Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book I: On the Canonical Books
Chapter 19: On the Apocalypse
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).
The Apocalypse of John, among the ancient heretics, the Marcionites rejected (as Tertullian witnesses book 4 against Marcion), and also the Alogians and Theodotians (as Epiphanius witnesses heresies 51 and 54). Among the new, Luther in his Prologue says that he finds something wanting in it, since the Apocalypse asserts that they shall be blessed who keep the things written in it, whereas no one understands what those things are. And in the earlier preface to the New Testament he says that he receives the Apocalypse neither as a prophetic nor as an apostolic book, but judges it like to the book of Esdras. Brentius and Kemnitz, in the places noted, subscribe to Luther; but the Magdeburgers, century 1 book 2 chapter 4 column 56, fall away from Luther to Calvin, and with him fight keenly for the Apocalypse against the other Lutherans. Erasmus, at the end of his annotations on the Apocalypse, anxiously seeks various conjectures whereby he may prove this book not to be John the Apostle's.
Nor were there wanting of old Catholics who doubted of the authority or the author of this book. For a certain ancient author, Caius, affirms this book to be the heretic Cerinthus's, as Eusebius witnesses book 3 of the History chapter 28. But Dionysius of Alexandria, in Eusebius book 7 chapter 23, refuting this opinion of Caius, asserts the book to be divine and canonical; yet doubting whether it be John the Apostle's, or another John's. Finally blessed Jerome, in the epistle to Dardanus, testifies that the Greeks so doubted of the Apocalypse against the common consent of the Latins, just as the Latins doubted of the epistle to the Hebrews against the common opinion of the Greeks.
Nevertheless we can easily prove that the Apocalypse is both a true offspring of John the Apostle, and an admirable and most divine book. First from the Councils: for in the Council of Ancyra, above 1200 years ago, in the last canon, it is cited under John's name; in the Third of Carthage canon 47, and in the Roman Council under Gelasius, it is numbered among the sacred and canonical books; likewise in the Fourth of Toledo canon 16. By the sanctions of many Councils and Pontiffs it is confirmed that the Apocalypse is John the Apostle's, and truly canonical and divine.
Then from the Greek and Latin Fathers the same thing can be proved. For Dionysius chapter 3 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy calls the Apocalypse the secret and mystical vision of the beloved disciple. Justin, in the Dialogue with Trypho, beyond the middle, says the Apocalypse to be John the Apostle's, and illustrated it with commentaries, as blessed Jerome testifies in the book On Illustrious Men, in John. Irenaeus book 5, near the end, asserts the Apocalypse to be John the Apostle's, and written almost in his own age, toward the end of the reign of Domitian; and he also published commentaries on it, as Jerome relates, On Illustrious Men, in John. Theophilus of Antioch, Melito of Sardis, and Dionysius of Alexandria — most ancient and most learned Greek Bishops — received the Apocalypse as divinely written, as Eusebius witnesses book 4 chapters 24 and 26, and book 7 chapter 23. Clement of Alexandria book 2 of the Paedagogue chapter 12 cites the Apocalypse. Origen homily 7 on Josue, and on the first Psalm, attributes the Apocalypse to John the Apostle, which Eusebius also does in the Chronicle, at the year of the Lord 96. Athanasius in the Synopsis, Epiphanius heresies 51 and 76, Chrysostom homily 3 on Psalm 91, and Damascene book 4 chapter 18 acknowledge the Apocalypse as sacred and John's. Wherefore the Greeks who, by Jerome's testimony, did not receive the Apocalypse must needs have been both few and obscure.
