Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book I: On the Canonical Books
Chapter 16: On certain parts of the books of Mark, Luke, and John
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).
That the last chapter of Mark was, in the time of blessed Jerome, not received by all as canonical, is plain from the epistle to Hedibia, question 3. The cause of the doubt was on account of certain apocryphal words which were inserted in that last chapter, as is plain from Jerome, book 2 against the Pelagians, before the middle. For these words were inserted, which savor clearly enough of Manichaeism: “And they satisfied him, saying, This age of iniquity and unbelief is a substance, which through unclean spirits suffers not the true power of God to be apprehended; therefore now reveal thy justice.” But now it is not lawful for us to doubt; for the Council of Trent, session 4, commands the books entire to be received with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church. But this chapter is read on the most celebrated days of the Resurrection and Ascension, and the same is expounded by Bede, and by blessed Gregory, homilies 21 and 29 on the Gospels. Athanasius also, in the Synopsis, in the sum of the Gospel according to Mark, acknowledges this chapter as truly Mark's; and likewise Augustine, book 3 On the Agreement of the Evangelists chapter 24. Finally it is incredible that the Gospel of Mark should be so mutilated and truncated as to contain nothing of the resurrection. Add that even Calvin, chapter 17 section 47 of the Institutes, admits this last chapter of Mark as a part of the Gospel; so that there is no need to labor longer in proving this matter.
Out of chapter 22 of Luke certain persons call into doubt that history of the bloody sweat of Christ, and the angelic apparition and consolation, as Hilary witnesses book 10 On the Trinity, and Jerome book 2 against the Pelagians. The cause which moved these was this, lest they should seem to attribute to Christ infirmity and grief of mind; for which cause also certain Catholics, by a preposterous zeal, erased from their codices, out of those words of Luke 19, Seeing the city, he wept over it, the word wept, as Epiphanius witnesses in the Ancoratus. But surely these feared where there was no fear. For if Christ, as man, could, the passion imminent, fear and be sad (as also Matthew 26 and Mark 14 testify), why could he not by the same reason sweat, and admit angelic consolation? And if he had a passible body and a feeling soul, why could he not grieve and weep? And so Athanasius, book 6 to Theophilus, who treats those things concerning the beatitude of the Son of God, says anathema to those who deny that Christ sweated blood. Epiphanius too in the Ancoratus, and Augustine book 3 On the Agreement of the Evangelists chapter 4, acknowledge this place of Luke as evangelical; nor do Hilary and Jerome, in the cited places, teach the contrary, but only admonish that it was not in all the codices of their time, and therefore was held of not so certain faith.
That the beginning of chapter 8 of John, in which is contained the history of the adulteress, was not of old of certain faith, Erasmus teaches in the annotation of this place out of Eusebius, book 3 of the History chapter 39, where he thus says, speaking of Papias: “He subjoins a certain history of a woman taken in adultery, who was accused by the Jews before the Lord; and this parable is had written in the Gospel which is called according to the Hebrews.” By which words he plainly indicates that he had not seen that history in the Gospel of John, and that it seemed to him not so much a history as a parable. Nevertheless it ought not to be doubted that it is both a history and evangelical, since it is read in the Church on the Saturday after the third Sunday of Lent, and the most grave Greek and Latin Fathers acknowledge it: Ammonius of Alexandria in his Evangelical Monotessaron, Athanasius in the Synopsis in the compendium of the Gospel of John, Chrysostom homily 60 on John, Ambrose in epistle 58, book 7, to Studius, Jerome book 2 against the Pelagians, and Augustine tractate 33 on John. The same Augustine too, book 2 On Adulterous Marriages chapter 7, says that this history was erased from some codices by the enemies of the true Faith. Nor does it hurt our cause, but rather helps it, that Eusebius writes that Papias, a disciple of John, made mention of this history; for that is a sign that the thing is true. And that Eusebius had it not in his codex of the Gospel matters little; for perhaps it had been erased by someone. Add that it is probable that Eusebius speaks not of this history of the adulteress, but of another truly apocryphal; for in the Greek text of Eusebius there is not had the name of “adulteress,” but the phrase [in the Greek: “concerning a woman accused of many sins” — the Greek is garbled in the scan].
