Antithesis.
Antithesis.
§ 213. Almost all the Papists claim that the Book of Wisdom is canonical. The Photinians speak with such ambiguity that one cannot understand what they are claiming with respect to the canonical authority of this book. Socinus, Contra Puccium, p. 11: “The feeling about the testimonies of the Book of Wisdom was that it was believed to have no force to confirm the principles and decrees of our religion, that it was completely silent.” Page 198: “Because of the suspect authority of this book, I am not compelled to respond.” Schmaltzius, Refut. Frantzii, p. 401: “We are saying nothing about the fact that the Book of Wisdom, as Frantzius contends, is not authentic but is from the apocryphal writings.” Our contention, however, will be with the Papists. Bellarmine (De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 13) argues the canonicity of the Book of Wisdom from the notion that “it has the testimony of councils and fathers.” This reason is not yet enough, however, as one can understand from the general discussion of the apocryphal books we gave earlier. Yet let us see what the testimonies of the councils and fathers are.
(1) In the epistle to all the bishops, which Theodoret mentions (Hist. eccles., bk. 11, c. 8), the Council of Sardica argues from Wisdom 7 that “the Son of God is the Creator of all things and is true God.” We respond. From this it still does not follow that it is strong in canonical authority or that a council considered it canonical, just as Paul proves that God gave us breath and movement from Aratus’s Phaenomen [Acts 17:28]. The fathers were accustomed to draw out and make ready all kinds of weapons against heretics. Consequently, Irenaeus writes in Advers. haeres., bk. 4, c. 14: “The truth accepts testimony from all people, both from members of the household because they are friends and from strangers because they are enemies.” Thus the apostle Jude in v. 14 cites a testimony from the apocryphal Book of Enoch. Furthermore, Athanasius was present at the Council of Sardica, yet he writes clearly that the Book of Wisdom is not canonical (Synopsis and Epistle 39). So who in the world believes that the fathers of the Council of Sardica wanted to assign it canonical authority? Nazianzen, Cyril, Amphilochius, Rufinus, Epiphanius, Jerome, and the fathers of the Council of Laodicea rejected this book from the canon. But they all lived at the time of the Council of Sardica or not much later. Therefore how does it happen that they did not follow the authority of the Council of Sardica in this matter, if that council wanted to procure canonical authority for this book with its quotation? Finally, Sixtus Senensis concedes (bk. 8, Haeres. 9): “At the time of Jerome the Church had not yet given its approval to the Book of Wisdom.” But the Council of Sardica was convened at the time of Jerome.
(2) The Second Council of Toledo, can. 1, calls the Book of Wisdom “Holy Scripture.” We respond. It is using the expression “Holy Scripture” in a broader sense, by which it is used for all the books contained in the codex of the Bible. (Cf. what we said in § 206.)
(3) Dionysius quotes it as a book of Holy Scripture (De div. nomin., c. 4). We respond. Dionysius does indeed quote this book, but he indicates clearly that he considers it noncanonical. You see, he connects the author of this book with Ignatius and other commentators on Scripture, that is, with ecclesiastical writers, which is the way the ancients use the expression. He also numbers this book among the rudiments by which we are introduced to the 
, that is, to the utterances of God. This we understand from Athanasius in his Synopsis and Epistle 39, where he writes: “The Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus are indeed not canonical; nevertheless the catechumens, that is, those who want to be instructed in the rudiments of piety, read them.” We shall say nothing here regarding how much authority one should assign to the writings of Dionysius themselves.
(4) Melito, Epistle ad Onesimum, places Wisdom in the catalog of Holy Scripture. We respond. This letter of Melito is found in Eusebius, bk. 6, c. 25, in which we have these words 
[“proverbs the wisdom”]. The question, then, is whether Melito in these words set down two books of Solomon—Proverbs and Wisdom—as canonical or whether he is calling Proverbs “wisdom” by apposition. Bellarmine embraces the first idea, but we accept the latter, and we demonstrate it with the following arguments.
First, Eusebius says, “All the ancients called Proverbs 
” (Hist., bk. 4, c. 22). But Melito was one of the ancients.
Second, the article, which is not used with the other words, would be used here without reason unless it was related to the preceding word, so that the title of the book is 
[“Proverbs, which is wisdom”].
Third, all writers list those books in the following order: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, then they add Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus. This order occurs not only among those who reject the Book of Wisdom as apocryphal—important among which are Athanasius (Synopsis), Epiphanius (De mens. et ponder.), Jerome (Prol. galeat.), Rufinus (Expos. symb.), Cyril (Cateches. illum. 4), and John of Damascus (Orth. fid., bk. 4, c. 18)—but also among those who in a certain measure accept it. Among these are Augustine (De doctr. Christ., bk. 2, c. 8), Isidore (De offic. eccles., bk. 1, c. 12), Cassiodorus (Div. instit., bk. 1, c. 5), Rabanus (bk. 2, c. 52). In fact, the Council of Trent observes this order. But if one were to take Wisdom as a particular book, Melito would have upset that order.
Fourth, Eusebius says (Hist., bk. 4, c. 26), “Melito set down as the catalog of those Scriptures those that were not of doubtful authority.” Eusebius himself, however, places Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus “among the disputed writings [
]” (bk. 6, c. 12).