It is proved lastly from the common consent of the Latins: for Tertullian book 4 against Marcion affirms the Apocalypse to be John the Apostle's. Cyprian, On the exhortation to martyrdom chapters 3, 8, 10, 11, and 12, cites the Apocalypse everywhere as the rest of the divine Scriptures; which Hilary also does in his preface on the Psalms. Ambrose on Psalm 40 says the Apocalypse to be John the Evangelist's. Blessed Augustine tractate 36 on John says that the Apocalypse is of the same John whose is the Gospel, and in book 2 On Christian Doctrine chapter 8 he reckons it among the sacred and divine books; which Innocent I also does in epistle 3 to Exuperius, Rufinus in his Exposition of the Creed, and Isidore book 6 of the Etymologies chapter 1. Saint Jerome not only in the epistle to Paulinus On the study of the Scriptures teaches the Apocalypse to be John's, but affirms that this is the opinion of all the Latins, in the epistle to Dardanus On the land of promise. Finally Sulpicius, book 2 of the Sacred History, says that the Apocalypse is by some, either foolishly or impiously, not received.
But to the argument of Luther, who from thence proves that the Apocalypse is not of equal authority with the other sacred books, because in the first and last chapters of this book it is said, Blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book, whereas no one knows what this prophecy means — I answer: although there are very many most obscure prophecies in this book, yet there are also very many most clear precepts of life, as of constancy in persecutions, of holding heretics in hatred, of fleeing false prophets, etc.; and the argument and scope of the whole book is nothing else than to exhort us to perseverance and patience in the time of persecutions. Which thing indeed is most clear and most open.
But let us see what Erasmus also brings forward. He objects. First, certain authors who made no mention of this book, as Dorotheus and Anastasius, and certain who doubted whether it were John the Apostle's, as Dionysius and Eusebius. Secondly, that everywhere he presses his own name, saying: “I John, I John — just as if,” he says, “he were writing a bond and not a book, whereas elsewhere John, relating more modest things of himself, nowhere expresses his own name in the Gospel.” Lastly, that in the Greek codices the title is not ‘of John the Apostle,’ but ‘of John the Theologian.’
But these are most trifling. For against two who made no mention of this book, and two who somewhat doubted of the author, we have cited four Councils and very many Fathers, who constantly attribute this book to John the Apostle. Although Eusebius, whom Erasmus numbers among the doubters, openly declares in the Chronicle that he doubted nothing at all of the author or the authority of this book. In the second objection we rightly miss the modesty of Erasmus, who dares to accuse of arrogance the author of this book, whom the whole Church has always venerated as most sacred. Nor is it true that I John is so often repeated in this book, since at most it is found three times in the whole book. Nor indeed is it new in the Prophets to repeat their own name often; certainly Daniel says at least eight times, I Daniel. Finally it does nothing against our opinion that the author of the Apocalypse is called John the Theologian. For there is no other John who had the surname of Theologian, except the Apostle and Evangelist John — and deservedly: for, as Augustine notes tractate 36 on John, John is therefore compared to a flying eagle, but the other Evangelists to animals walking on the earth, because the rest wrote chiefly of the humanity of Christ, but he of the divinity. Wherefore Dionysius the Areopagite, in the epistle to John the Apostle, salutes him as Theologian and Apostle; and Athanasius in the Synopsis and other of the ancients call him the Theologian.