Concerning those words which are had 1 John 5: There are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one — that a doubt sometime existed, and ought now also to exist, Erasmus contends in a long discourse in the annotation of this place; but certainly in the Church these words are publicly read on the Sunday in Albis. The same place acknowledge Cyprian in the book On the Simplicity of Prelates, Athanasius book 1 to Theophylus (which is On the United Deity), Pope John II in the epistle to Valerius, Jerome in the Prologue of the Canonical Epistles, Idacius in the book against Varimundus, and Eugenius of Carthage in Victor, book 2 On the Vandalic Persecution. Wherefore it is not doubtful that those words are a true part of the divine Scripture.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVI. De quibusdam partibus librorum Marci , Lucae , Joannis . Ultimum caput Marci tempore B . Hiero¬ nymi non fuisse ab omnibus receptum ut ca¬ nonicum, patet ex epist. ad Hedibiam qu.3. Causa dubitationis erat propter qutedam ver¬ ba apocrypha, quae in isto ult. cap. inserta erant, ut patet ex Hieronymo lib. II. contra Pelagianos ante medium. Haec enim inserta erant verba, quae satis aperte Manichaeismum redolent : « Et illi satisfaciebant dicentes, saeculum istud iniquitatis, et incredulitatis substantia est, quae, non sinit per immundos spiritus veram Dei apprehendi virtutem, id¬ circo jam nunc revela justitiam tuam. »Nune nobis dubitare non licet, nam Concil. Trid. sess. IV. jubet, libros integros recipi cum omnibus suis partibus; ut in Ecclesia Catho¬ lica legi consueverunt : legitur autem caput hoc in diebus celeberrimis Resurrectionis et Ascensionis, et idem exponitur a Beda , et a B. Greg. hom. 21. et 29. in Evangelia. Athanasius etiam in Synopsi in summa Evan- gelii secundum Marcum hoc caput ut vere Marci agnoscit , et similiter Augustinus lib. De de consensu Evan. cap. XXIV. Denique incredibile est Marci Evangelium ita muti¬ lum et truncum esse, ut nihil de resurrectione •I 04 liber i. contineat. Adde, quod etiam Calvinus cap. XVII. §. 47. Instit. hoc ultimum caput Marci admittit ut partem Evangelii , ut non sit opus in hac re probanda diutius labo¬ rare. Ex cap. XXII. Lucae quidam in dubium revocant historiam illam de sudore Christi sanguineo, et angelica apparitione et conso¬ latione, ut Hilarius testatur lib . X. de Trin. et Hieronym. lib. II. contra Pelagianos. Causa quee hos permovit ea fuit, ne Christo infirmitatem et animi dolorem tribuere vide¬ rentur : qua etiam de causa quosdam Ca¬ tholicos praepostero zelo e suis codicibus ex illis verbis Luc. XIX. videns civitatem flevit super illam abrasisse verbum, flevit, testatur Epiphanius in Ancorato . At certe isti timue¬ runt ubi non erat timor. Si enim Christus ut homo potuit imminente passione pavere et taedere, ut etiam Matt. cap. XXVI et Mare. XIV testantur : cur non potuit eadem ra¬ tione sudare et angelicam consolatio¬ nem admittere ? et si corpus habuit passibile et animam sentientem ; cur non potuit do- lere et flere ? Itaque Athanasius lib . VI . ad Theophilum,qui ista de beatitudine filii Dei, anathema dicit iis qui Christum sanguinem sudasse negant. Epiphanius quoque in An¬ corato et Augustinus lib. III. de Consensu Evang. cap. IV, hunc locum Lucse ut Evan- gelicum agnoscunt : neque Hilarius et Hie¬ ronymus locis citatis contrarium docent, sed tantum monent, non in omnibus codicibus suo tempore fuisse, et proptereanon ita cer- tse fidei habitum. Initium capitis VIII. Joannis, quae adulte¬ rae historia continetur, non fuisse olim certae fidei, Erasmus docet in annotatione hujus loci ex Eusebio lib. III. hist. c. 39. ubi sic dicit de Papia loquens : « Historiam quamdam subjungit de muliere adultera, qure accusata est a Judaeis apud Dominum ; habetur autem in Evangelio quod dicitur secundum He¬ braeos scripta ista parabola. » Quibus verbis aperte indicat, se non vidisse eam historiam in Evangelio Joannis et sibi non tam histo¬ riam quam parabolam videri. Nihilominus tamen dubium esse non debet , quin ea et historia sit et Evangelica , cum legatur in Ecclesia in Sabbato post Dominicam III Quadragesimae, et eam agnoscant gravissimi Patres Graeci et Latini : Ammonius Alexan¬ drinus in suo Monotessaro Evangelico, Atha¬ nasius in Synopsi in compendio Evangelii Joannis, Ghrysostomus hom. 60. in Joann. Ambrosius inepist. 58. lib. VII. ad Studium, Hieronymus lib. II. contra Pelagianos, et Augustinus tractat. 33. in Joannem. Idem quoque Aug. lib. II. de adulterinis conjugiis cap. 7. eam historiam ab inimicis verae Fidei erasam fuisse de nonnullis codicibus dicit . Neque causae nostrae officit, sed prodest potius quod Eusebius scribit, Papiam Joan¬ nis discipulum hujus historiae meminisse ; id enim signum est rem esse veram. Quod au¬ tem eam Eusebius in suo codice Evangelii non habuerit, parum refert, forte enim ab aliquo erasa erat. Adde quod probabile est, Eusebium non loqui de hac historia adulte- terae, sed de alia vere apocrypha : nam, in textu Graeco, Eusebii non habetur nomen adulterae , sed nspi y\)vu.r/.og im dg«6Ttat£ 8i«p),rj0Ei'<r/7; . . De verbis illis, quae habentur epist I. Jo : Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in coelo , Pater Verbum et Spiritus sanctus, et hi tres unum sunt (1) : dubium aliquando exstitisse, et nunc etiam esse debere, longa oretione con¬ tendit Erasmus iu annotatione hujus loci : at certe in Ecclesia publice leguntur haec verba in Dominica in Albis. Eumdem locum agno¬ scit Cyprianus lib. de simplicitate Praelato¬ rum, Athanasius lib. I. ad Theophylum, qui est de unita Deitate. Joann. II. Papadn epist. ad Valerium, Hieronymus in Prologo episto¬ larum canonicarum, Idacius in lib. adversus Varimundum , et Eugenius Carthaginiensis apud Victorem lib. II. de Persecutione Wan- dalica. Quare verba illa veram esse partem Scripturae divinae non dubium est.