Arguments in favor of traditions: First, John 16:12: “I yet have many things to say to you.” John 21:25: “But there are also many other thin
Arguments in favor of traditions: First, John 16:12: “I yet have many things to say to you.” John 21:25: “But there are also many other things that Jesus did.”
§ 403. (I) In John 16:12, Christ says to His disciples, “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.” In John 21:25, the evangelist says, “But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”
It is evident, therefore, that the Lord did and said many things that have not been written, for one hand can hold all those books that are extant. But John says that the whole world cannot hold the books that would be written. Besides, those things that the Lord kept promising to say He undoubtedly did say after His resurrection. (See Acts 1:3.) Yet the evangelists wrote few details of the works and words of the Lord after His resurrection. It is by no means credible that the apostles who had seen and heard those things did not hand them down to the Church. After all, they were neither jealous nor forgetful to be unwilling or unable to speak them.
We respond. (1) We concede that the evangelists did not write everything that Christ said or did, but we deny that they omitted anything of those matters that are necessary for faith and behavior. Luke says that he “wrote all that Jesus began to do and teach” (Acts 1:1). Take this to mean those things that are necessary to know for salvation, as Chrysostom explains correctly in his commentary. Cyril, bk. 12 on John, last chapter: “Not all the things the Lord did were written but only those things the writers thought were sufficient for both behavior and dogmas.” Augustine, treatise 49 on John: “Those things were selected to be written that seemed sufficient for the salvation of those who believe.” These statements of Cyril and Augustine were undoubtedly taken from John 20:30-31: “Now Jesus did many other signs that are not written; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that you may have life in His name.”
Bellarmine objects that “even necessary matters have not been written, especially about the institution of the sacraments, which the Lord undoubtedly handed down in those forty days after His resurrection.” Yet he is speaking either about the two truly and properly called Sacraments of the New Testament or about the five sacraments that the Papists add to them. The institution of the former we find clearly in Scripture. Even if the institution of the latter does not exist, this still takes nothing from the perfection of Scripture. Rather, we conclude from this that those are not truly and properly called sacraments. After His resurrection, Christ spoke with His disciples about “the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3), about merit and the way of attaining salvation, about the kingdom of grace, about the benefits of this kingdom, about the manner of administering and spreading it, about the enemies who assail it, about the eternal preservation of it, etc. These, however, were not new articles of faith outside of Scripture but were a repetition of His previous teaching. (See our Harmon. de resurrect., p. 502.) What Christ discussed with His disciples is described in clear words in Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and Acts 1, so there is no need to run for help to doubtful and uncertain unwritten traditions.
(2) Although Christ’s words and deeds are not individually extant in the Scriptures one by one (
), nevertheless they are contained in them according to class (
). You see, those that have not been noted were of the same class with those that were written, and they were only a more copious declaration and confirmation of them. You see, all of Christ’s miracles had one and the same goal. Thus in Acts 20:35 there is cited a statement of the Lord omitted by the evangelists, but several exhortations of the same type are extant that the evangelists did note as they came from Christ’s mouth: Matt. 5:7: “Blessed are the merciful”; Luke 6:38: “Give, and it will be given to you”; Luke 16:9: “Make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous mammon.”
(3) Therefore there is no legitimate conclusion in these inferences of Bellarmine:
Not all of Christ’s miracles have been written down specifically; therefore the teaching necessary for faith and behavior has not been written sufficiently. Not everything that Christ did and said has been written; therefore not everything one must know for salvation has been written. At that time Christ did not tell His apostles everything; therefore He did not later reveal all the necessary things to them nor did they write down all necessary things. The evangelists omitted some of Christ’s words and deeds; therefore those are the traditions that the Papists are forcing on the Church.
Let them first prove that their traditions are truly divine and apostolic, that is, that they came from Christ and the apostles and were commended by them to the Church. Then we shall accept them with a willing spirit.
(4) If Scripture is imperfect because not all of Christ’s words and deeds are written one by one, it will not be perfect even when joined with traditions, because one cannot draw out each of those words and deeds from traditions.