Fifth, Bellarmine writes (De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 20, § Ad alteram): “In explaining the canon of the Old Testament, Melito obviously followed the Hebrews, not the Greeks.” But if [Melito] had placed the Book of Wisdom in the canon, he would not have followed the Hebrews because the Hebrews do not have it among the canonical books. In the same place, Bellarmine argues: “It is not likely that Melito and others regarded the third book as canonical because he followed the Hebrews in explaining the canon.” If there is any weight to this reasoning, it will also confirm that Melito did not count the Book of Wisdom among the canonical books here.
Sixth, Rufinus translates the passage of Eusebius in this way: “Proverbs, which [is] also Wisdom.”
Seventh, Amphilochius was the bishop of Iconium, a neighbor of Melito, who came shortly after Melito. Among the canons and acts of the Trullan Council of Constantinople, as recorded in Gratian, dist. 16, c. Quoniam, Amphilochius lists in his Iambi ad Seleucum the catalog of the canonical books. After enumerating the rest, he adds: “Five were written in verses: Job, Psalms, and the three Books of Solomon: Proverbs, Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs.” Therefore he posits Proverbs and Wisdom as the same thing; otherwise, the number five would not fit.
Eighth, Melchior Canus himself admits (Loc. comm., bk. 2, c. 10, arg. 2, confirm. 1): “Cyprian, Melito, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and the Damascene all rejected those six books that are controversial, among which is also the Book of Wisdom.” He adds further: “This happened at a time when the matter had not yet been defined.”
Ninth, there appears to be no reason why Melito followed the Hebrew canon in everything yet counted in the canon only this book of all the controversial books.
(5) Cyprian (De habitu virg.) calls it “divine Scripture.” We respond in the same way as we did to the testimony of the Council of Toledo.
(6) Cyril (In Julianum, bk. 2) calls it “divine Scripture.” We respond. This is what he calls Proverbs, for his words read: “Even the talk of the Greeks confirms that God rejoices in works. We say it, too, because divine Scripture declares this. For Wisdom says, ‘I was daily His delight, rejoicing before Him always,’ etc.” However, these words are nowhere in the Book of Wisdom, but rather in Prov. 8:30.
(7) Augustine numbers this book among the canonical writings. For our response, see our statements in § 212.
§ 214. To support the canonical authority of this book, Sixtus Senensis (bk. 8, Haeres. 9) holds forth the argument that the apostle in Hebrews 11 quoted passages from Wisdom 6 and 4; however, we find no such things in the passages cited. Perhaps this is a typographical error that ought to be read as Hebrews 1 and Wisdom 7. You see, what Heb. 1:3 says about Christ—”Since He is the splendor of His glory and the figure of His substance”—seems to have been taken from Wisdom 7:26: “[Wisdom] is the radiance of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the majesty of God and the image of His goodness.” Others of the Papists press the idea that Paul used testimony taken from this book: “For who has known the mind of the Lord? Who has been His counselor?” (Rom. 11:34) and “For who has known the mind of the Lord?” (1 Cor. 2:16) where in the Vulgate version “as it is written” is added. They think this was taken from Wisdom 9:13: “What man will be able to know the counsel of God, or who will be able to know what the Lord wills?”
We respond. (1) In general. A bare quotation does not provide canonical authority. The apostle also quotes testimonies from Menander, Epimenides, and Aratus; Jude, from the apocryphal Book of Enoch. Yet they did not want to claim canonical authority for these writers as a consequence.
(2) Specifically. In Heb. 1:3, no testimony of prophetic Scripture is being cited. To be sure, the words are in some way similar to those in Wisdom 7:26, but they are not the same. In Rom. 11:34 and 1 Cor. 2:16, the apostle does not say that he is quoting any testimony. Nor does it follow: “Words similar to those are found here; therefore the apostle is quoting this passage.” Even if the apostle were quoting the words of prophetic Scripture or were alluding to some prophetic Scripture, we would not necessarily have to take this as coming from the passage of Wisdom. We find the same statement in Isa. 40:13: “Who has heard the Spirit of the Lord or as His counselor has instructed Him?” What of the fact that some of the Papist interpreters themselves acknowledge that the apostle is citing the testimony of Isaiah, not the Book of Wisdom? See Thomas (commentary on Romans 11, lect. 5), Cajetan (Anglo Remensis, on this passage), and Erasmus (Annot. on 1 Corinthians 2, p. 309, on the words Sicut scriptum est, Quis enim cognovit sensum Domini), who writes: “I do not find ‘as it is written’ in the Greek codices. Furthermore, the testimony he relates without indicating the source is in Isaiah 40, though Paul is expressing the sense rather than quoting the words.” And later: “He could appear to be relating that statement that is in Wisdom 9: ‘For what man will be able to know the counsel of God?’ except that among the Hebrews the Book of Wisdom is outside the canon. Thus it is quite satisfactory that we refer the testimony to Isaiah.”
§ 215. It is he who42 draws a conclusion as follows on behalf of the canonical authority of the Book of Wisdom: “In the Book of Wisdom are contained fragments of the Proverbs of Solomon, which will be obvious to anyone who compares Wisdom 7-9 with Proverbs 9. Therefore either Solomon is the author of this book or Philo collected it from the statements of Solomon.” We respond. (1) If having parts taken from a canonical book is enough to make any book canonical, the consequence would be that even 3 Ezra would be canonical, for it is almost entirely constructed from the last two chapters of 2 Chronicles and 1 Ezra. (2) Bellarmine acknowledges that “for Holy Scripture, not only some statements but all the words must be from the Holy Spirit” (De concil., bk. 2, c. 12, § Quartum est.). (3) Therefore even if there be the same truth in some statements of Wisdom and Proverbs, the authority of the two books, nevertheless, is far from being equal.