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIX. De Apocalypsi. Apocalypsim Joannis, ex antiquis haereti¬ cis, Marcionistae respuebant, teste Tertul¬ liano libro quarto contra Marcionem, necnon Alogiani et Theodotiani, teste Epiphanio haeresiSl et 54. Ex novis, Lutherus in Pro¬ logo dicit, se aliquid in ea desiderare, cum Apocalypsis asserat fore beatos, qui servant ea quae in ipsa scripta sunt, cum tamen ne¬ mo intelligat quae illa sint. In praefatione vero antiquiore Testamenti novi ait, se Apo¬ calypsim neque pro Prophetico, neque pro Apostolico libro recipere, sed similem judi¬ care libro Esdrae. Brentius et Kemnitius lo¬ cis notatis Luthero subscribunt ; Magdebur- genses autem cent. I, lib. II,cap. 4. coi. 56. a Luthero deficiunt ad Calvinum, et cum eo acriter pugnant pro Apocalypsi adversus alios Lutheranos. Erasmus in.fine annotatio¬ num in Apocalypsim varias conjecturas an¬ xie quaerit, unde probet hunc librum non esse Joannis Apostoli. Nec defuerunt olim Catholici, qui de hujus libri auctoritate vel auctore dubitarent. Nam Caius quidam vetustus auctor hunc librum Cerinthi haeretici esse affirmat, teste Euse- bio lib. III. hist. cap. 28. Dionysius vero Ale¬ xandrinus apud Eusebium lib. VII, cap. 23. hanc opinionem Caii refellens, librum divi¬ num et canonicum esse asserit ; tamen sub¬ dubitans sitne Joannis Apostoli, an alterius Joannis. Denique B. Hieronymus in epistola ad Dardanum testatur, ita Graecos de Apo¬ calypsi dubitasse contra communem consen¬ sum Latinorum, quemadmodnm Latini de epistola ad Hebraeos contra communem Grae¬ corum sententiam dubitabant. Verumtamen Apocalypsim, tum Joannis Apostoli verum esse foetum, tum librum ad¬ mirabilem ac divinissimum esse, facile pro¬ bare possumus. Primum ex Conciliis : nam in Ancyrano Concilio ante 1200 annos, can. ult., citatur nomine Joannis; in Carthagi¬ niensi III. can. 47. et in Concilio Romano sub Gelasiol, inter sacros et canonicos libros annumeratur : item in Concilio Toletano IV, can. 16. multorum Conciliorum et Pontifi¬ cum sanctionibus confirmatur, Apocalypsim esse Joannis Apostoli et vere canonicam et divinam. Deinde ex Patribus Graecis et patinis id- ipsum comprobari potest. Nam Dionysius cap. 3. Eccles. hierarch. vocat Apocalypsim arcanam et mysticam visionem dilecti disci¬ puli. Justinus in Dialogo cum Triphone ul¬ tra medium, Apocalypsim dicit esse Joannis Apostoli, et eamdem commentariis illustra¬ vit, ut B. Hieronymus testatur libro De viris illustribus, in Joanne. Irenaeus lib. V. circa finem asserit, Apocalypsim esse Joannis Apostoli, et scriptam pene suo saeculo ad finem imperii Domitiani : in eamdem quo¬ que commentaria edidit, auctore Hieronymo de viris illustrib. in Joanne. Theophilus An¬ tiochenus, Melito Sardensis, et Dionysius Alexandrinus Episcopi Graeci antiquissimi et doctissimi, Apocalypsim ut divinitus scrip¬ tam receperunt, teste Eusebio lib. IY, cap. 24 et 26, et lib. VII, cap. 23. Clemens Ale¬ xandrinus lib. II, Paedagog. cap. 12. Apoca¬ lypsim citat. Origenes homil. 7. in Josue,et in Psalmum primum, Apocalypsim Joanni Apostolo tribuit, quod etiam facit Eusebius in Chronico anni Domini 96. Athanasius in Synopsi, Epiphanius haeresi 51 et 76. Ghry- sostomus homil. 