Book One: On the Sacred and Apocryphal Books

Chapter Nineteen: On the Apocalypse

The Apocalypse of John was rejected among ancient heretics by the Marcionists, on the evidence of Tertullian in bk.4 Against Marcion, and also by the Alogians and the Theodotians, on the evidence of Epiphanius Heresy 51 and 54. Among the new heretics Luther in his prologue says that he misses something in it, since the Apocalypse asserts that those will be blessed who keep the things written in the book, although no one knows what those things are. But in his older preface to the New Testament he says that he does not accept the Apocalypse as either a Prophetic or as an Apostolic book, but judges it to be like Ezra bk.4. Brentius and Kemnita in the places cited agree with Luther; but the Magdeburgians cent.1 bk.2 ch.4 col.56 abandon Luther for Calvin and along with him fight fiercely for the Apocalypse against the other Lutherans. Erasmus at the end of his notes on the Apocalypse anxiously raises various conjectures from which he proves that this book is not from the Apostle John.

Nor were there once lacking Catholics who doubted about the authority and author of this book. For a certain old author, Gaius, asserts that this book is from the heretic Cherinthus, as witnessed by Eusebius ch.7 ch.23 when he rejects this opinion of Gaius and asserts that the Apocalypse is divine and canonical; yet he adds a doubt whether it is from John the Apostle or the other John. Finally Blessed Jerome in his epistle to Dardanus testifies that the Greeks doubted of the Apocalypse against the common consent of the Latins in just the way that the Latins doubted of the epistle to the Hebrews against the common opinion of the Greeks.

However we can easily prove that the Apocalypse is the true offspring of the Apostle John and is an admirable and divine book. First from the Councils: for in the Council of Ancyra, 1200 years ago, in the final canon, it is cited under the name of John; in the Third of Carthage canon 47 and in the Council of Rome under Gelasius I it is numbered among the sacred and canonical books; again in the Fourth Council of Toledo canon 16, and in the sanctions of many Councils and Pontiffs, it is confirmed that the Apocalypse is from John the Apostle and is truly canonical and divine.

Next from the Greek and Latin Fathers the same thing can be proved. For Dionysius Ecclesiastical Hierarchy ch.3 calls the Apocalypse a secret and mystical vision of the beloved disciple. Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho, beyond the middle, says the Apocalypse is from John the Apostle and he honored it with a commentary, as Divine Jerome witnesses in his book about Illustrious Men on John. Irenaeus bk.5 near the end asserts that the Apocalypse is from the Apostle John and was written near his own century at the end of the reign of Domitian; he also produced a commentary on it, as Jerome writes in his book on Illustrious Men on John.

Theophilus of Antioch, Melito of Sardis, and Dionysius of Alexandria, most ancient and learned Greek bishops, accepted the Apocalypse as divinely written, on the evidence of Eusebius bk.4 chs.24, 26, and bk.7 ch.23. Clement of Alexandria Pedagogy bk.2 ch.12 cites the Apocalypse. Origen in Homily 7 on Joshua and on the first Psalm attributes the Apocalypse to the Apostle John, as also Eusebius did in his Chronicle for the year 96. Athanasius in his Synopsis, Epiphanius Heresy 51 and 76, Chrysostom in Homily 3 on Psalm 91, and Damascence bk.4 ch.18 acknowledge the Apocalypse to be sacred and John”s. Wherefore the Greeks who, on the evidence of Jerome, did not accept the Apocalypse, must have been few and obscure.

The final proof is from the common consent of the Latins; for Tertullian bk.4 Against Marcion affirms that the Apocalypse is from John the Apostle. Cyprian in his Exhortation to Martyrdom chs.3, 8, 11, 12 everywhere cites the Apocalypse as he cites the rest of the divine Scriptures; which also Hilary did in his preface to the Psalms. Ambrose on Psalm 40 says that the Apocalypse is from John the Evangelist. Blessed Augustine in tract.36 on John says the Apocalypse is from the same John as wrote the Gospel, and in Christian Doctrine bk.2 ch.8 reports it among the sacred and divine books, which also Innocent I did in epistle 3 to Exuperius, and Ruffinus in his exposition of the Crred, and Isidore Etymologies bk.6 ch.1. St. Jerome not only teaches in his epistle to Paulinus, on the Study of the Scriptures, that the Apocalypse is from John, but also in his epistle to Dardanus, about the Land of Promise, affirms the same opinion of all the Latins. Lastly Sulpicius Sacred History bk.2 says that the Apocalypse is stupidly or impiously rejected by some.

Now to the argument of Luther, who proves that the Apocalypse is not of equal authority with the other sacred books from the fact that in the first and last chapters of this book it is said, “Blessed is he who keeps the prophetic words of this book,” although no one knows what this prophecy means. I reply that although there are many very obscure prophecies in this book, yet there are also very many most clear precepts for life, as about constancy in persecutions, and hating heretics, and about fleeing false prophets etc., and that the argument and aim of the whole book are not other than exhortations to us for perseverance and patience in time of persecutions. Which fact indeed is very clear and very open.

But let us see what also Erasmus asserts. He objects first that there are some authors who did not mention this book, as Dorotheus and Anastasius, and some who doubted whether it was of John the Apostle, as Dionysius and Eusebius. Second the fact that the author everywhere imposes his name by saying “I John, I John”, and he says “therefore he is writing as it were a legal agreement not a book, since in other respects, when John is narrating rather modest things about himself, he never in the Gospel states his name”. Lastly as to what is in the Greek codices, the title is not that of John the Apostle but of John the Theologian.

But these objections are very slight, since for the two authors who do not mention this book, and for the two who doubt of its author, we have cited four Councils and many Fathers who constantly attribute this book to John the Apostle.

And yet further Eusebius, whom Erasmus numbers among the doubters, openly declares in his Chronicle that he has no doubts at all about the author or the authority of this book. In the second objection we rightly miss the modesty of Erasmus, who dares to accuse the author of this book of audacity whom the whole Church has always venerated as sacrosanct. Nor is it true that ‘I John’ is so often repeated in this book, since it is found at most three times in the whole thing. But neither is it a new thing in Prophets for them often to repeat their own name; certainly Daniel says at least eight times ‘I Daniel’. Lastly, that the author of the Apocalypse is called John the Theologian does not at all stand in the way of our opinion. For there is no other John who had the cognomen Theologian besides the Apostle and Evangelist John, and rightly. For, as Augustine notes in tract.36 on John, it is for this reason that John is compared to a flying eagle, while the other Evangelists are compared to animals that walk on the ground; because these others wrote of the humanity of Christ, but he especially of the divinity. Wherefore Dionysius the Areopagite in his epistle to John the Apostle salutes him as Theologian and Apostle; and Athanasius in his Synopsis and other ancient authors call him Theologian.

Robert Bellarmine’s: Controversies of the Christian Faith – Volume 1: On the Word of God — HOME