Book One: On the Sacred and Apocryphal Books
Chapter Sixteen: On Certain Parts of the Books of Mark, Luke, and John.
That the last chapter of Mark was, at the time of Blessed Jerome, not received by all as canonical is plain from epistle to Hedibias q.3. The reason for doubt was because of certain apocryphal words which were inserted in that final chapter, as is plain from Jerome bk.2 Against the Pelagians, before the middle. For these words were inserted, which are sufficiently clearly redolent of Manicheanism: “And they made satisfaction, saying that this world of iniquity and unbelief is a substance which does not permit the true virtue of God to be perceived by impure spirits; therefore now already reveal your justice”. We are not now permitted to doubt, for the Council of Trent sess.4 bids the entire books to be received with all their parts as they are accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church; now this chapter was completed in the most famous days of the Resurrection and Ascension, and the same is the exposition of Bede and Blessed Gregory in Homilies 21 and 29 on the Gospels.
Athanasius too in his Synopsis, in his summary of the Gospel according to Mark, recognizes this chapter as truly from Mark, and likewise Augustine bk.3 on the Harmony of the Gospels ch.24. Lastly it is incredible that the Gospel of Mark is so mutilated and truncated that it contains nothing of the resurrection. Add that even Calvin Institutes ch.17 sect.47 admits this last chapter of Mark to be part of the Gospel, so that there is no need to labor longer in proving it.
As to Luke ch.22, some bring into doubt the story about the bloody sweat of Christ, and the angelic apparition and consolation, as Hilary witnesses bk.10 On the Trinity, and Jerome bk.2 Against the Pelagians. The reason that moved these people to this was that they might not seem to attribute infirmity and grief of soul to Christ. For which reason too certain Catholics, with preposterous zeal, erased from the words of Luke ch.19 “seeing the city he wept over it” the words “he wept”, as Epiphanius testifies in his Anchorite. But they certainly feared where there was no fear. For if Christ as man could shake with fear at his imminent passion and be weary, as even Matthew ch.26 and Mark ch.16 testify, why could he not for the same reason sweat and receive angelic consolation? And if he had a body capable of suffering and a feeling soul, why could he not grieve and weep? Therefore Athanasius bk.6 to Theophilus, which is about the blessedness of the son of God, declares anathema on those who deny Christ sweated blood. Epiphanius too in his Anchorite and Augstine bk.3 on the Harmony of the Gospels ch.4 acknowledge this chapter of Luke as Evangelical; nor do Jerome and Hilary teach the opposite in the cited places, but only advise that it was not in all the codices at their time, and therefore it was not held with such certain faith.
That the beginning of ch.8 of John, in which is contained the story of the adulteress, was once not of certain faith is taught by Erasmus in his note on this place, from Eusebius Histories bk.3 ch.39 where he speaks thus about Papias: “He adjoins a certain story about an adulterous woman, who was accused to the Lord by the Jews, but this parable is contained in the Gospel which is called according to the Hebrews”. By which words he plainly indicates that he did not see the story in the Gospel of John, and that it seemed to him not so much a history as a parable. But nevertheless there should be no doubt but that the story took place and is Evangelical, since it is read in the Church on the Saturday after the third Sunday of Lent, and it is acknowledged by the gravest of the Greek and Latin Fathers, by Ammonius of Alexandria in his Gospel Treasure, by Athanasius in his Synopsis in his summary of the Gospel of John, by Chrysostom Homily 60 on John, Ambrose in epist.58 bk.7 to Studius, by Jerome bk.2 Against the Pelagians, and by Augustine tract.33 on John. Also the same Augustine bk.2 about Adulterous Marriages ch.7 says that the story was erased from some codices by enemies of the true faith.
Nor does it injure our cause but rather benefits it that Eusebius writes that Papias the disciple of John made mention of this story; for this is a sign that the thing is true. But that Eusebius did not have it in his codex of the Gospel matters little, for perhaps it was erased by someone. Add that it is probable that Eusebius is not speaking of the story of the adulteress but about another truly apocryphal story; for in the Greek text of Eusebius is not contained the name of “adulteress” but the words “about a woman accused of many sins”.
As to the words that are contained in the last chapter of the first epistle of John, “there are three that give witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one”, doubt has sometimes existed, and that there ought also to be doubt now is maintained by Erasmus in a long discussion in his note on the place. But certainly these words are publicly read in the Church on the Sunday in Albs. The same place is acknowledged by Cyprian his book about the Simplicity of Prelates, by Athanasius in bk.1 to Theophilus, which is about the united Deity, by Pope John II in his epistle to Valerius, by Jerome in his prologue to the canonical epistles, by Eugenius of Carthage in Victor bk.2 about the Wandalic persecution. Wherefore there is no doubt that those words are a true part of divine Scripture.
Robert Bellarmine’s: Controversies of the Christian Faith – Volume 1: On the Word of God — HOME