I have made my way through the first general controversy (“On the Word of God”) in Robert Bellarmine, Controversies of the Christian Faith (trans. Kenneth Baker; Keep The Faith, 2016). Here are some excerpts that some should find interesting:
On “justification” in James 2 and Paul’s Epistles
But to this argument we respond with Augustine, in his preface to Psalm 32, that the Apostles did not fight among themselves. For, Paul is speaking about the first justification whereby a man becomes justified from having been unjustified, and under the notion of works he understands the works that take place without faith and grace by the powers alone of free choice; but James is speaking about the second justification, whereby someone from being just becomes more just, according to what is said in Rev. 22:11: Let the righteous still do right; and by the word “works” he understands those works that are done with faith and the assistance of God’s grace. For, just as a man cannot procreate himself, or raise himself from the dead, still after he is born he can nourish and develop himself by his own work; so a sinner cannot make himself righteous, but he can, since he is justified, increase his righteousness by his own works. (p. 91)
Such is similar to that of Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787) in his apologetic for the Council of Trent. Commenting on the errors of Luther and Calvin’s soteriology, Liguori wrote the following, showing the problems with the soteriology of the Reformers:
The Lutherans and Calvinists not only hold that faith alone justifies the soul; but also assert that the works of the just are not at all meritorious, that, on the contrary, they are real sins, because the sin of Adam renders sinful all the works of his descendants: however they say that such sins are not imputed to the just. But this doctrine is at variance with the words of our Lord: “Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven.” (Mat. v. 12.) A reward corresponds to good works and to true merit.
They object from the words of Isaias. “All our justices are as the rag of a menstruous woman.” (lxiv. 6.) I answer that there the Prophet spoke not of the works of the just, but of the iniquities of the Jews, in punishment of which they were all to fall into the hands of the king of Babylon. This is the exposition which St. Cyril gives of the preceding text. But that the works of the just are good is clear from the words of Jesus Christ: “Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” (Mat. V. 16.) Hence St. Peter has written: “Wherefore brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election.” (2 Peter i. 10.) I all works were sins the very exercise of faith itself by means of which alone the adversaries say, man is justified, would be sinful; it would also be a sin to ask pardon, or to say forgive us our trespasses; yet man would even be justified by sin itself when by means of that petition (which because it would be an act of fallen man, should be criminal,) he would obtain the pardon of his sins. What intolerable absurdities.
They rejoin and say, that merits on the part of man detract from the merits of Jesus Christ. I answer in one word that the merits of the just have efficacy not from themselves, but from the merits of Jesus Christ, from which proceeds whatsoever is good in them. (Alphonsus Liguori, An Exposition and Defence of All the Points of Faith Discussed and Defined by the Sacred Council of Trent Along with a Refutation of the Errors of the Pretended Reformers, And of the Objections of Fra Paolo Sarpi [Dublin: James Dufy, 1846],107-8)
On James and Paul regarding the “Law”
The sixth argument: [James] in chapters 1 and 2 says that the law of the Old Testament is the law of liberty; but the Apostle Paul calls it a law of slavery in Ga. 4; therefore both epistles cannot be apostolic. But it is certain that the letter to the Galatians is apostolic; therefore what is published under the name of James is not apostolic, but contrary to what is apostolic.
I respond that James is not speaking about the old law but about the new, since he calls it the law of freedom. But on this account James seemed to them to be speaking about the old law, because he mentions the precepts of the Decalogue, and they foolishly imagine that the new law does not contain any precepts, but only promises of grace and the preaching of faith. But there is no doubt that they are mistaken. Since the precepts of the Decalogue do not pertain any less to Christians than they do to Hebrews, as is known from Matt. 5 and from other texts; but there is this difference between the Old and the New Testaments, that the Old Testament imposed precepts but did not give the powers needed to fulfill them and therefore it was said to be and was a law of fear and slavery. On the other hand, the New Testament offers grace together with the laws whereby men are helped, and they can fulfill the precepts easily, freely, and willingly; for this reason Christians are not said to be under the law, and for the just there is said to be no law, not because they do not have to observe it, but because the law does not oppress or lie heavy on them, and because they most willingly and freely observe it. (p. 92; comment in square bracket added for clarification)
On missing books in the Bible
But the reason why the Hebrews used Tradition more than Scripture seems to have been, because up to the time of Ezra the Scriptures were not produced in the form of books so that they could be used easily and comfortably, but there were dispersed in various annals and papyri; sometimes, because of the negligence of the priests, for a long time they were not found, as is evident from 2 Kgs 22:8f., where it is related as something new that in the days of Josiah a volume of the Law of the Lord was found in the Temple. But after the captivity Ezra collected everything together and put it into one book, adding to Deuteronomy, the last chapter on the death of Moses and some other things from various sources in order to complete the history. On this matter see Theodoretus in the preface to the Psalms, Bedam in chapter 9 on the book of Ezra, and Peter Antonius Beuter in annotation 9 on Holy Scripture . . . But that the Scriptures do not contain everything in such a way that they themselves are sufficient without other Traditions, I will prove this first of all: because either the whole canon of Scriptures taken together is sufficient, or the individual books by themselves are sufficient . . . For, many truly sacred and canonical books have perished. Therefore, we do not have, nor did we have for 1500 years, sufficient doctrine, if everything is located in the Scriptures. For, Chrysostom teaches in homily 9 on Matthew that many books of the Old Testament have perished, when he comments on the words “he shall be called a Nazarene” (2:23): Many things perished from the prophetic memoirs, and it is possible to prove this from the history of the Chronicles. For you know that they were Jews, and you know that some were wicked; some prophecies perished out of negligence, but others they either burned or destroyed. He teaches the same thing in homily 7 on 1 Cor.; and it is not possible to respond that all those that were destroyed were restored by Ezra; for, Chrysostom wants to prove that now not all of the prophecies of the Prophets exist, and he proves it, because the Jews lost many of them.
Furthermore, Ezra did not restore the lost books, but he corrected and assembled the existing ones. 1 Chron. 29:29: Now the acts of King David, from first to last, are written in the Chronicles of Samuel the seer, and in the Chronicles of Nathan the prophet, and in the Chronicles of Gad the seer. And 2 Chron. 9:29: Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, from first to last, are they not written in the history of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer. And 1 Kings 4:32: He also uttered three thousand proverbs; and his songs were a thousand and five. Where are all of these? From the New Testament it is probable that the letter of Paul to the Laodiceans has perished. According to the opinion of some he mentions it Col. 4:16, and doubtless there was another one to the Corinthians, which seems to be mentioned in 1 Cor. 5:9 in these words, I wrote to you in my letter; and it could easily have happened that still others perished. Therefore let the heretics see how they can repair such an outstanding defect. (pp. 222-24)
