Likewise Cyril bk.2 against Julian, beyond the middle, calls it divine Scripture. Blessed Augustine expressly teaches and proves that dogmas can be confirmed from this book and that it is canonical, bk.1 On Predestination ch.14.

And since Chemnitz with incredible impudence quotes this place of Augustine in truncated fashion and openly asserts that from this place is collected that this book was not for Augustine divine and of infallible truth, let us hear the whole passage: “What I set down, namely the testimony about the book of Wisdom, you say that the brothers have thus rejected as not making use of a canonical book. As if, even when the attestation of this book is removed, the thing itself were not clear which we wish to teach from this book”. This is cited by Chemnitz.

But lest us hear what is put later in the same chapter: “The opinion of the book of Wisdom should not be repudiated, which has deserved to be recited in the Church of Christ, from among the ranks of the Readers of the Church of Christ, and is heard with divine reverence of its authority by all Christian bishops right up to complete laymen, faithful, penitent, Catechumens”. And later, “This book of Wisdom should be put first by all expositors, since the outstanding expositors put it first for themselves in the times immediately following the Apostles, who when they used its evidence believed they were making use of nothing but divine testimony”. Add that all the ancients assert that this book is Solomon’s, whereby it manifestly follows that it is canonical. Eusebius Hist. bk.4 ch.22 says that Hegesippus, Irenaeus, and the whole choir of the ancients reckoned this book to be Solomon’s. For like reason Tertullian On Prescription, Cyprian Sermon on morality, Hilary on Psalm 127, Ambrose Sermon 8 on Psalm 118, Basil bk.5 Against Eunomius, Eusebius the Heresy of the Anomoeans, all cite this book under the name of Solomon. But as to the fact that Blessed Jerome in his preface to the book of Solomon says this book was thought by many to be Philo’s the Jew, and Blessed Augustine On Christian Doctrine bk.1 ch.8 says that it is of Jesus son of Sirach, this is not contrary to the common opinion of the Doctors. For the opinions indeed are Solomon’s, not Philo’s, as the ancients say, and it is very clear from ch.9 where the author of the book says, “You have chosen me king for your people, and you told me to build the temple on the holy mount, etc.”; yet these remarks were collected by someone else whom many think was Philo, not the Philo who was after Christ but another older one who indeed clothed the opinions of Solomon in Greek words, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, as is said in Proverbs 25 that the parables of Solomon were translated into a book by men of Ezekiel king of Judah, when before they were contained in notebooks. But divine Augustine retracted this opinion in Retract. bk.2 ch.4.

John Calvin Institutes bk.1 ch.11 sect.8 argues that the book of Wisdom is guilty of falsehood. “About the origin of idols,” he says, “it is received almost by public consent that it is contained in the book of Wisdom; namely that the first authors of them were those who gave this honor to the dead, so 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 the stimulus whereby the ignited madness of men flared up into idolatry; however I do not concede that this was the first fount of the evil. For that idols were already in use first before this ambition for consecrating images to the dead grew strong, of which there is much mention among profane authors, is clear from Moses, that when he narrates that Rachel stole the idols from her father he is speaking only of a common vice”. So Calvin who sufficiently openly contends that what is contained in the fourteenth chapter of Wisdom about the origin of idols is false. But Calvin assumes something false and then concludes something else false. For he assumes that before the time of Rachel there were no idols that bore the figure of men; and since it is clear that idols then existed, he deduces that the first idols were not images of men, as the book of Wisdom teaches. But he assumes something false; for at the beginning those very idols that Rachel stole were images of men; or rather the image of a man. For there was only one image, but Scripture uses the name of many, because that noun in Hebrew does not have a singular form. For the Hebrew word does indeed signify an idol representing the figure of a man, and that it spoke by the art of the devil and gave responses. That it is a figure of a man is plain from I Kings ch.19 where Michal, when she wanted to rescue David from the hands of Saul, let him out through a window and put an image in the bed in his place, which image represented a man, and the Hebrew word stands for what we mean by statue or image. Now that those idols would speak is plain from Ezekiel ch.21, for where we read “he asked the idols”, the word in Hebrew is similar to that in Zachariah ch.10 where we read that images speak vanities. Next it is certain that Belus, first king of Assyrians, who was before Rachel, nay even before Abraham, was held for a God after his death, as Eusebius testifies at the beginning of his Chronicle; and that a statue to him set up by his son Nilus was the first idol proposed publicly for worship is taught by Ambrose on the first chapter of Romans, or whoever was the author of those commentaries, and by Blessed Cyril bk.3 Against Julian, not far from the end. Finally that the beginning of idols was the making of human images in memory of the dead, as the book of Wisdom teaches, is witnessed by Cyprian at the beginning of his book on the Vanity of idols, by Chrysostom Homily 87 on Matthew, by Hegesippus in Jerome in his book on Famous Men, and others passim.

But you will object that if a statue erected to Belus by Ninus his son was the first idol, how is that true which the book of Wisdom says, that the first idol was made by the father in memory of the son? I reply that the statue of Belus was the first idol proposed publicly for worship; but the first idol absolutely was an image of a dead son made by the parent and honored privately. For thence as the depraved custom grew strong (as is said in the same ch.14 of Wisdom), figments began to be honored publicly by the command of tyrants.

Robert Bellarmine’s: Controversies of the Christian Faith – Volume 1: On the Word of God — HOME