It lacks the unanimous approval of the early Church.
It lacks the unanimous approval of the early Church.
§ 212. [IV] The Book of Wisdom lacks the unanimous approval of the early Church. Athanasius (Synopsis), Origen (in Eusebius, bk. 6, c. 24), Epiphanius (De mens. et ponderibus), Cyril (Catech. illum. 4), and John of Damascus (Orth. fid., bk. 4, c. 18) reject this book from the canon. Jerome, preface to Proverbs: “[The Church] should read these two volumes, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, for the edification of the people but not to confirm the authority of the Church’s dogmas.” (Sixtus Senensis responds in Biblioth., bk. 8, heresy 9: “Jerome was speaking about the Church of his time. The later Church, more fully instructed as it was by the Holy Spirit, accepted this book.” It is enough for us, however, that the testimonies of the more ancient fathers who were closer to the times of the apostles stand firm, because they were more careful and precise in discerning the canonical books.) Because Augustine (De praedest. sanct., bk. 1, c. 14) had cited a testimony from the Book of Wisdom, he said, “There was an outcry against this on the part of many devout and catholic brothers who deny that this book is canonical.” From this it appears that the canonical authority of this book had not been accepted even at the time of Augustine. And Augustine himself does not work anxiously and vigorously on behalf of the authority of this book but merely urges this: “It should not be despised, because it was read in the Church for so long a time with high regard. We should place it on a level higher than all those who discuss it.” Had Augustine claimed that this book was properly canonical, he would not have been so cool and lax in claiming authority for it. Bellarmine exclaims: “Chemnitz truncated his quotation of Augustine’s passage with great impudence.” There is nothing in it, however, that is greatly opposed to us. You see, though Augustine claims: “The statement of the Book of Wisdom must not be rejected because long ago it earned the place of being read in the Church of Christ from the step of the lectors and of being heard by all Christians with the reverence of divine authority,” nevertheless he does not attribute to it an authority fully equal to the rest of the properly canonical books because he writes about this book and says, “Against those who contradict, those things that were not written in the canon of the Jews cannot be quoted with such great authority” (elsewhere, “strength”) (De civ. Dei, bk. 17, c. 20).