(5) Those things that the evangelists did not write were completely in harmony with those things that they did write—far be it from us to claim that the Holy Spirit, who spoke through Christ and the apostles, is contrary to Himself! Papist traditions, on the other hand, conflict with God’s Word. Thus Petrus a Soto (Contra Brent.) places among the traditions the invocation of the saints, the merits of works, etc. Peresius (De tradit., part 3) includes the celibacy of priests. Yet we can demonstrate from Scripture that the saints are not to be invoked, that there are no merits of works, and that Christ and the apostles left marriage as free for ecclesiastical persons. Therefore these cannot be the traditions that the evangelists omitted. Just as Irenaeus proves false the gospel fabricated by the Valentinians, which they called the “Gospel of Truth,” from the fact that it was unlike the remaining four Gospels (bk. 3, c. 11, p. 188), so in the same way we can prove false the fabricated traditions that they attribute to the apostles because they are not in harmony with the teaching set forth in the writings of the apostles.
(6) Those things that Christ could not teach at that time because of the weakness and sadness of the disciples were great mysteries that cannot be understood without the Holy Spirit. The traditions of the Papists, however, are constituted in such a way that they can be understood easily.
(7) Christ’s statement in John 16:12 draws light from His others. In John 15:15 He says to His disciples, “No longer do I call you servants, but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.” In establishing the apostles, therefore, Christ omitted not a thing of that which was necessary. The apostles, in turn, set forth in their writings all the necessary things. 1 John 1:3-4: “That which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you. And we are writing this to you that your joy may be complete.” But could the devout really seek their perfect joy and comfort from those writings if something essential had been omitted? Why, then, does Christ say, “I have yet many things to tell you, but you cannot bear them now”? We respond. The words of the Gospel bring along with themselves their own explanations; whenever you find an objection in Scripture in favor of the heretics, you will find a remedy at its side. Christ immediately adds in v. 13: “When the Spirit of truth comes, He will lead you into all truth.” But will the Holy Spirit really teach other things than those that Christ had already taught before? Not at all! But He adds, vv. 13-14: “He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak. He will take what is Mine and declare it to you.” John 14:26: “He will teach you all things and will bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” The Latin version has quaecunque dixero vobis [“whatever I shall have said to you”] but Erasmus corrects it. From all this it appears quite clear that in John 16:12 Christ is speaking not about some dogmas of which the apostles were still ignorant but about those that He had quite often preached in their presence. However, because of the weakness under which the apostles were still laboring and because of their preconceived opinions, they had not understood them. Thus in John 2:22 Christ is making a prophecy about the temple of His body, that He would raise it again after three days. At that time the disciples did not understand those words, but after the resurrection they did. Thus before its fulfillment they did not understand what Christ had said in this pre-Passion address about His suffering and resurrection.
** Even if up to this time Christ had not taught the apostles all things, He still could have taught them later after His resurrection. This is proved by statements from Luke 24[:47] (“Beginning,” etc.) and Acts 1[:3] (“about the kingdom of God”). **
(8) Cornelius Jansenius, considering all these matters carefully, comments on these words (Concord. evang., c. 135, p. 964):
These “many things” about which the Lord says, “I have yet many things to say to you,” are correctly understood to mean those things that they learned openly and clearly about the mysteries of the Christian faith through the coming of the Holy Spirit. For at that time the apostles were incapable of an open and clear explanation of them. These “many things,” therefore, were not different from those that the Lord had taught them in person until then. Rather, they were a fuller and clearer explanation of the same things, just as when Paul says, “I could not address you as spiritual but as carnal; as children I fed you with milk, not solid food” (1 Cor. 3[:1-2]). And: “But we speak wisdom among the perfect” (1 Cor. 2[:6]). He does not wish to signify that he is teaching some things to the perfect that he does not teach the imperfect (because he preached the same faith to both), but that he was opening more perfectly the mysteries of his preaching and faith for the more perfect and was adapting his teaching to the capability of his hearers.
These are all words of Jansenius, a Papist writer. Even by themselves they are sufficient statements with regard to Bellarmine’s argument.
(9) Jansenius correctly teaches from Augustine, treatise 96 on John: “All the heretics, even the most foolish, who want to be called Christians have tried to disguise the boldness of their inventions with this pretext of the statement of the Gospel where the Lord says, ‘I have yet many things to say to you.’ “To this Jansenius responds vigorously: “Because Christ Himself kept silent about these matters, who of us will say they are these or those things? Or if he dares to say it, how will he prove it? For who is so vain or rash that, after he has said words by which he wanted [to prove it] and which he wanted [to affirm], he will affirm without any divine testimony that these are the ones the Lord then wanted to say?”