Heresy VII, Of the Book of Ecclesiastes

OF THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES — Heresy VII (De Libro Ecclesiastis. Haeresis VII)

To repudiate the Ecclesiastes of Solomon.

ASSERTORES HVIVS HAERESEOS [The Assertors of this Heresy]

Philastrius, in the catalogue of heresies, places this error among the unnamed heresies, whose author is unknown. Hugo of Caro [Hugh of St. Cher] in the preface of this book seems to intimate that [the error] derived from the foolish opinions of certain Jews, who indeed asserted that Solomon put forth this book for the confutation of the ancient idolatry, whose root and cause had been [the belief in] the eternity of the world. Who [Solomon], since at the time when he wrote this he loved [was enamored of] idolatrous women — as is read in the third [book] of Kings — did not dare to write openly about the vanity of the world, and about its origin and destruction, lest, plucking out the error of those [women] from that very root, he should offend either them, or the nations of them. Whence, as it were studying to please them, he sometimes affirmed all things to have been from eternity, when he said: “Nothing (Nihil) new under the sun” — adding also many other things similar to these, for the sake of the women whom he loved. ¹ Jerome also, at the end of the commentaries on this book, relates that the Jews were about to cast this book from the Canon of the holy letters — because it seems to esteem the whole to be for nothing, and to prefer eating, and drinking, and passing delights to all things; but that they desisted from this opinion, on account of a few words which are found written at the end of this book.

CONFVTATIO [The Confutation]

The heretics damn this book (as Philastrius related), first, because straightway in the very exordium of the book he said that all things which are under heaven are not only vanity, but even vanity of vanities; and [because] he did not deny to himself whatever his eyes desired; and because there was nothing good in the life of man except to rejoice, and to drink, and to eat; and [because] the death of man and of beasts is the same. For which causes (as Jacobus [James] Christopolitanus, bishop, in the preface to the commentaries on the Canticle of Solomon relates) certain unnamed heretics said that Solomon lacked the illustration of the Holy Spirit — not only in the composition of the present book, but also of all his books — because his heart in old age was depraved by women, and turned to the magic arts and to idols, as is written in the third volume of Kings: which the Holy Spirit would surely never have permitted, if he had ever dwelt in him. ²

But far be it that we should think any such thing concerning Solomon — the treasury of the celestial science, through whose mouth the divine wisdom spoke — esteeming that he thought so impiously concerning God: [Solomon] who wholly lay [labored] upon this, that — in the manner of the best preacher — he might provoke the people to the contempt of this world, showing all things which are under the sun to be caducous [perishable], and to be reputed for nothing; [showing] that the world daily grows old, and that all mortals vanish among the errors of this life and the fleeting lapses of times, and that nothing solid, nothing stable, is found in the universe, but that God alone is always the same, [as] he has been; and that those alone are wise and blessed who are joined to God. But that such was the design of Solomon in this book is more manifestly demonstrated in the peroration of the volume — where Solomon, concluding his disputation, says: “Let us all alike hear the end (Finem) of speaking: Fear God, and keep his commandments; this is [the whole of] every man. All things that are done, God will bring into judgment, for every deed, whether it be good or evil.” By which words the whole [sum] of the disputation, and the cata-[logue] ³

(printed p. 645)

the sum of his catalogue [reckoning], compressing it as it were into this recapitulation (ἀνακεφαλαίωσις), he [Solomon] shows this one thing to have been the argument of his whole discourse [sermon]: that men, the enticements of this world being cast off, might fear and worship the Creator. But as to what (Quod autem) the heretics calumniate — that the creatures, good by their own nature, are in this volume called most vain vanity — it has an easy solution: for creatures are considered in two ways, either in themselves, or in relation [comparison] to God. For when they are considered in themselves, assuredly the earth, the seas, and all things which are contained in this circle [orb], are indeed good in themselves; but compared to God, they are nothing, save vanity of vanities, and all vanity, and to be reputed less than nothing. And just as I hold [account] the little flame of a lamp most welcome in the darkness — which, the splendor of the sun being risen, I contemn — so, beholding the elements and the manifold variety of things, I do indeed marvel at the greatness of the works; but reconsidering that all things pass away, and that the world grows old toward its own end, and that God alone is always that which he has been, I am compelled to say, not once, but twice: VANITY (VANITAS) of vanities; and all is vanity. But when (Cum autem) they add that Solomon set the destruction [end] of men and of beasts as equal, and placed the highest good in food and in pleasure — let them know that he brought forth such things not out of his own opinion, but according to the foolish opinion of cattle-like (pecuinorum) men, who, thinking that man wholly perishes in death like the rest of the animals, for [their] highest beatitude account it to gorge themselves with pleasures, and to be sated with all the enticements of this world. ⁴

That likewise which they mendaciously say — that Solomon lacked the inspiration [breath] of the Spirit — is expressly convicted [as] false out of the third book of Kings, in which it is written concerning him: “Behold (Ecce), [I have given] thee a wise and understanding heart, so much so that none before thee has been like unto thee, nor shall arise after thee.” Who, although he afterward fell, did not therefore fall because he had not before had the Spirit of God dwelling [in him], but because the divine providence permitted him to fall — lest (as Ambrose says) on account of his admirable wisdom and incomparable felicity he should be believed by the Jews to be either God, or the Messiah promised in the law. Whose fall, however grave it was, neither ought, nor was able, to take anything from the authority of his books. Since we know it often to have happened that God spoke true and holy [things] even through evil men; for the malice of men can in no way harm the gifts of God, nor ought the gifts of God to be less commended to us if those be evil through [by] whom they are ministered to us. For the gifts of God are to be inspected, not the minister; and not who, but what is said, is to be attended to. ⁵