3. in Psal. 91. et Damasce¬ nus libro IV, cap. 18. Apocalypsim ut sa¬ cram, et Joannis agnoscunt. Quocirca Grae¬ cos qui, Hieronymo teste, Apocalypsim non recipiebant, et paucos et obscuros fuisse ne- cesse est. Probatur ultimo ex communi Latinorum consensu : nam Tertullianus lib. IY. Contra Marcionem , Apocalypsim Joannis Apostoli esse affirmat. Cyprianus de exhortat. martyr. cap. 3. 8. 10. 11. et 12. Apocalypsim ut reliquas divinas Scripturas passim citat ; quod etiam facit Hilarius praefat. in Psalm. Ambrosius in Psal. 40. Apocalypsim Joan¬ nis Evangelistae esse dicit. B Augustinus tract. 36. in Joannem dicit, Apocalypsim ejusdem esse Joannis cujus est Evangelium, etlibr. II. Doctr . Christ. cap. 8. inter sa¬ cros et divinos libros eam refert, quod etiam facit Innocentius I. in epist. 3. ad Exupe- rium ; Ruffinus in Expo&it. Symb .; et Isi— doruslib. YI. Etymolog. cap. 1. Sanctus Hieronymus non solum in epistola ad Pau- linum de studio Scripturarum, Apocalypsim CAPUT XX. 115 Joannis esse docet, sed eamdem sententiam esse omnium Latinorum affirmat in epist. ad Dardanum de terra promiss. Denique Sulpicius lib. II. sac. hist., ait, Apocalyp- sim a nonnullis aut stulte, aut impie non re¬ cipi. Ad argumentum autem Lutheri, qui inde probat Apocalypsim non esse paris auctori¬ tatis cum caeteris libris sacris, quia capite primo et ultimo hujus libri dicitur : Beatus qui servat verba prophetice hujus (1), cnm ta¬ men nemo 'sciat quid sibi velit hsec prophe¬ tia. Respondeo : etsi permulta sint obscuris¬ sima vaticinia in hoc libro, tamen permulta etiam esse praecepta vitae clarissima, ut de constantia in persecutionibus, de haereticis odio habendis, de Pseudoprophetis fugien¬ dis etc . et argumentum et scopus totius libri non aliud est, quam ut nos hortetur ad per¬ severantiam et patientiam tempore perse¬ cutionum. Quae quidem res clarissima et apertissima est. Sed videamus, quid etiam adferat Eras- mus. Is objicit. Primo quosdam auctores qui hujus libri non meminerunt, ut Doro- theum et Anastasium et quosdam qui dubi¬ tarunt, an esset Joannis Apostoli, ut Diony¬ sium et Eusebium. Secundo, quod passim nomen suum inculcat dicens : « Ego Joan- nes, ego Joannes : perinde, inquit, quasi syn¬ graphum scriberet non librum, cum alioqui Joannes modestiora de se narrans nomen suum nusquam exprimat in Evangelio. » Postremo, quod in Graecis codicibus titulus non sit Joannis Apostoli, sed Joannis Theo¬ logi. Sed hsec levissima sunt. Nam pro duobus qui hujus libri non meminerunt, et duobus qui de auctore subdubitarunt, nos citavimus quatuor Concilia et plurimos Patres, qui constanter hunc librum Joanni Apostolo tri¬ buunt. Quamquam Eusebius, quem Erasmus inter dubitantes numerat, aperte in Chro¬ nico declaret se nihil omnino de hujus libri auctore, vel auctoritate dubitasse. In se¬ cunda objectione modestiam Erasmi merito desideramus, qui arrogantiae accusare au¬ deat auctorem hujus libri, quem tota Ecclesia ut sacrosanctum semper venerata est. Nec est verum illud Ego Joannes in hoc libro tam ssepe repeti, cum ad summum ter in toto li¬ bro inveniatur. Neque vero est novum in Prophetis, ut ssepe nomen suum repetant, certe Daniel ut minimum octies ait Ego Da- niel. Denique nihil officit nostrse sententise, quod auctor Apocalypsis Joannes Theologus appelletur. Nullus enim est alius Joannes, qui cognomen Theologi habuerit, praeter Apostolum et Evangelistam Joannem, et merito : nam, ut Augustinus notat tractae. 36. in Joannem, ideo Joannes volanti aqui¬ lae comparatur, alii vero Evangelistae ani¬ malibus in terra gradientibus, quod caeteri de humanitate Christi, ipse de divinitate praecipue scripserit. Quare Dionysius Areo¬ pagita in epist. ad Joann. Apostol. eum Theologum et Apostolum salutat ; et Atha- nasius in Synopsi aliique veteres Theolo¬ gum illum vocant.